Talk:George W. Bush military service controversy/Archive 1

Title of article

I think this could really use a better title. I don't think anyone popularly knows this as the "Texas Air National Guard controversy." The controversy is about Bush, not the Texas Guard. How this section?about something like: "George W. Bush military service controversy"? Cecropia 01:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to a better title. This one was the result of a small amount of brainstorming on my part, which produced a list of titles none of which were that great. However, I don't know if your proposed title has any better recognition than this one. -- VV 03:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just think Bush's name should be in the title, since the issue is specifically about him. In fact, it occurs to me that the time in dispute was actually in Alabama. How about "President Bush National Guard controversy"? Cecropia 05:14, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree Bush's name should be there (although, e.g., Watergate is clearly about Nixon). Not to sound overly negative, however, but I'm not happy with any proposal yet (including, notably, my own). For instance, there are two "President Bush"'s, and in both cases I wouldn't bother mentioning "President" in the title (cf. Lincoln's second inaugural address). While the main events may be in Alabama, it was the Texas Guard, no? I think you're on to something with "military service controversy", though, as we can then throw in people who say daddy kept him out of 'Nam. -- VV 06:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"While the main events may be in Alabama, it was the Texas Guard, no?" As a technical matter, no. National Guard (unlike Army Reserve) is state-specific. He was being allowed temporary duty in the Alabama Guard (not uncommon) but it was the Alabama Guard, not the Texas Guard, that he was supposed to have failed to show up for. But I'm looking at the fact that, after the election, no matter who wins, I don't think one person in a hundred (especially outside the US) will have a clue what the "Texas Air National Guard controversy" is about.

BTW, I don't know how potent the "daddy kept him out of 'Nam" issue can be. Most political daddies kept their kids out of the war, and the easy way they let celebrities out was a scandal in its own time--like Joe Namath because he had a bad knee. Gore served essentially as a favor to his daddy to counter charges of softness on defense in the latter man's reelection campaign. Sorry to ramble on, but a number of people have observed that the Vietnam War might not have been so easily escalated if there wasn't such a large pool of men available to draft, so that just about anyone with pull (and a lot without) were able to avoid service. Cecropia 06:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on that issue, I only bring it up because it is mentioned in the article (first sentence of criticisms section, in fact). Perhaps you could expand on it, in particular defending against it. I was just noting that that particular criticism, valid or not, might also be a good fit to include here rather than elsewhere, and the title could reflect this inclusiveness. Anyway, I'm still stuck for good ideas. And I agree with your concerns. Maybe "George W. Bush's military service controversy" is best after all. Hm.... -- VV 06:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the Vietnam issue is included, I agree it would better be here than in the main article. Cecropia 06:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Figure/timeline, please

As it stands, I find the text really hard to follow, just because there are so many dates and unit numbers involved that it makes your head spin. It would be great to have a timeline as a table, where the rows indicate the dates of various events and alleged events in 1968–1974, the columns indicate the different units/locations at which he supposedly served, and the entries summarize the text in a few words. To help cross-reference the timeline to the text, you could e.g. number the paragraphs. —Steven G. Johnson 23:22, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

new info

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040909_831.html

debunk or support. --kizzle 17:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's rehashing of old stuff. Suspension from flying is a normal procedure, see my mention about flight physicals in the talk. If he was no longer available for flying duty (aka no longer in Texas) he doesn't need to report for a flight physical until he is ready to return to his duties.

PPGMD

It's rather more than just that. According to the new information Bush didn't just skip his physical, he "failed to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard" and refused a direct order. Bryan 00:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This new info is possibly based on forged documents - story is now unfolding. Let's not be like CBS and rush to conclusions... TimShell 05:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite. However, even if the memos turn out to be false, my point remains that this is not just a rehashing of old stuff - it's a hashing of new stuff. Bryan 05:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I should note that proportional fonts were not a particularly rare innovation on typewriters by then. I found a neat old advertisement for an IBM electric typewriter from 1954 that brags about having it: [1] [2]. Bryan 05:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In 1964 I had one of those IBM proportional spacing typwriters for business purposes. In 1968-69 I typed plenty of Army orers. Trust me, we didn't have $1,000 (1968 dollars) IBM electric typewriters to type them on. Plus (ask the man who owned one) the serif typeface was a variant of Century Schoolbook, not Times Roman. And the superscript "th". No way, Jose. Note also that wherever there is a "th" which isn't superscript there is a space between the number and the "th." That was contrary to military style, but it is consistent with trying to srop Microsoft Word from superscripting the "th." Another thing I noticed that noone else has mentioned is that the alledged order for Bush to report for physical said "not later than (NLT)." Why do you think that the military used abbrievations in orders like NLT, UOINDIC, ASAP? To avoid spelling out the phrase. Duh! These memos stink, and they talk about the Republican smear machine. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a very interesting ad, thanks Bryan. It's been reported today that military memorandum's from that time in general all seem to be on the traditional monospace typewriters. Also, doing superscripts with a smaller font was not very available in the 1970s and any typewriter that had such a feature required extra effort for the effect, whereas Microsoft Word does it automatically. We'll see how this news pans out. Jewbacca 05:59, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The heat may really be on CBS to reveal their sources. Yeah, yeah, I know about journalist privilege to protect sources, but if these are forgeries than CBS may be complicit in election fraud if they stonewall. Fasten your seatbelts, folks. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

This, apart from being excessively detailed, appears incorrect with regards to the current controversy:

Although most typewriters at the time featured what is known as monospace or fixed-width type (similar to the Courier font available on word processors), these features did exist on typewriters available for standard office use in the 1970s: IBM has offered typewriters with proportional spacing since at least 1941 and superscripts and kerning were also available features; one model, the IBM Executive, would not be prohibitively expensive for standard office use and records show that it and the more expensive IBM Selectric Composer (an expensive, professional-quality typesetter) were being "tested" by the military in the 1960s. It is unknown how likely it is whether such a typewriter might have been in Killian's office.

The superscript available on typewriters of the era could not make the characters smaller, just higher, because they were "on a fixed-sized metal wheel": link The superscript characters on the memos were smaller.

Also, the fonts on a Selectric don't match the fonts on the memos: link TimShell 23:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More info on these memos from another blogger [3]. Apologies if this has already been posted/discussed elsewhere. AlistairMcMillan 01:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People who are speculating at the "could-be facts": "If the type don't fit, you must acquit" :) never seem to have worked on any of the typewriters in question, and more obviously never worked in a military office. The type on the document, if it came from a typewriter, would have to have been made on an IBM Executive (typebar machine) or an IBM Selectric Composer. The former machine had what was called a "changeable typebar" which you could remove and replace in order to get special characters. IF the military provided a reserve unit (no less) with a $1,000 typewriter to type up orders a gossip and IF they ordered the changeable typebar option, and IF the typist knew that a "th" subscript was in the changeable position, he MIGHT have typed it (but why just once on the document). Notice that the superscript "th" is the only one where there is not a space between the number and the superscript. Gee, that couldn't be because that's how you prevent MS Word from superscripting, is it? ;-)

Now let's take the Selectric Composer. That is not the same as the Selectric Typewriter, which is a monospace machine. The SC was made for typesetting, not typing. WTF would one of these expensive machines be doing in a reserve office to type memos and orders. The SC impressed its typeball image on a special carbon film ribbon in order to produce cheap (relative to linotype) typesetting. This was not suitable for carbons, which were a military staple.

But all this could be cleared up if CBS were to release the original documents. In fact, CBS says "[...]the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with. "

Exactly.

When, to show that it is a responsible news organization and not an accessory to fraud, CBS gives the memos to an impartial lab, we'll find out a few things beyond the typeface: (1) is the paper of a type used by the military in 1972?; (2) is the paper a type used by anyone in 1972?; (3) is the paper quality consistent with paper that in more than 30 years old?; (4) is the imaging material (ink, IOW) of a type used on a typewriter of the era or is it maybe copier toner?; (5) if it's ink, is the ink aged by more than 30 years? Come on, CBS, you can clear this up instead of stonewalling. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Break

It is my experience in stories like these, i.e. forged documents, that we should not comment on them till the dust settles a little. I am sure the documents are forged, and that CBS/60 minutes will be forced to retract and apologize but untill further developments materialize, perhaps we should give this article a rest for a few days. TDC 20:41, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Barring new info emerging, I agree. Based on my own experience in the military in the same time frame, experience with typewriters and typesetting machines then and since, I can't really conceive of it not being a hoax. I'm saying that honestly and not argumentatively, since the investigation will pass to people with a lot more access to investigative info than we have. Then the question will become: Who created the documents; who brought them to the attention of CBS and how; and that old favorite, who (if anyone) in or connected to the Kerry campaign knew what when. It won't suffice for CBS to just stonewall; they will at least have to answer who gave them the documents, how they were obtained from a man's supposed personal affects without his family knowing, and who the "experts" were that CBS said vetted the documents and said they were genuine, and why they thought so. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should also note that the widow of his CO said he was not the type of man to type a memo (she said he didn't even know how to type), he often made his notes on the back of whatever was available like business cards. This follows the typical pilot CO's that I have meet from the USAF over the years, almost always most administrative stuff, like the composition of a written order. Also the widow said that the CO actually liked GWB. Finally the widow says that she is supposedly is possession of all his records, and no one else should have access to them.

PPGMD

Also note that a controversial issue in-unit was not handled by written (no less typed) menus. You got on the horn; you huddled in the CO's office. Military people are not quite as naive and stupid as the non-serving majority (including virtually all the people accusing Bush, like Terry McAuliffe) look to believe. And for a soldier, no less a field grade officer, to type a memo with a leading subject like "CYA" and then file it for posterity is so incredible it's not even funny. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Selectric + Times New Roman

Can anyone confirm if the Times New Roman font was ever licensed to IBM? It wouldn't matter of an IBM typewriter made proportional fonts, of those fonts were different from the ones in the memo. I read, Times New Roman was used by the Times of London only until it was licensed to Microsoft, but can't confirm that anywhere. TimShell 18:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, apparently they had something called Press Roman, which was different: [4] TimShell 18:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This link (already in the article) is informative, thou perhaps not conclusive:[5] - the end of this article also raises questions about the current wording of the signature section in the wiki article. Kevin Baas | talk 18:45, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I recall reading something in the newspaper this morning about Times New Roman being licensed to IBM around 1930's, i think it was in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Kevin Baas | talk 18:50, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

IBM hired Stanley Morison (the designer of Times New Roman) to design a version of Times New Roman for the Selectric in the 1960s according to this site. [6] AlistairMcMillan 18:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Times Roman was not licensed to IBM. The font IBM used for the Selectric Composer was called Press Roman, which was a variant. It was common to make alterations to a common licensed font and give it a different name. For example: Helvetica (Mergenthaler Linotye) = Helios (Compugraphic) = Arial (Microsoft). In the US there is no copyright on fonts, just font names, and in recent years closer approximations of licensed fonts have been made.

However, this is a lot of energy being expended treating this as though it were a murder trial ("beyond a reasonable doubt...). This is more like fraud. The handsprings people are going to try to pretend that the font issue is Kosher reminds me of the people trying to prove that the 18-1/2 minutes of Nixon's tape were really erased accidentally. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:18, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me clear this up once and for all, I was stationed at Ellington Field (where Bush was stationed) in the early 1990's. I have a stack of base generated paperwork that is almost 2 feet tall. All of it has a font with equidistant spacing just as you would see on a normal old style typewriter. The CBS Bush Memo's use a computer style font spacing that is dependent on the letter typed which is not consistant with any documents that Ellington Field created. Bachs 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're arrived a bit late for this party. Perhaps if you date/time stamped your comments (four tildes, then let wikipedia automagically do its things), you'd pay more attention to the dates of the comments of others (in this case, the most recent is almost two years ago). To be specific: the discussion moved elsewhere - to Killian documents - quite a while ago. I suspect you'll find that your point has already been well covered there. John Broughton 06:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Matley

Mr. Matley, the documents expert, said in an interview after the program, that he had examined documents and handwriting since 1985 and had testified in 65 trials. Mr. Matley said the documents the network sent him were so deteriorated from copying that it was impossible to identify the typeface.

"It's sheer speculation to say that you couldn't have done that until a computer came along, he said.

As a result, he said, he focused on the signatures. CBS sent him the four newfound documents, as well as others that have been verified as signed by Colonel Killian. "There were significant similarities and the differences were insignificant," he said in the configuration of letters and the angle of the writing. -from source cited above. Kevin Baas | talk 19:01, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I'm sure Marcel Matley is a perfectly respectable professional and it is unfortunate that he be dragged into this scandal, but:

a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy - Marcel Matley, in The Practical Litigator, September 27, 2002. [7]

This is exactly what he and CBS claims he has done with the 1972 memo. If those defending the authenticity of the memo continue resting their claims on Matley's findings, this factoid should be added to the article. Otherwise, it is just another piece of minutia. TimShell 20:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it was copied many times. CBS now acknowledges they don't have the original. Have you ever heard of mortising a signature? Nobody seems to be commenting on the fact that Kerry's people may well survive this scrutiny, but will CBS? Who will take their investigative reporting seriously? -- Cecropia | Talk 21:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS: The BS stands for BS. I stopped taking them seriously years ago. TimShell 22:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chew on this ......... Matley claims to have authenticated the document not based on typeset, but on the signature. Unfortunately for Matley, this contradicts an earlier position on signature verification.

In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible. [8]

And the plot thickens again......... TDC 22:11, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Whoopsey Doodle, I gues I did not see the previous post on this subject. TDC 22:12, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

The son speaks about the "memos"

FOX News conducted two interviews by telephone on Sept. 10, 2004, with Gary Killian, son of the late Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How would the son have any knowledge on the matter? This is appeal to authority that does not satisfy the criteria for legitimacy. It's significance should not be overstated. Kevin Baas | talk 19:33, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

The son claims familiarity with his father's habits and methods [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reserve commitments

To talk about something besides the memos for a moment. If we are talking about failing to fulfill a commitment, Bush apparently did, according to the standards of the time. Specific points of reference like serving x numbers of times in a particular time frame and showing up until the last day of your reserve enlistment were waived early and often. The militay was especially sensitive to giving people a bye for working in politics--the U.S. military has a very strong culture of deferring to political authority. Ask anyone working in an administrative capacity when a "Congressional" came down. Kerry availed himself of this when he got an early out to work in a Massachuseets campaign.

Speaking personally, I had to sign a commitment saying I understand that I was responsibile for a six year service commitment, despite the fact I was drafted. I was separated from active duty in 1969, but I spent two years in the ready reserve and two years in the standby reserve and never went to a single meeting until I received my honorable discharge in 1973. I did get a nice glossy magazine every month and maintained my membership in the Military Police Association, though. People are pontificating about what they don't know about. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic

The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's already in the main article (unless someone deleted it) TimShell

Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation

Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

some of which were in use by the Air Force.[9]

The article claims the Air Force tested these, not that they were in use. Bush and Killian were not in the Air Force, anyway. (Hmm, I guess the Air National Guard is part of the Air Force, so never mind that part TimShell 03:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I'm not sure you need the hmm... The National Guard is not part of the related service, exactly. National Guard is state. You can make a better case that the Air Force Reserve is part of the Air Force, but that's not exactly equivalent either. They have separate command structures unless they are activated for regular service. But the overriding point is that Guard and Reserve never got the latest and greatest for obvious reasons. When I trained in the Army in 1967 we didn't even qualify on M-16s unless and until we were on orders for 'Nam. We trained on, qualified on, and used M-14s, and that was Regular Army, not Reserve. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The attempts to defend the authenticity of these memos are getting really stretched. The idea that a man who didn't type, would use a machine costing the equivalent of at least $16,000 in today's money to type up a personal memo, is absurd. Even if such a machine would produce Times New Roman fonts, which it wouldn't. TimShell 02:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

====For starters, this article is completely wrong and ignores other documents. Both of the two confirmation documents, Hodges of Sep 5 1972 [10] and the ARPC confirmation document refer to afm 35-13 PARA 2-29m [11] as the governing regulation of Bush's suspension--he failed to take his physical and mandatory procedures embodied in that regulation required he be suspended and a Flight Reviw Board be enpameled. The CBS/Killian orders and the two confirmation documents prove that the comand were all on the same page--suspend and convene a flight board. They would hardly have done this if Bush was suspended for a known legitimate reason.

Bush would have been ordered to take his physical if his commander knew or suspected that he was not going to take it--this would be a lead in for further charges before the Board and Killian wrote down Bush's response to this order for the court also.

Killian obviously knew Bush was not going to take the physical because Bush HAD to tell him abo0ut it at some time--this is his response: to start the suspension/court proceedings. The person to ask why this Board was never convened is then-Col Bobby Hodges--it was his responsiblity to convene it and there is no evidence he ever did. This is sheer dereliction of duty on his part. No explanation for this has ever been given.

from the article cited: "...One would hope that Lt. Colonels in the National Guard would have had better things to do with their time than to give written orders to pilots about such mundane minutia...." No one wouldn't, its what military officers get paid for--to command. "Mundane minutiae" is hardly the term when failure to take the physical deprived the public of services of someone they had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train. The Proof is that Bush never took the required physical---Killian was right to order him to do so. It was Bush's duty to take it and Killian's duty to see he did it---or faced the consequences.

(ibid) "...For you will notice in another of these purported memos, dated 01 August 1972, how its author is careful to state that everything was done verbally——and even though his recommendations "were received" there was no confirmation...." Oh yes there was. Hodges confirmation order of Sep5 1972 [12] and the ARPC confirmation document [13] confirm a document that was written on 1Aug 72 "...Verbal orders from the commander suspending George W Bush on 1 Aug 1972... are confirmed..." This document mentions verbal orders being given as the ARPC confirmation staes and Hodges confirmation does not. The ARPC confirmation confirms a document dated 1 Aug 72 that mentions verbal orders being given. And the only one in site that fits that description is right here: [14]

Acccording to the two confirmation documents, george Bush's commander gave him a suspension order verbally. It was delivered verbally but only a fool like the author of this article or someone with no military experience at all would think there wasn't a paper copy of that order. the two confirmation documents prove there was a paper copy--its what theyre confirming. Where is that order, that Killian did read to Bush on 1st Aug 1972 according to the two confirmation documents? Its not in Bush's files, though regulations require it to be.

Further things that are way wrong: ANG service is federal service--NOT state service. george Bush was a federal serviceman--states don't have their own armies or Air Forces. The state has a connection but the funding and training are provided by the federal government, the ANG is part of the federal chain of command and is paid by the federal government. The ANG runs on the AFM and the UCMJ and crimes against them are federal crimes. ANG servicemen are federal employees while on duty. If something happens to them the FBI investigates i, not to mention the military investigative services.

Which makes the complete lack of involvement by the federal government to be very suspicious as regards the CBS memos because if false, they LIBEL Bush and his former chain of command. Regardless of who wrote the CBS memos, they represent federal documents, with letterhead of a federal junit, purporting to be federal business and with the signature of a federal comander in apparent performance of his duties.

As such, they represent FEDERAL documents, not "private" ones and the federal government is responsible for them. It is the duty of the federal government to maintain the integrity of its documents or those who puurport to be their documents. The federal government, with all its investigative agencies, cravenly ran away and abdicated thier duty to tresolbve this to CBS and "bloggers." CBS "investigated" documents with letterhead of a TXANG unit, concerning TXANG servicemen and signed by a TXANG commander--and the TXANG never did!!

America, youve been HAD! exlrrp

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.43 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

It's possible

In regards to the possibility that a particularly expensive and rare model typewriter just so happened to be the one used for the memo and just so happened to produce such a curiously matched to MS Word memo, well here's what has to have happened for that to be true:

1. A man who never typed memos of this type (says his wife)
2. would have had to have had "CYA" fear (that his son says he was not the type to have)
3. which would have drove him to produce memos
4. which ALGORE's opposition research team never found
5. and Ann Richards oppo team never found
6. and the Democratic National committee never found
7. which were not in the papers his wife still has
8. and not in his Guard files
9. but somehow were perfectly preserved
10. and somehow fell into the hands of those who want to publicize them
11. after not falling into friendly hands in 32 years
12. but even so, are indeed bona fide
13. and came to CBS, via a route they won't announce
14. after having sat around all these years
15. since supposedly being typed - in complete opposition to the known personality traits of the supposed author
16. on a very rare and expensive typewriter
17. which the national guard had none of
18. using a particular typeface element
19. and in doing so, exactly matched MS Word of today
20. but with no proof that this supposed typewriter configuration actually could produce such a result (only speculation)

I've heard of "totem pole hearsay", but this - this is "totem pole speculation" 17 times removed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but if Dan Rather reports it, it must be true... </sarcasm> TimShell 05:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unsourced image removed. See WP:CSD I4. Bovlb 17:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Mabey we could incorporate this comparision of one of the documents in questions to an MS Word generated version. Click on it to see it enlarged. TDC 08:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

We need attribution and license release by image creator [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem, gimme a day or two. TDC 17:28, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Permission has been recieved from Charles Johnson of little green footballs. TDC 19:12, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

The license notice must be on the graphic itself? Or, perhaps you can post the text of the OK onto the "article page" off the graphic? Here is the URL for that:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GWBAWOL.gif [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Graphical timeline - can we get it into SVG?

Ignoring the forged memo issue for a second, I managed to convince Simon Woodside to release his great graphical timeline of Bush's military service (only based on the official documents) under a Creative Commons license. Now, the version currently used in the article is a big GIF file - it looks nice, but is not editable. It would be nice to have an SVG copy as well, so we could all make changes to the timeline using free software. Unfortunately the program Simon used to create the timeline does not support SVG export, but he has created an EPS copy [15]. Does anyone here have the tools necessary to convert EPS or PDF [16] to SVG?--Eloquence*

(misunderstanding about licensing moved to Rex' talk page)

At this juncture, I lack the expertise to comment on licenses. Therefore, I will confine my inquiry to the image itself. I take extreme objection to the undue emphasis being placed on the phrase "we not seen Bush for past 12 months". Other than that, my very brief initial inspection indicates that the image may not be too objectionable, provided that phrase is striken in it's entirity. I can almost assure you that there will be a mini-riot of emotion by several editors here if that clearly POV phrase is not expunged. See if Simon will resend with that removed. Also, if the licnese allows, I'll be happy to edit it out. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Rex has edited the image, removed the text "we not seen Bush for past 12 months", and replaced the image in the article with Image:Reserves2.gif. The original one is at Image:Reserves.gif. In spite of the bad taste in my mouth, I'll leave it to others to argue about whether this change was beneficial.--Eloquence*)

This edit was only undertaken after licensing issues were explanied to me by E. Also, the current version is 2a, and it indicates the 336 flight hours GWB logged. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am the original author of the graphic. I have corrected the typo to "We have not seen Bush for the past 12 months" in my original [[17]]. I assure you that this is a correct paraphrase of the primary evidence. If you have doubts you must examine the original, primary documents, released by the government directly under FOIA. They are at coldfeet [[18]]. Specifically page 1 [[19]] and page 2 [[20]]. It is the "Officer Effectiveness Report". Page 2 states the report date, 1973/05/02. Page 1 states the period of the report, 1972/05/01 to 1973/04/30, therefore 12 months prior to the report date (give or take a couple of days). On page 2, the authors of the report, who were Lt. Bush's officers, wrote: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report." I had to shorten it to fit in the document space and style; I paraphrased: "We" (the authors of the report) "have not seen Bush" (first half of quote) "for the past twelve months" (the period of the report). Rex071404, sorry, I think the only way to justify your edit is to prove that the paraphrase is incorrect or inaccurate. Can you do that?--sbwoodside

Typewriter evaluation

Just now, Gamaliel reverted an edit of mine without and edit summary and without talking here. I am concenred about that aand am inviting him to talk. In the meantime, I have re-reverted my edits about the typewriter. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is not correct, I did not revert. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 09:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You made an edit which completely removed it; why so? Please advise. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your edit stated that there was no evidence that a particular model of typewriter was employed by the TANG, which is true. My edit stated that there was no evidence of what sort of typerwriter was used by TANG at all, which includes the typewriters in your sentence. Since my statement covered all typewriters, I did not see the need for a statement which covered a particular type of typewriter. I thought this was self-explainatory. I apologize if you did not understand it. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 09:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What my edit made clear was - there is no information which indicates that any of the "evaluated" typewriters made their way from the Air Force to the National Guard. I feel this explicity is needed so as to make clear that Air Force and National Guard are separate and distinct and there is no evidence of "typewriter" tranference between them. Frankly, since it was the Air Force and not the National Guard units with which GWB served that "evaluated" certain model typewriters, the entire sentence mentioning this evaluation by the Air Force ought to be stricken as being no more relevant than if GMC or Ford Motors "evaluated" them. I see no purpose in that sentence in the first place, other than to confuse the readers with a implication that USA Air Force and state National Guard units are some how connected via office equipment. Certainly they were not and the implication that they might be, is misleading. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About your accusatory edit summary "restore my edit which Gamaliel has deleted yet again - he has not yet responded to my futher explanation on Talk - rather he simply deleted me me again)" I did infact post an explanation here at 05:38 EST then made changes to the article at 05:40 EST. Then I left wikipedia. You posted to talk at 05:45 and then accused me in that edit summary of 06:12. I did not ignore your comments of 05:45, I simply did not see them as I had already made my edits and left. You should not let your zeal to defend your edits and discredit a particular factoid in the article cause you to throw out accusatory remarks. This is a rather mild example from you but I worry that given your past behavior this could easily blossom into an edit war should you get overly heated. The changes I have made were not designed to delete your comments or to promote a particular fact, I simply believe a blanket statment covering all typewriters is more informative, more concise, and more NPOV than one covering a single model. The fact is that we don't know what typewriters TANG used, a fact which you deleted from the article in your zeal to "prove" that they didn't have IBM Selectric Composers. I posted a compromise sentence which I believe covers the concerns of both of us, though I still feel a blanket statment is what belongs there. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Partisan Conflicts of Interest

This is my first time contributing anything to Wikipedia so I wanted to add a quick note here explaining the section I added titled "Partisan Conflicts of Interest". I've followed the story of the Killian documents quite closely, primarily on the Little Green Footballs weblog. It is amazing to me, first of all, what obvious forgeries these memos are, given that they were clearly created with Microsoft Word, as a side-by-side comparison reveals. Even more amazing to me was seeing Dan Rather and CBS continue to rabidly (and angrily) defend them, as well as the left-wing bloggers such as Markos Zuniga at Daily Kos and contributors to Democratic Underground, while accusing those who question their authenticity of being, in Dan Rather's words, "Republican operatives".

This led me to write a section linking to the major blogs on each side, commenting that the ones which continue to support the memos are self-proclaimed liberal sites, and the ones most eager to discredit them are conservative sites. So, is Dan Rather a liberal or a conservative? Given his past record, it is obvious that he has both a liberal bias, and a specific record of support for the Democratic Party in Texas. This has been chronicled at RatherBiased.com, which is eye-opening, to say the least.

So, there is a meta-question at work here. I have been very satisfied with Wikipedia's efforts to maintain an NPOV, and I think that it is quite appropriate to criticize the occasional lack thereof by the mainstream media. Therefore, I hope that this section remains in Wikipedia.

I think this section should be deleted. (I would've yanked it myself, without bothering to discuss it first, but I'm exercising some restraint on the theory of "don't bite the newbies".) What matters to this article could be summarized and placed elsewhere with language along these lines: "There are bloggers on both sides of the authenticity question, and their opinions about authenticity tend to correlate with their preferences in the presidential election." I don't know if a survey of the blogosphere is even relevant, but if we were to talk about what's addressed here as "conflicts of interest", that's about all that needs to be said. Throwing mud at an AP reporter about an alleged error in a story about Clinton is completely beside the point. JamesMLane 15:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You think which section should be deleted? Oh, you mean the bloggers section. I'm not sure. At this point I think this is part of the story, so I would leave it for now. Whether or not the Kerry Campaign is implicted, this is a big big story. I've followed election campaigns closely since 1960 (and politics since McCarthy--Joe, not Eugene) and I can't remember an instance of a major news organization creating a damning story about a politician from forged documents. And, yes, I don't see how they can be genuine. I think CBS' only fall-back position is that these memos were transcriptions but I'm not sure they could sell that. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the whole "Partisan Conflicts of Interest" section should be deleted, possibly with a salvaging of the blogger information as per the sample sentence I gave. JamesMLane 16:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this section at all. This article is about GWB's military service, not a place to hash out who is the media is biased. Aren't there other articles for this? And sure, media bias affects this issue, as it affects every other issue in the history of the media. And it isn't something that's provable by encyclopedic standards, so I worry that this is a POV can of worms we're opening here. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. While I won't judge the quality of what is in this section, this article is not really about GWB's military service any more than controversy about Kerry's purple hearts is really about his. This article is about examining minutae of Bush's military service in order to make an accusation against him bearing on his character and (in the eyes of some) fitness for office. Now we have some damning memos unearthened under mysterious circumstances 32 years after their alleged creation and just two months before a presidential election. The member of the major media that reported these memos refuses to give information that would allow others to accurately judge these memos and, not incidentally, CBS' motives and credibility. So this article is (inter alia) all about media bias. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hope user:Jhamby continues to contribute to Wikipedia, but I think this section should be deleted. The issue really has nothing to do with bloggers, and what bloggers believe. Besides, on any partisan issue, you can say, conservative bloggers tend to take the conservative view, liberal bloggers support the liberal view, etc. That hardly even qualifies as information.

I do think we've done a pretty good job on this topic so far, keeping it accurate and up-to-date, and mostly NOPV despite its highly partisan nature. And despite the fact that we have to articles covering the same ground: Killian memos. TimShell 22:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Source of documents

Maybe some of you who've followed this story more closely can explain something to me. The experts in typefaces can argue about whether these documents could or could not have been produced in the 1970s. Even if some typewriters available then could've done the job, however, that doesn't establish authenticity. (The documents could've been produced in 2004 on a word processor, or in 2004 on a well-preserved appropriate model typewriter from the 1970s.) I'm suspicious when documents surface that are supposedly signed by someone now conveniently dead. An obvious basis of authenticity would be if someone from his family produced the documents with the explanation that they just turned up in the course of moving stuff around in the attic, but that hasn't happened here. The article says only that they came from "an unnamed source". Is there any more information available on this point? Who else might have had access to such memos and might now be producing them? It may be that there's nothing more to be said in the article but, compared to all this attention to typefaces, it's certainly a point that left me wanting more information. JamesMLane 16:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS know the story, but they are part of the story. So far they refuse to say where they came from or why they think the giver is reliable. Their entire news organization credibility is at stake. CBS has a lot to explain and I'm not sure they are in any way protected by law for refusing to do so. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, repeating right wing spin...

The parts of this article on the Killian documents in its current state is deeply POV. It's a case for the prosecution, with occasional bits of the defense's case, and nonsensical bits about how the people who are attacking the documents are Republicans, and the people defending it are Democrats. Sigh. john k 01:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Referring to it as "right wing spin" is kind of POV, too. You consider The Washington Post right wing? (Double sigh) -- Cecropia | Talk 01:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's a talk page, I'm allowed to be POV in a talk page. I do not consider the Washington Post to be right wing. I do consider the Washington Post, and other mainstream media sources, to be far too ready to repeat whatever crap it is that Drudge or Little Green Footballs are screaming about, because they're afraid that they'll be accused of being left wing.

At any rate, what irritates me about this story, is that just about every one of the original accusations (that is, that there's no possible way that a typewriter from the 70s could produce these memos because of proportional fonts, or superscripts, or whatever), has been proven false very easily. That so-called "experts" were repeating stuff that could easily be disproved by a google search leaves me with little regard for their credibility when they try to claim that, even though it now turns out that all that crap they were saying before was completely bogus, they still think the documents might be forged. (I'd add that I think Hodges is full of crap, and has every reason to lie about what he told CBS before, now that the documents have been called into question, but that's probably not very constructive).

What I would suggest, as far as constructive criticism of the article, is that we try to stay out of the details of this nonsense as much as possible. I think a mention of what the documents allege, that their authenticity has been challenged, and that there's no particular conclusion one way or another, would be sufficient. As it is, this one dispute dominates the entire article. john k 01:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why do you think these things are disproven so easily? I have first hand experience both with military administration and with each of the kinds of typewriter and composing machine being discussed and I will say flatly that it is virtually impossible for those memos to be contemporaneous to 1972. The only machine that could possibly have produced that is a Selectric Composer, which I used both in its standalone form and in its computerized form (as the MTSC), and no way was a military man in the reserves typing memos on one. Do you even have the vaguest idea how you would have to operate an SC or an MTSC in order to produce those memos in that form? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there are people who are also saying they have experience with these things and that it is possible that those memos are contemporaneous to 1972. That's the problem with disputes like this, reasonable people are differing based on the same evidence. IMO we're also verging on original research by going into the amount of detail we are about the technical intricacies of an issue that's still so new. Why not trim it down to the bare minimum, provide a couple of external links to the people still working on the details, and come back in a few months when the dust's settled to write up what details turned out to actually be relevant? Bryan 03:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, but this strains credibility. I mean, these memos could have been created with hand type on a composition frame and pulled on a proof press, but does that make it reasonable? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I have no actual idea, but this kind of argument from authority is ultimately not convincing either way. Bryan's point is that there are plenty of people claiming experience with typewriters saying the exact opposite from you. We have no means of judging between this. As I already said, I agree with Bryan that this section should be cut down to a bare minimum and leave it be for a while. john k 04:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well this is just for your information. What goes onto the project page won't really make a rat's you-know-what of difference in the broader discussion. Having knowledge I know why these memos are not contemporaneous to 1972 but you obviously don't need to accept my word for it. I'll just say that personal experience should count for something vs. the holy grail of modern research: "how many hits does it get on Google." Time will tell but just see if the press sticks with it as the NY Times did in trying to deconstruct the Swiftvets. If you are at all interested in some of the technical issues, see this and this.

I'm not saying that personal experience shouldn't count for something. I'm just saying it's impossible to say in exactly what way personal experience counts when there's dozens of people claiming personal experience arguing completely contradictory things. john k 05:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So this can be settled if one of these "experts" could reproduce the memos with reasonable effort on a 1970s era typewriter. It's already been shown on 2003 technology. Jewbacca 05:11, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Except that when you actually look closely at the LGF copy, it doesn't match up exactly. Of course, 70s typewriters are harder to come by than microsoft word. At any rate, the burden of proof is all wrong here. Those claiming a forgery should have to provide actual evidence that these documents couldn't have been made on a 70s typewriter, rather than demanding that their opponents prove the opposite. So far, all of the supposed evidence has vanished, with the exception of the fact that Charles Johnson made a word document that looks a lot like the CBS documents. At any rate, I can tell that I have nothing to contribute to this article beyond partisan invective, so I'm going to dewatch. I hope somebody will follow my suggestion and shorten this section of the article, but I don't have the patience for this crap. john k 05:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So then John K, if I show you a polaroid photo of what appears to be "Bigfoot", you have to prove that such a photo cannot be genuine? Looking at your comment in that light, I find your logic puzzling. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is an animated GIF showing LGF's microsoft word copy with the CBS photocopied memo: [21] It's not EXACT 100%, but if you think that you could do a better job on any typewriter even today, I have some Koolaid for you. Word wrapping, fyi, is not automatic on typewriters, so it would take a rather insightful typist to carriage-return at the same spots as Microsoft. Jewbacca 05:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Adding on to what Jewbacca just stated, CBS admits that they do not have the original, but a copy. They claim it's a first generation copy, but who can really tell. Photocopies of a forgery is one of the best ways to cover the tracks of a forgery since the original can't be tested, such as age and type of ink and paper the original is made of. And how many times have you had a crappy photocopy of something that you've made that doesn't line-up with the original? If you've gone to public school, you know exactly what I mean.

John K said: At any rate, the burden of proof is all wrong here. Those claiming a forgery should have to provide actual evidence that these documents couldn't have been made on a 70s typewriter, rather than demanding that their opponents prove the opposite. That assertion is opposite to both reason and law. CBS is making a potent charge that could decide a presidency. They are saying: "Here are memos, we won't tell you where or how we got them or rom whom, just take our word for it they're genuine (and BTW we don't have the original)." Then people, including forensic experts hired by one of the nation's premiere newspapers (no bloggers there) cast reasonable doubt, and say why they think so. Since CBS is making the assertion, it is on them to prove that the memos are real (or at least give all possible information on why they believe them to be real, not just "we looked really hard and we're satisfied"), not on others to prove they're not.

It's funny, when the Swiftvets, who are all Vietnam Veterans, who include (IIRC) 17 of the 21 skippers of the other swiftboats, and the entire chain of command above Kerry, make an assertion, everyone says "how DARE they, Kerry is a war hero! These guys are OBVIOUSLY lying." Those guys, I suppose, are chopped liver? But CBS pops up with a memo, and everyone else has to prove they're not real. No media bias in this country. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought people were saying the Swiftvets were liars because, you know, all of their allegations turned out to be lies...Sigh...must stop looking here. john k 05:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What they're saying about what happened in Vietnam (not after Kerry came back) is disputed. I have no opinion of whether they or Kerry are more credible. But we're saying that 17 naval officers who served as honorably as Kerry did, plus the chain of command above Kerry are all lying, but Kerry is telling the truth. Wow, what a boy scout Kerry must be. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However this all gets sorted out now, in a month's time, or six months, or a year, or however long it takes for this issue to settle down into a state of "generally-accepted facts" people will come back here and fix it all up to conform to that. I suspect that if we try to work out the truth before that day comes a great deal of effort will be wasted here. Bryan 05:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The mainstream media is all over this story, and yet, it is "right wing spin"? That's absurd. Given the information currently available, it is extremely likely this is a forgery. The best CBS has come up with, is that they know some other things that make them certain the story is true, and that we ought to ignore the evidence available to everyone, and accept their interpertation of their own private mystery evidence. The mental contortions CBS defenders have gone to, to prove that some exotic combination of typewriter parts available in 1972 could have created a memo that looks something like these ones (except for the kerning), is ridiculous. Soon they'll be saying, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, the memos must be authentic. TimShell 06:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Perhaps he's a Dan Ra^ther fan. -Joseph (Talk) 11:15, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Thanks for your civility N328KF. You're a real credit to the wikipedia. I'm also pleased with the Chewbacca defense stuff. The problem with what's going on here is that nobody is interested in writing a good wikipedia article. All that is going on here is partisan point-scoring. So, fine, make fun of me. And fine, reasonable people, let these people be responsible for the tone of this article's discussion of this. john k 16:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that just about every single printing, font or typewriter expert weighs in on the side that these are forged, and all Time can get to prove the opposite is a typewriter repairman, the conclusion is Ra^ther inevitable. Neutrality in this case means asserting those facts, it does not mean distorting reality just so that we can make it appear as though both sides are equal. Impi 16:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All that is going on here is partisan point-scoring. ROFLMYAO!! The main reason this article (and many in the Bush-Kerry series) exists is partisan point-scoring. This is why I rarely edit on such articles anymore save for things of which I have special knowledge. I look at these articles from the POV that, when the election is over, and Bush or Kerry is elected, will anyone care? If we could use that standard, a lot of articles could shrink, be combined or disappear. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, you're completely correct, Cecropia. This is all ponderous nonsense that doesn't particularly belong in an encyclopedia. Which is why I think we should keep these things as minimal as possible. Certainly there's no need to go on and on about this dispute in an article which is supposed to be about Bush's military service...if the documents are forged, they have no real bearing on Bush's "military" service (which continues to look rather dismal - c.f. the new U.S. News and World Report article, from a source not noted for its liberal bias), and if they are not forged, there's no point in going over arguments as to why people claimed they were forged. I also think it would be a lot easier to come up with text that is satisfactory to everyone as being NPOV by eliminating a lot of the detail. I would be happy with a statement that several experts have questioned the authenticity of the documents, and that CBS stands behind the story. That is all that is necessary until this thing is resolved (Yes, I realize that stellar lights of wikipedia like Impi and Joseph have decided that it already is resolved, and I could argue with them, but I'm not going to bother, and just say that there is no consensus as yet that the documents were forged). As Bryan has noted, going into more detail about this is pretty close to original research, anyway.john k 17:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point, Cecropia. john k, first of all, it's said sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and it certainly has no place here. To make sweeping comments about the contributions of myself and Joseph to Wikipedia is rather unfair after you've read just one comment from each of us. One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that although it's an encyclopedia, it's rather different from the traditional encyclopedia that we're used to, and I don't mean in terms of being open-content. It's a real-time encyclopedia, meaning that it's also a knowledge base on current events. In that regard, detailed articles on things which are happening now do have a relevance and a place on Wikipedia. In addition, this does have a place in the controversy over Bush's military service. I mean, think about it, less than two months before the election, the Democrats are launching a major attack on Bush's military record, and suddenly these documents, which are rather damaging, appear, specifically casting a negative light on Bush's record. Whether these documents are real or not is obviously relevant to this article, just as much as Bush's record is relevant to the election. Another thing, you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying, or perhaps I didn't make a clear enough statement. My point was that listing the opposing sides, even if the one side (in this case stating that they are forged) is either far more authoritative or credible, creates an imbalance; it is not necessarily being POV. However, to remove comments or details from one side in an attempt to "balance it out" would in this case be POV. Impi 17:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought that punning was the lowest form of wit...hmm...does turning the "th" in Dan Rather's name into a superscript qualify as a pun? I think typewriting-based humor is probably even lower than the pun. But I digress. At any rate, I could easily argue with you about whether or not "the case stating that they are forged" is, in fact, "far more authoritative or credible" than the other side. This, obviously, is where we disagree. I find that case to be hardly credible at all, and, if you insist, I am willing to argue with you about it. However, I would prefer not to, because I don't think it's that important. I'd add that these documents are hardly necessary to cast a negative light on Bush's record - the stuff that is undisputed already casts a negative light on his record. U.S. News and World Report, relying exclusively on undisputed records, is saying that Bush didn't fulfill his service, and (essentially) that he didn't deserve an honorable discharge. Meanwhile, we have these documents, whose contents, while damaging, are perfectly consistent with what we already know, and not particularly revealing. And some people, relying on their vague sense of how typewriters from the 1970s were, start saying that they must be forgeries. Experts are brought out who say various reasons that they are probably forgeries. Then, it turns out, all of the things those experts said turn out to be not true. So the same experts get trotted out again, and give different reasons why they are probably forgeries. Plus, we get such scintillating evidence as his wife saying he didn't type (this in contrast to his administrative assistant, who believes the memos are real...). And so on and so forth. Each of the individual charges has largely been answered (save the fact that some guy made a microsoft word document that mostly looks like the Killian memo, which can hardly be said to prove anything), and yet people just keep spewing out new reasons as the old ones get discredited, to give the impression that there's a piling mountain of evidence against the memos. Now, I have no idea if the memos are forged. Of course they could be. But I have also not seen anything which is remotely confusing to demonstrate that they must be forged, beyond some arguments from authority (many of them from highly dubious sources who have already been proved wrong on things they said on this subject) and claims that if Microsoft Word looks mostly the same as this document, it must have been produced in MS Word. So anyway, here I am arguing about this. And we could put all kinds of details into this article. But what on earth is the point of this? It still only tangentially related to the question of Bush's military service. At the very least, we should move the detail to the other article, and leave only a summary here. (john k)

I get what you're saying. It doesn't matter if it's a lie, because it conforms with the Greater Truth^TM! -Joseph (Talk) 19:07, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

*cough* Depends which Greater Tru^th you're referring to. To repeat: This article is not really about Bush's military service--it is an accusation it wasn't fulfilled. I believe that many of Kerry's supporters are fearful that the memos are forged, because they're willing to shrug them off. But there is another "greater truth," whether forged documents were used in election fraud. Remember that Watergate brought Nixon down; and what was Watergate? An attempt to steal embarassing (Nixon hoped) material from the DNC, and the coverup that followed. This is a step beyond Watergate. Imagine if Nixon, instead of looking for documents, had simply created them. This is the argument here. Because, if the documents are forged, the questions are as fascinating and potentially damaging as Watergate:

1. Who forged them?;
2. How were they forged?;
3. Is there a connection to the DNC or Kerry campaign?;
4. Why did CBS accept them so readily? They say it was a credible source. Not likely to be a Joe Blow;
5. How could CBS "authenticate" a copy with no original?;
6. What happened to the original? If it was copied, who copied them and why?

You think forgery is no big deal? It's a criminal act. And it could be election fraud. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I agree fully with you—in fact, the implications for media and CBS are what spurred my own interest in this incident. I was simply stating my assessment of what JohnK was saying. -Joseph (Talk) 19:34, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your posting, but to the long post you responded to. I think your (sarcastic) comment about "greater truth" is accurate. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll add to my previous comment. If this is forgery, it goes beyond simple forgery--when the forger placed the header of a military unit on the document, and appended a commanding officer's signature, that's falsifying a government document. Martha Stewart is doing Federal time partly because she made a small addition to a non-government document to make it appear she didn't order the sale of stock which got her into trouble for securities fraud. This is much more. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Cecropia, I think most people don't quite understand how serious this is. Trying to influence a national election through the creation of forged government documents is exceedingly serious, and could in all likelihood result in jail time for a person caught doing it. If these documents are indeed from the Kerry campaign, the damage to his chances will be irreparable. John k, I don't see how you're still disputing this, the evidence is overwhelming. Just take a look at Killian memos for a run-down of it. Think about it, this is just some of the evidence:

1. Killian, a man with little or no typewriting experience, would have had to use just about the most advanced typewriter of the day, which cost an exhorbitant amount, for a personal memo, whilst every single known genuine doc from TANG used ordinary monospace typewriters.
2. Neither the Selectric nor the Executive were capable of Kerning (or pseudo-kerning, to be more correct), which is only possible in a word processor.
3. The CBS documents match up EXACTLY with copies typed in MS Word using the default settings, including word-wrapping, another thing typewriters didn't have. Attempts to recreate the documents using Selectrics and Executives have failed to produce the same result.
4. The amount of effort required to insert a superscripted TH into a document using the above-mentioned typewriters is rather significant, involving replacing the font ball with an 8pt example, moving the roller around a lot to get to the exact spot, then carefully adding the superscript, and repeating the process to get back to normal type. Somehow I don't see a TANG officer going through all that effort just for a superscripted TH, esp when writing a memo for his personal use, and especially when known to prefer writing his memos by hand.
5. Each of the CBS documents has perfect tabbing and centering, something impossible in typewriters of the time, but easily accomplished in MS Word.
6. Only Microsoft's implementation of Times New Roman appears to create the same format as the CBS documents, using the same font in AppleWork's text editor doesn't have the same word-wrapping.

There's far more, most of which is covered in the Killian memos page. Other stuff is here. Worth reading, john k. The evidence against these documents truly is overwhelming, and it's not people with no experience in typewriters, as you infer, it's experts in the field of printing, fonts and typewriters, and people who actually used these devices, who have been instrumental in declaring these documents to be forged. Impi 20:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy, I will dispute one point:

Neither the Selectric nor the Executive were capable of Kerning (or pseudo-kerning, to be more correct), which is only possible in a word processor.

First, I didn't look over the documents exhaustively, but I don't see kerning (the fitting together of individual letter pairs). Perhaps people mean letterspacing, which is not the same thing. Second, both the Executive and the Composer could kern after a fashion, if you did it manually: i.e., if you had a cap W next to a cap A, you kern them by (IIRC) pressing the unit backspace twice between the letters. But no ordinary typist would either know to do this or care, and few typographers did, either. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Before anyone gets too excited, unless it's been introduced very recently, Microsoft Word doesn't kern either. Typesetting packages like Quark and InDesign do, automatically. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.P.S. I just checked. Microsoft Word 2003 does kern, if you turn it on. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When using TrueType fonts, MS Word does kern to an extent, which you can see in the comparison docs written in word. As this is not proper kerning, I referred to it as pseudo-kerning to be a little more precise. It may not be kerning per se, but it looks very similar, and it's done automatically. In the words of Joseph M. Newcomber, PH.D: Times New Roman uses a characteristic of Microsoft TrueType fonts called the ABC dimensions, where the C dimension is the offset from the right edge of the bounding box of the character to the next character. If this offset is negative, the character with the negative C offset will overlap the character which follows (in some technologies, the distance from the start of one character to the start of another is called the “escapement”, so a negative C offset gives an escapement which is less than the character width). This gives the illusion of kerning, or what I sometimes call “pseudo-kerning”.

He has created an exhaustive analysis of the documents here, and his resume is impressive, to say the least. Impi 22:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gratuitious name calling

Can someone please explain why this sentence: One coworker on the Blount campaign staff, Archibald Blount, a relative of Blount, claimed that Bush was known during this time as the "Texas Souffle", for his supposed character of looking good on the outside but not having much on the inside is in the article? I feel it adds nothing, is POV and I see no supporting information which bolsters it as actually being a fact. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To be even-handed, I shall agree with Rex that there's no need for this sentence. john k 05:42, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I copied the whole paragraph specifically to come to the Discussion page and beef about it. Pasted it below. Even if it is sourced, I can't imagine Britannica quoting such libel. I am ambivalent about the controversy, but there's no balance here. Should we agree to delete it? What are the other alternatives? user:MPS

• • A column in the Birmingham News (Alabama) elicited memories from people who remembered Bush when he was there: "None have specific recollections about Bush and the National Guard. Some heard he was serving but never saw for themselves." Opinions of him during this time ranged from bad (bragging about drinking and allegations he trashed a cottage where he was living) to good (amiable, well liked, and fond of sports). One coworker on the Blount campaign staff, Archibald Blount, a relative of Blount, claimed that Bush was known during this time as the "Texas Souffle", for his supposed character of looking good on the outside but not having much on the inside. Samuel Blount, the candidate's son, who also worked with Bush, said he did not remember such behavior from the future president. He pointed out that Archibald, his cousin, was "very, very liberal." "I like him. But I would take what he says with a big grain of salt." [10]

Memos allegedly from Jerry Killian

I think the entire "Memos allegedly from Jerry Killian" section should be merged into the Killian memos document, leaving just a cursory explanation here. Aye? Nay? -Joseph (Talk) 05:50, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Nay, they are organic to the issue at hand. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might say that, but the information here ties in with the other page more, and it is senseless to keep info updated in two places. We can keep the section here at a couple paragraphs. -Joseph (Talk) 06:01, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

The alternative would be to delete the Killian memos article, merging into this article any information not already here. I agree with Joseph's point that trying to keep two overlapping articles up to date, especially on a subject that's so hot right now, is an unnecessary burden. I have no strong preference as to which way the consolidation should go. JamesMLane 09:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but it's beginning to get very lengthy now. It's really approached article length in its own right. -Joseph (Talk) 11:16, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

I think it would make a great deal more sense to put it in its own article. For one thing, the discussion of the memo's authenticity only has any place in this article for as long as the authenticity is in dispute. That is to say, if it becomes generally concluded that the memos are forged, they would be largely irrelevant to the question of Bush's service, and would only warrant a brief note. If they are generally accepted to be genuine, then there's no real point to including detailed, discredited assertions as to their fraudulence in an article only tangentially related to them. john k 16:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I agree with Joseph and john k, in light of the arguments they make and in light of the level of detail that's developed at Killian memos. This article about Bush's military service shouldn't get bogged down in a typeface tutorial. Of course, there has to be something here. It would be along the lines of: "Coincident with CBS News's Sept. 8 interview with Ben Barnes was the release of another set of documents related to Bush's National Guard service. The most controversial documents, allegedly from the personal files of the late Jerry Killian, were obtained by CBS News from an unnamed source. The documents were unfavorable to Bush on several aspects of his National Guard service, but their authenticity was attacked on numerous grounds; see Killian memos." I don't think that detailing the charges against Bush that would be supported by the documents is justified without better assurance of their authenticity than is now available. Therefore, instead of going into detail about the allegations (the "sugarcoating", etc.), the article should just note which way the documents cut (i.e. that these are disputed anti-Bush documents rather than disputed pro-Bush documents). JamesMLane 16:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's high time we move on this, but I don't want to do it until most of us who have been involved, agree on that step. -Joseph (Talk) 00:09, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

I have completed this. Feel free to make adjustments as necessary, but please do not restore material wholesale. We should keep the bit in this article to just a paragraph or two. Killian memos is still much shorter than this article, even with the material transfer. -Joseph (Talk) 20:13, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the work necessary for the merger into the Killian memos article. I added my sentence (from above) to what was left in this article, for two reasons. First, I thought wikilinking general terms like "documents" and "personal files" was confusing. A reader might think the links were to articles with those titles. I thought a link reading Killian memos would make it more clear what was to be found there. Second, although the purpose is to clear the whole authenticity dispute out of this article, the existence of that dispute should at least be mentioned here. JamesMLane 22:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You all need to be more careful. JML had some edits that were valid, that somebody (Rex) wiped out. Thus the danger of revert wars. Also, I forgot to nuke the Killian links section, which I just did. There were no links in there that were not already in the other document. I was able to get rid of of a lot of other redundant content in the process of the merging. Someone might want to check my work. I have no further interest in this document. See you on Killian memos, 60 Minutes, or Dan Rather. -Joseph (Talk) 01:24, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

POV presentation of information

Alright, currently, we basically say he's guilty, then basically say all of this is irrelevant.

STOP TRYING TO PROVE HE'S GUILTY!

No one's mind will be changed, so let them take the confirmed information and spin their own answer. - Calmypal 13:09, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Who do you say is "guilty" and of what? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calmypal was objecting to my removal of a paragraph where he was attempting to 'prove' that Bush was innocent of having failed to complete his guard duty. I removed the paragraph because it was redundant (the 50 points issue was already addressed in the article), erroneous (it listed Bush's points for only five years... Bush was in the guard for six), and based on the analysis of a person who has since admitted to errors in his conclusions and fallen back on 'but everyone violated those regulations'. He put the incorrect info back in, and rather than simply removing it again I merged it with the existing text on the subject and added corrections (the sixth year points reported, the retraction of that incorrect value, the actual value shown in the records, et cetera). This IS the 'confirmed information' and people are free to draw whatever conclusions they like. It was Calmypal who introduced partisan POV conclusions and objected when they were removed. CBDunkerson 11:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the general tone of certain comments, such as "After denying their existence for months..." The article looks much better now, actually. The point is, each side in this is right and has the documentation to prove it (and even I am that perfect). I'm amused by the fact that liberals used documenation that has turned out to be fake.

For all I care, you can keep playing with something that happened 30 or 35 years ago, but George Bush has better things to do. Just take the moral high road. - Calmypal 20:55, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Don't even start debating actual issues of morality with Bush rather than only what is needed in shaping this article. The other side just has too much ammunition. --kizzle 21:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's latest edit.

I have a small problem with the following:

"But since there is no evidence to suggest improprieties regarding Bush's discharge itself, a reasonable person could very well accept it on it's face as being self-validating. This is especially true in that allegations of having supposedly been "awol" do not in and of themselves suggest that Mr. Bush did not ultimately fulfill his service requirements, prior to being dishcarged."

The previous final sentences of the paragraph:

"Neither Bush's honorable discharge nor the statements of Guard members that they do not remember him proves anything conclusively. The discharge could have been a political favor and the recollections could be inaccurate or deliberately false"

leave the reader with a good sense of balance and let the reader decide. It is a reiteration that one can conclude either way. Rex's latest edit decides for us how we shold interpret the information, specifically that "a reasonable person" would think a certain way (or in Rex's transparent inference that the allegations are false). Despite the existence or lack thereof of evidence, the decision still should not be forced upon the reader by appealing to "a reasonable person would think X". I don't necessarily think you are wrong, Rex, in what you have added to the article, but I do believe that it is forcing us to conclude in a certain direction. The previous final sentences exhibited this balance and I move to revert, but I want to ask the community first.--kizzle 00:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is factual, the "tone down" language" that I put it. There was too much loaded innuendo in the immediately prior loaded accusation, so the "toning down" of the groundless accusations was correct. That crap about the DC sniper was simply too much. And now that people keep deleting my balancing text, I have deleted that too. The pathetic anti-Bush bile being squeezed in here by others is beginning to make my blood boil. DC sniper? Hmmmm. Why stop there? Why not list every other vile misfit who was once accused of "awol" and compare Bush to those persons too? Guilt by scurrilous, false association and innuendo - apparently some here think that's fair game! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't see the DC sniper stuff- if it was just comparing Bush to another supposadly AWOL person, I'm glad you took it out. Why do you not like the previous version, specifically? what implies innuendo for you, and what screams out as being biased, please? Lyellin 06:51, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin, I am sorry to say this, but the edits I was forced to make in order to add some cogency and coherentcy to the "awol" accusation along with the clean-up required to yank the DC sniper crap, has sufficently changed this section so as to make referring the prior versions - as you now do, moot. At this point, I'll need to hear from you about what - if anything - you'd like to change in the section as I have currently rendered it. Frankly, if all editors here, pro-Kerry/pro-Bush/uncommitted alike would also be vigilant against anti-bush screeds like the sniper crap I removed, we would not have these discussions facing us endlessly - as these re-writes would not have to occur again and again. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the sniper bit can go as it's just an example and not really necessary or pertinent. But I don't think it's fair to claim that the intent was to compare Bush to the sniper personally. Let's assume good faith here. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The sniper bit was me and included because he is the only example I know of offhand where someone was found AWOL and then received an honorable discharge anyway. My point was that the claim 'Bush could not have been AWOL because he was honorably discharged' is inherently false... the two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, if they were then all someone would have to do to get out of completing their service is go AWOL. I plan to put that fact back in as it is relevant (the proferred explanation is false). I suspect it might get yanked (since it directly refutes the White House response) if no example / proof is provided, but I'll leave that out unless I can find a less controversial example. For the record, I did NOT compare Bush to Muhammed. That's just Rex being Rex. CBDunkerson 11:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gamaliel's revert

Just now, Gamaliel came rushing in and without discussion, restored the incoherent and disjointed "awol" text which I had just finished painstakingly cleaning up. There is absolutely no justifications for restoring that biased, disjointed mish-mosh. If it hadn't been so out of whack to begin with, I would not have had to edit it. Now we must go forward, not back. Any reverts made against those edits of mine regarding the introductory "awol" paragraphs, which tend to restore the prior problematic versions, will, if not discussed here 1st, be reverted by me. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I sauntered in.

Your edits solved the problem of an alleged anti-Bush bias by inserting a pro-Bush bias defending him and characterizing arguments against him as a "non sequitur". Your painstaking and irrelevant description of "AWOL" falsely assumes that Bush critics are complaining he wasn't living on the base or snuck out for a bender. And your unnecessary text about Terry McWhatshisname serves no other purpose but to beat the reader over the head with the word "Democrat! Democrat!" over and over again. Do you really think you have to remind people that the head of the DNC knows all the "major Democrats"? Until you stop putting this POV stuff in, I will continue to revert. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]]

Gamaliel the solution to your overwrought complaints is to offer alternatives here. Frankly, if you had been helping all along in keeping this from becoming the ant-Bush screed that it has become, we would not be at this juncture. I disagree with your assessment and have restored my edits. Please offer your alternative text here, so we can discusss it. And please don't attack my word choices - you are the one who had to be pointed to a dictionary definition of "purport" before you stopped deleting that on another page! -[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So it's my fault that you made POV edits? Right.

Please, I know what the damn word means. I still disagree with your use of the word in that context, I stopped removing it because I didn't want an edit war, as everything you are involved with turns into. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 07:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex could you please give a source for "spokespersons for President Bush have pointed out that he was honorably discharged". I'm curious who it was and think if we are going to include that defence it should be included.

PS Could you please answer my question on Texans for Truth? AlistairMcMillan 08:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are we going to add "Bush was honorably discharged, so he is obviously faultless" to the end of every point in this article? AlistairMcMillan 08:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, despite the false claims of your edit summaries, specific major problems with your edits have been identified. Your response is not only to not address these problems, but to ignore them, claim no problems have been identified, and reinsert them into the article. I've lost count of how many people have explained to you on a dozen talk pages that your precious edits are not a baseline, default version that must be constantly restored while you make major changes with no discussion. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 08:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To Alistair... what is the source of the honorable discharge? It's this... [22] and I added two others to the article. --signed an Anon (not my real name)

My concern is quite simple. You came in to the Texans for Truth page and reverted again and again and again until it was locked. Since then you have made only a cursory attempt at dialogue on the TfT page, ignoring my repeated attempts at discussion. And now you are on GWBMSC obfuscating the paragraph about TfT, trying to dilute the plain and simple fact that there is no evidence that Bush served between May 1972 and July 1973.

And the "honorable discharge" defense, which as I pointed out is already used further down the page, does not work. It may work for a regular joe. But it does not work for Bush. Not for the son of the US Ambassador to the UN. Not for the son of a former Chairman of the RNC. Not for the son of a former Representative for Texas.

BTW I wasn't asking for a copy of the discharge papers. I was asking for the name of the spokespersons who use the "honorable discharge" defense. AlistairMcMillan 08:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

White House communications director Dan Bartlett AlistairMcMillan 08:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alistair, please go re-read the talk page at TfT - I have indeed answered you, again and again. Now, as for this dialog here, it's about GWB, not TfT, please stay on topic. Additionally, read my comments above. Had this page not become the anti-Bush screed that it is, my edits would not have been needed. As it is, they are accurate, true and certainly in the context of the overall tone of this article, they are NPOV. I intend to defend their inclusion in the article unless and until better alternatives are offered here and discussed. As far as I am concered, when you ingored my edit summary as shown here [23], you lost credibility with me on this seciton of text. And I seee you have just now reverted again - for you same incorrect presumption that a single defnese is not valid for multiple charges. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 08:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I re-read the TfT page, you never answered my question. I asked you a simple question again and again and you never answered once. And you just gave me an answer that doesn't really tell me anything new, wonderful.

I am staying on topic. You may not have noticed, but the paragragh that you are editing is about Texans for Truth. Funny. You get the page about them blocked by your constant reverts and now you are here trying to obfuscate the plain and simple fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that Bush served between May 1972 and July 1973.

The FACT that he received an honorable discharge does not disprove the FACT that the TfT group have a point. AlistairMcMillan 09:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, my concern about the duplication of the "honorable discharge" defense is that any time anyone adds anything new that might suggest Bush didn't serve, you will just add your "honorable discharge" defense. Which will increase the size and confusion of this already massive and very confused page. AlistairMcMillan 10:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not "obfuscating" anything!. So don't you dare say that I am! You say that TfT has a point? A point about what? That records were not well kept? So what. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 10:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

40 words explaining TfT and their ad. 171 words explaining why they are wrong. What do you call that? Turning ever single fact that is not in Bush's favour into a long convoluted screed in his defence. AlistairMcMillan 11:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alisatair - go take a look at the treatment you and your ilk mete to SBVT while rebutting with Kerry's point of view. This is certainly not worse on behalf of Bush here. Also, word count is not itself a measure of anything - other than perhaps linguistic precision. The accusation of "awol" and reward for "proof" of bush completing "his service requirements" when cobbbled together into one lame-o innuendo as they are do, indeed for a non sequitur of logic. And if you can't figure ought why by now, well?. I suggest you offer your newer anit-Bush screeds for review on this talk page here 1st so they can be toned down - that's if you don't want to be reverted on them. And playing "swap the allegation" by trying to plop this, that or the other allegation in there until I miss one, ain't gonna fly either. The anti-Bush editors here started this by the building up the outrageous slander of "awol" over a very large section of text. If I debunk some of it, it's not wrong to do so, provided what I say is accurate. I see no complaints from you about the accuracy of my edits now, do I? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term AWOL is used by opponents of GWB as a short hand for the allegations that they are making, not as a technical accusation. The real accusation in more nuanced, that GWB got into the National Guard because of his father's status and pull and that after he was in he didn't fulfill his obligations but wasn't disciplined because of his father's status and pull. As part of his alleged failure to fulfill his obligations, it is claimed that he failed to respond to orders to have a medical check up to keep his flight status and that he didn't show up for duty for about a year. As you can see, this accusation doesn't fit neatly in a headline, so to make it punchier, he accusers use AWOL. I think that this article is well served by having a paragraph critically examining this use of the term AWOL, but the User:Rex071404's dismissal of the accusation doesn't cut it for me. Edwinstearns 16:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edwinstearns, I categorically reject your patently false suggestion that the DNC, et al have not actually accused Bush of being "awol" per se. They have indeed accused him of precisely that. Regardless of the unfounded speculations about usage which you offer here, the charge has indeed been laid and an NPOV article demands that Bush's perspective be allowed in to rebut. As did Alistair above, you have failed to address the truthfulness or the accuracy of the Bush perspective items I added. Unless and until you do, I am defending the edits in that section. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it truly is slander, why have both a $10,000 and $50,000 prize gone unanswered? --kizzle 17:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Simple: The so-called "reward" - which is nothing more than partisan grandstanding, sets an impossible-to-meet standard - that being "prove" the partisan accuser's satisfaction, something which is already readily evident to an unbiased observer. Harping about this "reward" is nothing more than anti-Bush POV grandstanding. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you're right. the very fact that he was honorably discharged without a doubt proves that he wasn't AWOL. there you go, Rex, submit that for the $50,000 prize, I know you could use the money. if he did serve, where is the paper trail? --kizzle 17:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

by the the power invested in me by the Wikipedia gods, I hereby ban for all time the use of the phrase "patently false" "patently wrong" or "patently" anything. just say it's wrong or false.--kizzle 17:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think kizzle's suggestion is manifestly correct. JamesMLane 17:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a patently ridiculous suggestion! john k 18:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

only took an hour for that one :) --kizzle 19:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

latest edit

This large-scale rewrite of this article is unwarranted. I smell POV but frankly i need to calm down before I respond to this edit. --kizzle 19:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are being entirely too kind. Those edits were complete nonsense. How is the CONTENT of the 'Killian memos' POV? Rex yanked, "This memo also indicates that Killian requested a flight inquiry board be held, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status.". The memo in question includes the words, "I conveyed my verbal orders to commander, 147th Ftr-Intercep Gp with request for orders for suspension and convening of a flight review board IAW AFM 35-13." There is no 'POV' here... simple fact, but it somehow offends Rex so hey... he just yanks it. And lots of other perfectly valid and unbiased stuff. For instance, I corrected a passage that >I< wrote in the first place to say that 'Defenders of Bush' make a claim which I had at first incorrectly attributed to Bush himself... why the heck was THAT put back to the wrong text. What do we have to do to keep this guy from continually trashing the page for no apparent reason?CBDunkerson 22:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The so-called "memos" are utter frauds and you know it. They don't "indicate" anything. At best, they "purport to indicate". If you want to refer to them as "so-called memos which purport to indicate, but have been utterly discredited as cheap forgeries", perhaps that would be ok. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So good to see that you have such a firm grasp of 'Neutral Point of View'. Sorry, I'm done with this. You obviously have NO interest in even ATTEMPTING to be non-partisan. There is no point 'discussing' with someone so determined to simply trash the article. CBDunkerson 11:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Restoration of edits

In keeping with my expectation that editors who are dissatisfied with recent my edits to the "awol" section ought to acknowledge and answer the above dialog regarding that, I have again reverted the unjustified deletions of that text. I ask that the editors take note of the intentionally mocking tone of Gamaliel's most recent dialog-avoidance-edit here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've posted a number of serious problems with the POV material you are repeatedly inserting into the article without any dialogue or discussion. You have not commented on or addressed these problems, nor have you even acknowledged that they have been identified. And you claim others are avoiding dialogue? What color is the sky on your planet? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to Gamaliel if he persists in making insults and mocking statements. Gamaliel; if indeed you have concerns with certain of my edits, please list the (3) most important ones immediately below this comment. I will address them STAT or as soon as reasonably possible. Also, as stated above, I did not create the problems with that section. Rather, others who went so far as to compare Bush to the DC Sniper did. Here again, is my position as previously stated on this page: "If it hadn't been so out of whack to begin with, I would not have had to edit it. Now we must go forward, not back. Any reverts made against those edits of mine regarding the introductory "awol" paragraphs, which tend to restore the prior problematic versions, will, if not discussed here 1st, be reverted by me."

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you are persisting in the bizarre fiction that no one has engaged you in any dialogue about these edits or presented any problems with them yet. You are perfectly capable of scrolling up yourself to see the original comments I made pointing out these problems. But in case you want to claim carpal tunnel or persist in your delusion that no one attempted any dialogue with you, I will reprint my comments here. Set the wayback machine for twelve whole hours ago, Sherman! [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your edits solved the problem of an alleged anti-Bush bias by inserting a pro-Bush bias defending him and characterizing arguments against him as a "non sequitur". Your painstaking and irrelevant description of "AWOL" falsely assumes that Bush critics are complaining he wasn't living on the base or snuck out for a bender. And your unnecessary text about Terry McWhatshisname serves no other purpose but to beat the reader over the head with the word "Democrat! Democrat!" over and over again. Do you really think you have to remind people that the head of the DNC knows all the "major Democrats"? Until you stop putting this POV stuff in, I will continue to revert. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]]

The complaints cited above were all resolved by the "Edwinstearns" edit earlier today. If you guys would simply leave that one alone, this would settle down. It does not however, appear that Gamaliel and JML, et al are content to let that happen. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I made no edits to the article after Edwinstears did. Try to keep your facts straight. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In other words, it is dependent on whoever disagrees with you to compromise and back down, in order to end conflict? How did you fix those concerns of Gam's, specifically? Lyellin 00:09, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rex, to take only the most obvious and ready-to-hand refutation of your comment, the complaint cited most immediately above your comment (and which, although not time-stamped, was there for more than three hours before your comment) is Gamaliel's very valid point about the Terry McAuliffe passage. The version you are now touting includes the complained-of passage. Therefore, your assertion that the complaints "were all resolved" by that edit is totally false. One might even go out on a limb and call your assertion "patently false". JamesMLane 00:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JML, as you know, you are conducting a vendetta against me personally and have recently stated that it's your goal to have me "hard banned" from this Wiki. For that reason, I am ignoring you. Oh and by the way, the comments about Terry "McMuffin" McAuliffe are factual and true and are staying in. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lyellin; you could re-wite this entire article as it is basically nothing but an anti-Bush screed. Absent that, I am pretty sure Gamaliel cannot be satisfied on anything. For example, I recently started a page called Eights and aces. Gamaliel quickly redirected it [24] to List of slang names for poker hands and then, when there was an obvious typo of "eight" instead of the plural "eights", kept deleting the text which referred to it - even though, by having done the redirect himself, he was fully aware of the correct spelling. Frankly, with that kind of disingenuousness embedded in his methods, I am convinced that there is no use dealing with Gamaliel at all. As best as possible, unless he is utterly explicit and detailed, I am planning to ignore him. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with my redirect? Dead man's hand redirects to List of slang names for poker hands, as does probably everything else on that list. I'm just following what others have done, take it up with them. And my edits were all explained in the relevant edit summaries. If you have a problem with that article, take it up in that article's talk page, don't complain in a totally unrelated article and waste everyone's time. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'purportedly' with regard to CBS naming their source

JML, I think what Rex is trying to do is leave room for the possibility that CBS generated the documents themselves. Though they would be absolutely foolish to do so, we cannot discount the possibility, as it would not be the first time they have embelished information to further the story. (See 60 Minutes) -Joseph (Talk) 02:36, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

That's an extraordinarily far-fetched speculation, but assuming arguendo that it's true -- it would also still be true that CBS hasn't named its source (even if its source is Hildegarde downstairs in the Word Processing department). Still, if you think we need to cater to wackiest of Freepers, what if we said: "CBS News has not disclosed how it came by the most controversial documents, which are allegedly from the personal files of the late Jerry Killian." JamesMLane 02:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Like I said, though it sounds crazy, CBS has done it before. -Joseph (Talk) 02:48, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Embellishing a story is one thing. That's sort of like the SBVT lawyer talking on the phone with some Vietnam veterans and then writing up an affidavit that omits everything pro-Kerry that they said, thus conveying a dishonest picture of their opinions. (This, of course, happened.) For even a bunch of smear artists like SBVT to outright fabricate documents would surprise me, as it would if CBS News did it. If the Killian memo incident turns out to be like the Customs Service one recounted in the 60 Minutes article, then CBS received documents from an outside forger and was taken in. In that event, the statement that CBS received them from an unnamed source would be true, with no "purportedly" necessary. Nevertheless, I'll make this change, though I consider it unnecessary, because the version I suggested is also accurate. JamesMLane 03:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually wasn't referring to the Customs Service incident. I was referring to the Audi 5000 incident. In principle, faking a defect is the same as forging documents, is it not? -Joseph (Talk) 03:16, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Our 60 Minutes article is unclear on exactly what happened, and if I had lots of free time (which, at least until the election, I apparently won't), I'd try to do the research to clarify. If CBS had reliable reports that, say, 1 in 100 Audis had a particular problem, they'd be entitled to go with a report even if they buy a couple Audis and find no defect. Even the CBS budget might be strained by buying 100 Audis and trying to get them to blow up, a procedure that would still have better than a one-third chance of finding no defect. So one way to handle it is to air the story based on the other evidence, and stage a demonstration to show the viewer what kind of incident has occurred, since none of the actual incidents were thoughtful enough to occur on camera. Of course, that runs a big risk of conveying the false impression that it's a test done by CBS, if the advisory that it's a demonstration is omitted. That's still different from an affirmative misrepresentation to the effect that this was a test. It might be interesting to get into these details but I'm being realistic and not even putting it on my to-do list. JamesMLane 03:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, CBS never made a disclaimer that the tests were simulated "for effect." Dateline NBC was convicted in court for doing substantially the same thing (planting incendiary devices on the fuel tanks of GM trucks), and had to pony up. Volkswagen-Audi probably felt they'd lost the PR battle and just gave up on it once they had been vindicated by the government agencies. Anyhow, the thing is, they never bothered to thoroughly investigate the claims, and took the people involved on faith. And as it turns out, those people were wrong. The 60 Minutes article doesn't go into great detail because I want to obtain newspaper coverage from the day to use as the basis for that item, but I am not at that point yet. There is a link, and Google will find many references. Car magazines write about it all the time, so there is plenty of detail about the incident. -Joseph (Talk) 03:44, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

OK, I don't own a car so I'm not up on what's in car magazines. If I had the time, I'd actually rather draft a reference to the way CBS News and all the other corporate media compliantly and uncriticially transmitted false statements about WMDs. Perhaps we can agree that major news organizations should be more diligent in trying to assess the accuracy of what they're told, rather than just passing it on -- even if we might disagree about which specific incidents best prove the point. Fortunately, people confused or deceived by other media can always come to Wikipedia.  :) JamesMLane 03:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"how it came by" would still imply that CBS did not create them or was not involved in the creation of them. As far as I am concerned, regarding those "memos", I am going to put "purported" in wherever it fits regardless of JML. In my view, JML is operating in bad faith - aiming at a "hard ban" of me as an editor. For this reason, his arguments hold no water and are currently being ignored by me. Also, I am really getting tired of his vile insults, re; "wackiest of Freepers". I happen to greatly enjoy "FreeRepublic.com" and frankly, in my view, JML would be laughed off that site. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New evidence has surfaced about the provenance of the documents -- good chance they were sent to CBS by Bill Burkett, an ex-TANG guy who despises Bush. That leaves open the question whether he sent CBS legitimate documents, or total frauds, or, as the unit's former secretary thinks, documents that he created based on legitimate documents, but which he altered somewhat from the real ones in the hope of avoiding detection. Perhaps he'll do us all a favor and confirm that he's the source. Until then, suppose we try: "CBS News has made no public comment about the chain of custody of the most controversial documents, which allegedly originated from the personal files of the late Jerry Killian." If the correct statement of the facts is "We created this document," then that's the chain of custody, and CBS hasn't said that, so I think this wording leaves open the possibility that the chain had only one link. As for the Freepers, I thought that my comment implied that some of them were not wacky. Inasmuch as Rex takes offense at my remark, however, I hereby withdraw it. I'll go further and admit that I haven't done comprehensive psychological testing on any Freeper so as to give me strong evidence for saying that he or she is not wacky. Therefore, my implication was unsupported, and I apologize. JamesMLane 04:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is Rex saying that it is POV for an article to very vaguely suggest that something for which there is absolutely no evidence, which doesn't even make sense on its face, is not true? I think James's original suggestion was bending over backwards to complete nonsense. This is ridiculous. john k 04:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If anyone here agrees with JML's edits...

Please post your support for them here and I will discuss them with you. This offer does not extend to JML himself as he has proclaimed agenda of trying to make trouble for me and for that reason, unless and until he desists from that, I am ignoring him. However, I do not want to stand in the way of progess and for that reason I make this dialog offer to the others. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My problem right now is simple. There is no documentation for Bush's service during the period May 1972 to October 1973. That fact (and it is a FACT) should be allowed to stand alone. It should not be interpreted by editors here, it should just be listed. After that you can add the fact that Dan Bartlett defends the absence by saying that Bush received an honorable discharge. But that should just be listed as "A FACT", not integrated into a long pro-Bush screed by you. These two facts should be separate though, because one does not disprove the other, but by sandwiching them together in one paragraph with your long pro-Bush screed you make it seem like one negates the other.

BTW You don't get to decide who edits here. You don't get to decide who can enter the discussion. We are all a part of this and you can't just decide to ignore one of the editors. AlistairMcMillan 04:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire. If one of the editors has an avowed goal of causing me trouble on a personal basis as JML has stated that he does, it makes perfectly good sense for me to ignore him wherever possible. As for your "fact", please copy the current version below and also show a 2nd version with your edits, then we can see if we can agree. I'd like to reach consensus with you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Despite personal bias or differences, you are not allowed to exclude members from reasonable discussion. period. --kizzle 05:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not excluding anyone. Rather, I am making it clear to the group why I have a self-preservation interest in disengaging from JML. If he comments to me, most likely I will not reply. The notice by me was for the benefit of the others. JML is free to comment or not. Likewise, I am free to reply to him or not. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you egomaniacs stop editing each others text and conduct this here rather than the article? -Joseph (Talk) 06:07, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I have asked The Epopt to place a {{protect}} tag on the article until the people in the dispute can sort things out. -Joseph (Talk) 14:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Wikipedia as comédie noir

I always knew that there had to be some advantage to being an old fart like me. I come from a political family (Democratic/socialist), I've lived through Watergate, I've lived through Vietnam (LBJ's efforts notwithstanding), I lived through Jimmy Carter without committing suicide (my wife described his Presidency as being like living in Communist Bulgaria--"it's cold, and it's dark, and you can't get out"), hell, I even lived through the Army-McCarthy hearings.

I explained in detail, from first hand knowledge, why the documents couldn't have been genuine, but, of course, Cecropia was just another voice, and my opinion wasn't even in a Google search, and by modern standards, is therefore trash. Now the whole house of cards is falling apart and we're still arguing here over nuances of whether or not there might be a grain of truth in this or that or the other. We're soooooo NPOV. I am reminded of all the arguments I heard explaining that if Rosemary Woods leaned over in a certain way to answer the telephone, while stretching with her foot in the opposite direction, she may well have accidentally erased Nixon's 18-1/2 minutes of tape in three separate chunks. As to CBS, I am reminded more darkly of Joseph McCarthy waving a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of "205 known communists currently working in the State Department," without submitting the purported list or even supplying any names.

Guys and gals, history in spitting in our faces. We see a major network and a respected anchor involved in a federal criminal matter, the forging of government documents in an attempt to corruptly influence an election and bring down a President. Help me out, but I can't think of an equivalent scandal in the U.S. Watergate was just a break-in to try to get (actual, not forged) dirt on Democratic chairman Larry O'Brian, but it was enough to bring Nixon down. People are going to be talking about the CBS and the memos long after Bush's service is forgotten (like the day after election day).

Yeah, I doubt CBS forged them, but they were a little too willing to believe them. They yielded to the oldest temptation in journalism--the scoop that was too big to check thoroughly. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the "magazine" form of television news--where innuendo and selective investigation is used to make points that would never stand up in the most corrupt courtroom. My hope that Wikipedia will ever be a source that can be quoted for political history has gone down yet another few notches -- Cecropia | Talk 07:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CBS did check the story thoroughly. That checking confirmed it. Everyone they talked to agreed that those memos reflect Jerry Killian's beliefs at the time. When it comes right down to it the only thing the memos really tell us is whether the favoritism Bush demonstrably DID receive came from Jerry Killian himself or someone 'higher up' as suggested by the memos. If the memos are correct (whether forged or not) then Killian tried to do his job... he ordered Bush to take the physical as he was supposed to. He requested a flight inquiry board as he was supposed to. And it must have been someone else who cancelled the flight inquiry board (or somehow removed all record of it). If the memos are NOT correct then maybe it was Killian himself who was covering for Bush. But the essential story is irrefutable... there should have been an inquiry into Bush's loss of flight status. It was required by regulations. Yet there is not record of it. Favoritism is an obvious conclusion. Ditto for how he got jumped to the top of the list for entrance into the Guard with a 25 score on the aptitude test. Ditto for how he got an honorable discharge without completing his required service the last two years. All confirmed by witnesses and Bush's own records and payroll documents. Were Bush anyone but a Republican politician there wouldn't even be a question... he got into the Guard that quick? Obviously it was family connections. Nobody would doubt it for a second. Only willfull blindness allows some to continue to ignore the obvious and seize on any excuse ('hey, these largely irrelevant memos might be forged!') to look away. CBDunkerson 11:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I love it when people use irony and sarcasm in humor! OH, wait, you were serious! As I've said before, my main concern here is CBS. The "checking" they did has been shot full of holes, and even Rather said the documents we suspect. That lone admission means they basically stepped over the line in the beginning. Now, their story has shifted to The Greater Truth^TM. If that's not irresponsible journalism, I don't know what is. -Joseph (Talk) 11:33, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

CBD, if the case was so strong CBS didn't need to use the documents. But people put great trust in documents and great trust in mainstream news. Before people were saying "it's obvious Bush didn't serve properly," post-documents, they were saying 'Here's proof Bush didn't serve properly. and lied, and refused a direct order, and so on, and so on. Second, you are begging the question that Bush's reserve obligation is actually important in this election in any capacity other than political argumentation. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, are you really saying it's a huge story if, say, Bill Burkett typed up some documents based on his remembrance of documents he had seen at some point, and then passed them off to CBS (something along these lines would appear the most likely scenario at this point)? Yes, he's a forger then, but I don't see how this is a Watergate sized crime. For this to be Watergate, there has to be, you know, some connection to the Kerry campaign. Which there isn't as yet. At this point, I'm going to tentatively agree that CBS seems to have seriously fucked up. But beyond that, what does this really mean? Let's remember that Watergate actually involved Nixon's people. We have no evidence to suggest that Kerry had anything to do with this. Furthermore, the whole thing of Watergate was that it was the cover-up which brought Nixon down, not the burglary itself. At any rate, comparing this to Watergate is outrageously premature at this point. Again, I think it would be best if we all (including me) calm down, and wait for this to play itself out. john k 15:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a huge story if someone types up their remembrance (begging the question that's what really happened), tries to make it look like official documents, running through a copy machine a couple dozen times to look old, and appends a signature or two. "Gee officer, I'm not a counterfeiter, I was just short of cash and copied a few 20 dollar bills in my color copier to take advantage of the sale at Starbucks. I used my own paper and ink, so what's the problem?" -- Cecropia | Talk 17:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To address John Kenney's point of "Nixon's people did Watergate." This isn't about John Kerry or his people unless there is shown to be a connection. Nowhere have I argued that. This is about a serious crime committed to influence an election. And about a major news organization facilitating the crime and then stonewalling when their (at the very least) sloppy methods are revealed. It's ironic--news people are always pontificating: "this politician should have come clean as soon the damaging story was aired" (after all, this is what a lot of the GWB Guard story is supposedly about) and then when they're caught in a criminal web, they say "we stand by our story" and "we're being picked on by partisans [like the Washington Post?]" -- Cecropia | Talk 18:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying that's not forgery at all. Of course it's forgery. And if that's what happened, of course this person should be punished. But that has nothing to do with whether it's a huge story. Some dude with an axe to grind forging some documents and fobbing them off on a credulous TV network (again, assuming that this is what happened) is nothing like Watergate, and is not a particularly huge scandal. It makes CBS look bad, but not much more than that. john k 18:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, so you say. I believe you are wrong, and we shall see. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

JohnK, I suggest you go read Operation Tailwind. The effect on CNN's market share was disastrous. -Joseph (Talk) 18:07, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

What I'm saying is: Who cares about CBS? CBS is not President Richard Nixon. A scandal that takes down CBS in the same way that Richard Nixon was taken down by Watergate (and this is intensely unlikely to be as bad for CBS as Watergate was for Nixon), would still not be as big a scandal as Watergate, because a scandal taking down the president is inherently a much, much, much bigger deal than one taking down a news network. And CBS having a story about some memos that turn out to be forged, and then taking longer than they should to admit it, is nothing like Watergate at all, so even if we equate CBS with Richard Nixon in importance, it still isn't going to be as big as Watergate. To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what Cecropia is getting at. I assume there's some implicit assumption that Kerry is behind the forgeries. 160.39.213.242 19:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) [For the record, this was me. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in. john k 06:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

If you want to know what my motives are, ask me. If you don't believe my answer, call me a liar. My intent is not an implicit assumption that Kerry is behind the forgeries. If somehow someone in his campaign is behind the forgeries (which I doubt--it's too dangerous a game) that will come out in due time.

The scandal is not about taking down CBS, per se. Can't you understand that there is bias in the media? I bet you could understand it if I said "Fox News." With all due respect to the late Mr. Nixon, we expect our politicians to lie to a certain extent. We also expect our politicians to "spin" factual material in fairly outrageous ways. But when we listen to our news outlets, we expect we are being told something true--when they say "this is the story and here is a document to prove it"--we expect a real document. These memos had all the earmarks of "a smoking gun" against Bush. They could have decied the election. On a forgery. On forgeries that constitute serious federal felonies. Dan Rather has acknowledged his political leanings, and but has always asserted that he would never lie on that basis. Now CBS put these forgeries on the air and then stonewalled when reasonable doubts were waived. Wait until after the election and see which story enters political history--Bush's guard record, or CBS corruption. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. In essence, Watergate and this episode have one very important similarity: Both involved attempting to influence the result of a national election through illegal means. Breaking into an apartment is illegal, as is forging military/government documents. What's more, the continual stonewalling by CBS is actually rather disconcerting. Their credibility is destroyed, and they won't risk it all over Dan Rather, so what are they hiding? Impi 14:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In terms of media bias, I really don't buy the whole "liberal media bias" for the most part. CBS got fooled, pure and simple (most likely). I can't even begin to understand what's going on at this point - it is pretty clear that CBS doesn't have any kind of smoking gun that it can pull out to vindicate the story, but beyond that, I'm not sure why they're sticking with it - whether they continue to believe, for whatever reason, that the documents are real (which could, I imagine, be based on information as to the provenance of the memos that they have but cannot reveal in order to avoid revealing their source), or they might just have no fucking clue what they're doing, and are falling apart at the seams. Who knows? I agree that it's disconcerting, and I think it's well past time they explained more fully what the hell is going on. While Rather's certainly been tough talking of late, though, and this story seems to have been a blunder, to go from there to systematic media bias in favor of liberals is ludicrous. The media is, for the most part, biased in favor of being stupid and lazy. Which is why they'll often repeat without question whatever spin is being shouted loudest by partisan operatives. Most often, this spin is coming from Republicans. Beyond this, you've got the fact that years of being accused by conservatives of being biased against them has convinced the media that it is true, and has caused them to bend over backwards for Republicans. At any rate, CBS being snookered in this case only says that they are incompetent. One explanation for that incompetence may be a blindness due to partisan preference, I suppose. But the idea that you can just assume this based on years of whining about how the media is biased in favor of liberals is ridiculous. If this is the explanation for media incompetence, what about Judith Miller's turned-out-to-be-false reporting on WMDs in Iraq? or all the anti-Clinton reporting for eight years?...and so forth. The idea that the mainstream media is somehow equivalent to Fox is just laughable. Fox is what it is - a partisan operation, which presents what is essentially the official news of the Republican Party. There may be some exceptions or special conditions to this, but that's essentially what Fox is, however they may try to deny it. The mainstream media, while most of its members probably end up voting for Democrats, does not see its purpose as to advance the interests of the Democratic Party. For the most part, they seem to see their purpose as to explain what is really going on. I tend to think they do a rather awful job of this, and certainly, CBS in particular loses a lot of credibility out of this affair (most likely - assuming they don't have some ace up their sleeve, which I'll agree does not look very likely), but they're not propaganda outfits, like Fox. But I imagine I won't convince anyone, and this really has very little to do with the purpose of the page. But I shall repeat once again: CBS is not Richard Nixon, and this scandal bears almost no resemblance to Watergate. Unless CBS can be shown to have knowingly used false documents, it's not even a "Watergate for CBS," and I think it's highly unlikely in itself - the response from CBS so far suggests that, until quite recently, they themselves were highly convinced of the authenticity of the memos, and are only gradually realizing that they're in deep shit. But, what do I know? -- unsigned / John Kenney(?)

By complaints about media bias are much more broad than the old "liberal media bias" saw. The press has made themselves a virtual shadow government in some respects, which sometimes attacks liberals, sometimes conservatives, and sometimes deals positively or negatively with any cause whose proponents or opponents can get the ear of a producer or executive. I'm not sure if it was 60 Minutes or one of their competitors who did an incredible piece against the Disabilities Act as it applies to childhood education. They found the "welfare cadillac" of some students who were flown in an "executive jet" across New York State each day to attend school for their particular disability. They showed the plush seats, and told how much the jet cost to run, and they repeated over and over "and the parents pay nothing." This piece was so powerful that my brother (no less) was incensed by this "waste of taxpayers" money (knowing I have an autistic child). He began "maybe I shouldn't bring this up" and I assured him "no, you shouldn't have," because the tale told by this newsmagazine showed a situation rarer than getting struck by lightning. Any parent of a handicapped child has to be prepared for a fight to get the "free and appropriate" education the act calls for. Mind you, "appropriate" does not mean "best," it simply means "appropriate to the disability," so that a child with Down Syndrome, for example, isn't thrown into a class with ADHD kids because it's cheaper. And even so, it's a struggle to get it. Some districts famously will spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to prevent parents from getting services for their children instead of providing the service. We all get handouts of our "rights," and they sound good on paper, but as one advocate said at a seminar, "if your district won't educate your child, move. If you fight them they have too many ways to retaliate."

So you see my complaint of media bias is that some news outlets have set themselves up as arbiters of the way society should be run. It is demogoguery that would make Huey Long drool. No one elected Dan Rather, and there are no term limits other than ratings. They can choose which subjects to cover, how to cover them, which side to come down on, and who to destroy. They are accountable to noone. Fine, this a free press in a free country. But then they go (IMHO) the intolerable step further, seeking shield laws. The present case with Dan Rather may be an issue of attacking Bush, but the case is a classic. They have been working for years to get dirt on this issue. They have decided that this is important and produce the piece just two months before the election. They use forged documents. Now you can say they were careless, they were duped. OK. But then they say "we won't reveal our source," "we won't tell you how we got these." Sorry, that is too much for any entity. We don't allow the Government, we don't allow churches, to be self-contained arbiters of what is right or wrong, free from scrutiny. And this applies to the government as well. I well remember how LBJ manipulated the press during Viet Nam in order to sell his lies about the war. They used "backgrounders" and "deep backgrounders" and the press dutifully reported these as "government officials in a position to know" or "an unnamed State Department source." They told the public constructive lies by not saying who supplied the information, which may have been a bigger story than the information they were feeding us. "Backgrounders," "unnamed sources," "a reliable person," "someone in a position to know," "an official under promise of confidentiality," and Shield Laws are all licenses to lie. I don't see this as being good or bad for Kerry or Bush (unless one or the other mishandles the story), but this might chip away at the tyranny of the "newsmagazine" with its innuendo, raised eyebrows, and arrogance. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is the forgery important (continued)

Because, you see, lies have legs, even after they're shown to be based on forged documents.

BUSH LIED: SAID HE FULFILLED HIS DUTY

Bush, speaking from the Oval Office in 2004: "I'm just telling you, I did my duty." [Meet the Press, 2/8/04]

…BUT HE DISOBEYED A DIRECT ORDER TO TAKE A PHYSICAL AND WAS GROUNDED

"President Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot, according to documents made public yesterday." [Washington Post, 9/9/04]

The colonel [Killian] goes on, the "officer," meaning then-Lieutenant Bush, "has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical." [CBS "60 Minutes," 9/9/04]

…BUT HE TRIED TO GO OVER HIS COMMANDER'S HEAD TO GET A POSITIVE EVALUATION

In August 1972, Bush's superior officer Lt. Col. Jerry Killian notes in a memo that Bush had gone over his head and was "talking to someone upstairs" to avoid service in Alabama. [CBS "60 Minutes," 9/9/04]

Where did I get these from? The DNC website, right now, under the title "BUSH LIED." [25]

And this is also still on the site:

"George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling.

"Tonight's CBS New report made clear that President Bush has misrepresented the nature of his National Guard service for decades to the American people. And now that questions are being raised, only Bush can settle this once and for all by answering the unanswered questions about his Guard service.

"CBS News exclusively obtained documents that flatly contradict two of Bush's often repeated claims about his time in the National Guard - that he received no special treatment and that he fulfilled his duty.

"According to these new military documents, political pressure was applied and strings were pulled for President Bush at every step of the process: to get in the Guard, to stay in the Guard, and to exit the Guard.

"These are serious charges. They have not been leveled by his opponent. Or by a political party. Or by an outside group. They are based on documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander.

"George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated'?" [26] -- Cecropia | Talk 19:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Making up memos comes naturally to some

I found this on the DNC website a week ago. At first I though the website might have been hacked. Uner "Headlines" was: "Found: Urgent Memo from Halliburton to Cheney" But when you went to the page, you found a memo to Dick Cheney from "Hal E. Burton."

At least they prefaced it with this disclaimer:

This is Another Fake Memo in a DNC Ploy to Make a Point

Washington, D.C. - On the heels of recent news reports that the Pentagon is restructuring its contract with Halliburton, the Democratic National Committee came into possession of a memo from Halliburton executives to former Halliburton executive and current Vice President Dick Cheney. The DNC was able to procure the memo because they wrote it themselves in the hope of making a point.

Ahhh, Another Fake Memo? But now I can't find it on the DNC site any more though you can still read the lies based on forgeries. Why did the DNC post "cute" crap like this in the first place? And why have they taken down? Maybe because they're afraid people will conclude that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree? But you can still read it in the Google cache. [27] -- Cecropia | Talk 20:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, although interesting, I don't see how this relates to the questuion at hand. Lyellin 20:15, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

The DNC knows why. Why is it no longer on the site while the lies based on the actual forged memos remain? -- Cecropia | Talk 20:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good question. Go ask the DNC. Why are we discussing it here, is what I want to know? Lyellin 20:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as concluding The Onion was responsible. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is called irony. Though the DNC openly posted that the "Hal E. Burton" memo was fake, they chose to take down apparently because it's a little bit embarassing in the light of the "Killian" memos. If they can have their webmaster remove that, maybe they could post disclaimers to their headlines repeating forgeries. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... guys... I think you're missing the point - the information contained in the memos is accurate. We have testimony from the person who typed the original memos. That's why the memos are still up. They are simulations of memos that were probably destroyed, and contain accurate information that is valuable to the public. Kevin Baas | talk 01:17, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

We do not have "testimony." We have an old lady telling Dan Rather what he wants to hear. Put her under oath, confront her with others who have different recollections and let's also get the person who forged the memos on the stand to tell us how he came by the supposed "original" memos and why he had to redo them, and we can start talking about "testimony." -- Cecropia | Talk 01:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We have a person giving an honest answer to a question, as people are generally inclined to do. I'd be happy to hear her testify under oath. I am confident that she will give an honest answer. Kevin Baas | talk 01:37, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

You were also certain that the memos were genuine. But I'm touched by your faith in sweet old ladies. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On matters that don't involve criticizing George W. Bush, Wikipedia doesn't have a standard of reporting only statements that are made under oath. Applying our normal rules, we wouldn't flatly assert as fact everything that Knox says. We wouldn't ignore it, either, though. We'd report the statement and attribute it to her. If the reader wants to disbelieve it because it's from a "little old lady", so be it -- although I would resist including a report of her height. It seems the simplest approach would be to report what she says without reference to the memos, because she doesn't think the memos are genuine. Her disparagement of the authenticity of the documents belongs in Killian memos, of course. JamesMLane 03:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to what the lady said, I'm objecting to the characterization of her statement as "testimony." Just as with the Winter Soldier affair, people talking is not testimony, even if they assert it is the truth, unless they are placed under oath. I agree we should mention it, but it would better be characterized as a "statement," or "she said," or "she told CBS," other something similar.

You know, if you've ever been in law enforcement or journalism (or maybe even if you haven't) your ears perk up when you hear certain things: the person who says that his wife was killed by the "bushy haired intruder;" the suspect who can tell you every detail of where he was at a given time but can't tell you why we was there; and "the letter from the grave." We have here the latter, a custom-made (literally) series of "memos" telling Bush critics exactly what they want to hear, from a man who conveniently happens to be dead 20 years. A bunch of people who were there 20 years ago and cast doubt or more on the truth of the content of the memos are not so easily shrugged off by one lady.

But the bottom line in the terms of the memos is this. Let's stipulate for this discussion that every charge in the memos is 100% true. They are still intentional forgeries and this will remain a story for a long time. You can't sanitize this fact no matter what. Let me make a comparison. There is a decent possibility that one or two of Kerry's purple hearts were unearned. This is not just right-wing nuts saying this. Nicholas D. Kristof an anti-Bush columnist in The New York Times just answered conservative critics by examining and giving his opinion of Kerry's war service.[28] His findings are that the injuries in Kerry's first and/or third purple heart citations might not have been the result of hostile fire, a requirement even in the liberal standards of Viet Nam. So what? If either purple heart was for a non-hostile injury, Kerry got an eight-month early out from Viet Nam on false pretenses. Do I care? Personally, no. I would have taken the medals and run, if it were me, but then I'm not running for President as a "war hero."

Now, noone is sure that these purple hearts were or weren't earned. But suppose paperwork, dated from the time, were found that showed unequivically that one or both were unearned. And suppose the papers described what happened accurately but were forgeries. Would it matter to you? -- Cecropia | Talk 04:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm used to the way people often use the term "testimony" loosely, so I didn't realize that was your point. I took it as given that her statements shouldn't be characterized as "testimony" in the article. You're right, though, that not everyone would realize the word was inappropriate, so it's a valid point to note. As for Kerry's medals, the criteria are broader than you suggest. Some "friendly fire" injuries do qualify (see Purple Heart#Criteria). The real answer, though, about whether it would matter to me, is that I personally think the "war hero" stuff is an extremely weak reason to vote for Kerry, and the TANG stuff is an even weaker reason to vote against Bush. I can't imagine any information about either situation that would seriously influence my vote. JamesMLane 04:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IMHO Kerry has handled the Viet Nam issue very badly. The point of his running as a vet was, frankly, to show that he wasn't a Massachusetts wimp (like Dukakis) or a Democrat=Shirker guy (like Clinton). But he made it a centerpiece of his campaign, which I think was a big mistake, because when you run not as a War Veteran, but as a War Hero, it opens the door for people to ask, "well, what made you a HERO"? And it sharpens what he did after the war—that is what I was referring to when I said, some months ago, that there [was then] still a lot to come out about Kerry. I didn't know it would be from the Swiftvets, but I knew it would come. You can't say "I'm a war hero, and I want you look at this and this and this, but don't you dare look at that, and that and that."

Maybe because he went straight from Navy->VVAW->Politics, but somewhere along the way Kerry didn't learn rule one of being a Veteran. Even vets from a popular war like WWII learn that (except maybe at the American Legion or VFW hall) there is a low threshold of tolerence for hearing about your service. And for Viet Nam Vets this is true, in spades. Because where the WWII vet begins to run into a wall of boredom or discomfort, the Viet Vet meets resentment and even outright hostility. It's late in the game, but will Kerry discover that most every reference in his campaign seems to come down to Viet Nam? "I can be commander-in-chief because I'm a Viet Nam Vet." "I served my country in Viet Nam, Bush didn't." "This is my 'Band of Brothers' [a play to get WWII vet sympathy as well]. And now, in attacking Bush's guard service, the Democrats are calling him "Fortunate Son"--another Viet Nam war reference. Doesn't anyone realize how much of the electorate barely remembers, or doesn't remember, Viet Nam? It reminds of a cartoon that ran about 1990 or so in (IIRC) the New Yorker. A guy is hanging around the house with long hair, a headband and hippie beads and his wife says to him: "The 60s are over, Harold. The 70s are over. For God's sake, even the 80s are over. Give it a rest." Well now the 90s are over, too, but Kerry "keeps on keeping on." -- Cecropia | Talk 05:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

72 pilot troubles

So far, several editors (by my count at least four) have edited in and accepted this new section of text approximately as it is now - which includes a link to Killian for clarity. It appears that only Gamaliel is bent on expurgating the link from that section. I call on him to leave that link alone as there is already consensus for it. Or at minimum, explain himself here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not party to that particular argument. I was only interested in making the links to the aircraft themselves accurate, and cleaning up grammar/etc. -Joseph (Talk) 20:32, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

I agree with the explanation Gamaliel gave in his edit summary: "Killian memos discussed elsewhere in article, irrelevant to this section". Killian is mentioned at a few different points. There's no reason why each reference to him should be accompanied by a sentence about a controversy that broke out years after his death. It's covered once and given its own section. Saying that every mention of Killian must link to Killian memos would be like saying that every mention of Bush must link to Yellowcake Forgery. JamesMLane 22:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I stand by my edit summary. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My most recent edit links Killian's name, so that anyone seeking further clarity can reference who he is... is that ok with everyone now? --kizzle 22:19, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Taking off NPOV tag, I think things have settled down somewhat, if someone objects put it back up don't bite my head off. --kizzle 18:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

PULL addition

What's the significance of the PULL addition supposed to be? --Impi 16:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AWOL and deserter

I removed this:

It provoked a fury during the pre-election time in 2004 when Michael Moore called a TV discussion between Wesley Clark and President Bush a talk between "the General vs. the Deserter"[29]. In the US military services, a deserter is somebody who is AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave) for more than 30 days; see the Wikipedia entry on Deserter. Clearly Bush's non-presence from May 5th to October 27th in 1972 spans more than 30 calendar days, but not 30 service days (assuming one had to serve a weekend per month).

Some people critical of Bush's service records maintain their position that Bush was a deserter, not only an Absentee Without Official Leave. The Uniform Code of Military Justice[30] states that one difference between AWOL and deserter status is that a deserter has the "intent to remain away therefrom [from the unit, organization or place of duty] permanently", while the AWOL just "fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed or remains absent from it". It may be that the intention of staying away from millitary service is assumed from the time spent absent without leave.

In war times, deserters often face the death penalty.

The anon poster seems to have put this up in good faith, but it is entirely too flawed to stand.

1. Michael Moore is a known partisan who naturally puts things in the most aggressively negative light in regard to Bush. Therefor a citation to him is of no value in making a substantive charge.
2. The poster commented: "I'm not a legal expert, but just wanted to add this." I won't characterize myself as an "expert," but I taught Military Law (and other subjects) as a U.S. military instructor during 1968 and 1969 and am well aware of the standards of AWOL (Absent Without Leave, not Away W/O Official Leave) and Desertion.
3. In order to be AWOL and for the 30-day meter to start running, the person has to be recognized as AWOL and so classified on the unit's Morning Report. If the person is still away, on the day after the 30th day the person is dropped from the unit rolls as a Deserter, and this too is noted on the Morning Report. Neither of these events have ever been alleged to have happened to Bush, so he is legally neither AWOL nor potentially a Deserter.
4. The 30 days is a technical qualification, so that a unit is not required to keep deadwood on the rolls, but can replace the missing soldier. Being AWOL more than 30 days is a factor in a presumption of desertion, but is not proof. If a soldier voluntarily returns any time after being dropped as a deserter, it is almost impossible to convict him for more than AWOL.
5. The anon wrote: "It may be that the intention of staying away from millitary service is assumed from the time spent absent without leave." Not so, as I demonstrated above. And a deserter must be convicted at a Court-Martial with standard rules of procedure and evidence.
6. In war time a deserter can (not often) face the death penalty. (1) Vietnam was not "war time." This is why veterans of that era got the NDSM, a Cold War era service medal, not a Vietnam War service medal. (2) The death penalty for simple desertion in the US Army in war time is exceedingly rare. Exactly one soldier (Eddie Slovak, IIRC) got the death penalty during World War II. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External links

Dropped this link:

• "Who is Ben Barnes? A Deep-Pocketed Kerry Partisan Who Can't Keep His Stories Straight" GOP.com

As it no longer points to that article. Ellsworth 19:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fiscal year

Whomever wrote this part of the article:

The second problem is more serious. The '50 point' standard is used to determine whether or not a particular service year (as noted above, May 27th through the following May 26th) is counted as a "good year" for military retirement benefits. The more appropriate measure of whether Bush met his obligations is the attendance requirements, which, for the National Guard, are on a fiscal year (July 1st through the following June 30th).

The military's fiscal year starts Oct 1 and runs through Oct 30th.

• [Response - 10/24/2005] The federal fiscal year is NOW October 1 through September 30. However, prior to 1976, it was July 1 to June 30th. (I will edit the article to clarify that the fiscal year during 1972 and 1973 was July 1 to June 30.) John Broughton 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnes' daughter's statement

Regaring the statement, unless there is some offer of relevance or credibility... or even some indication of the nature of her statement. It isn't relevant or credible. I'm removing it.

== Retirement year and service year

The fiscal year issues are meaningless, unless you intend to be a twenty year 'lifer', otherwise, the serviceman's 'service year', is pertinent to the 50 point standard. CorvetteZ51

actually, it is the "retirement year" that is meaningless in terms of Bush's service -- and the "fiscal year" that is critical in determining whether Bush met his obligations to the US Military. That is because, under federal law, Bush was required to train and meet training standards, and that training and those standards used the "fiscal year" to determine compliance with the relevant federal laws.

paul lukasiak

The article does make the argument that Bush wasn't a lifer so the 50 point standard (which is a retirement year standard) isn't particularly important. In fact, I just made minor changes to two sentences to make this argument even clearer. But since the numbers put out by the White House (via LTC Lloyd) were calculated based on retirement years, they can't be left out of the article, even they are meaningless. John Broughton 18:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead Sentence

I object to this as the lead:

I feel that this is not an "ongoing controversy" and this ought to be re-written. I propose:

Any comments?

Merecat 05:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Merecat - Thanks for bringing this to the talk/discussion page. Your suggestion to change the first sentence is a good one. You've also incorporated part of the second sentence into your proposed wording, so I think the two sentences should be considered together. May I suggest:

I left the second sentence mostly as is, just striking "mass media".

Also, I'd welcome copyediting of the third sentence, which reads awkwardly, I think. John Broughton 18:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bluegoose has deleted most of the initial section. I'm going to replace what was deleted, except for changing the first two sentences as described above. John Broughton 16:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

hhhhmmmm.. I smell anti-Bush POV. "The George W. Bush military service controversy involves"....? There is no current or ongoing controversy so it no longer "involves" anything. While it may have "involved", it certainly no longer "involves". Personally, I think the other editor's word choice of "concerns" is more NPOV than the word "involves". But, hey, what do I know, I'm just a smelly hobo using the library's computer to look up photos of Camryn Manheim's nose...

With all due respect, the subject is STILL quite controversial. (Try this - ask someone with strong feelings about Bush whether (a) the attacks were just a smear campaign, or (b) it was disgraceful that Bush got away with what he did.)

I think the reason that this is no longer "ongoing" is because people have (generally) stopped researching and writing about the matter. (Bush is a lame duck, after all, and no reasonable person argued that Bush should be impeached because of what he did in his 20s.) But what Bush did or did not do, and why, is not in any way a settled/agreed matter; it's still a controversy.

In the spirit of making the article as NPOV as possible, I've changed "involves" to "concerns" in the first sentence, as suggested. John Broughton 17:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

I rewrote the opening paragraphs to meet several aims. First is a matter of Wikipedia style. The opening paragraph is supposed to be short and succinct. Second is to present what the controversy actually involves and then to describe what made it politically significant when it was raised.

As it was the article dove directly into the charges about Bush's service, assuming that everyone reading it knew why it was controversial and the context in which the controversy arose. This violates one of the most fundamental principles of journalism, that you assume that the reader has no pre-knowledge of the subject.

The opening was also more than a little POV necause it assumed that the controversy was important, yet didn't give the background that demonstrated the political uses of the controvery and why it became significant in the electoral process. I'm reading the changes over for a few language and clarity tweaks. -- Cecropia 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail at the new language, but am okay with the concept. One change I do really feel should be made (feedback welcome) is to merge the text in the "Nature of the controversy" section back into the very top of the article. I think it's much better ABOVE the table of contents, and since the top and the first section are both very short, nothing is lost by deleting the section title. John Broughton 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but wikipedia style is to have as little above the TOC as possible. I don't object to your particular suggestion, though. (Some articles argue 3/4 of the case before they ever get to the TOC) -- Cecropia 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've combined the two sentences, as well as doing some minor editing to them. John Broughton 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"The military service of George W. Bush is a popular target of the media" mmmmm, what?!--205.188.116.10 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Promotion from airman 3rd class to second lieutenant

For the record, the rank of Airman 3rd Class (A3C) was changed to Airman (AMN) in 1967. Gatr 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

132.241.246.111 has attempted twice to add an external link which discusses the fact that George Bush was given a direct commission as a second lieutenant after completing enlisted basic training and nothing more! Bang: He went directly from Airman Third Class, which is the rank of someone just out of basic, to a second lieutenant with a few typewriter keystrokes. Then he went to flight school.

I agree with those who have reverted the link - it not exactly a highly credible source. But the subject of the external - how George Bush became a second lieutenant - isn't even MENTIONED in the wikipedia article (or above, on this page), as far as I can see, nor is there any discussion of this type of promotion being usual or unusual.

Someone want to take a cut at adding a couple of sentences, at minimum, on this? Arguments on why it should or shouldn't be in the article? John Broughton 00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those things that only seems important to someone who has never been in the service (at least the US military). Of course Bush went from A3C to 2LT to be a pilot! In the US Air Force (and in the Army) only officers are pilots and pilots are officers. (Exception: in the Army helicopter pilots were warrant officers, which is an in-between grade ranking). You are not an officer when you are in basic training. So this is why Bush was a A3C, the lowest AF enlisted rank. When he went to flight school, he became a second Looey, which is the lowest officer rank. Duh! -- Cecropia 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This shouldn't be in the article, because it is just an expression of the ignorance (and/or malice) of the poster. It's like saying that Bush was "discharged from the Air Force and became a civilian with a few keystrokes." -- Cecropia 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do think there is something of substance here. Military officers become officers in one of five ways: service academy (e.g., West Point), ROTC, Officer Candidate School, direct commission, or battlefield commission. And, for the last, to quote from Military of the United States: Lawyers, doctors, nurses, veterinarians, and chaplains may be directly commissioned into their respective corps. There also are opportunities in the Reserves and National Guard for those who have significant professional civilian experience in a related field, and time in service. They do, however, go through a brief school for military customs, courtesies and traditions.

While wikipedia is not necessarily the definitive word in these matters, and policy certainly could have changed in the past 30 years, George Bush did NOT have "significant professional civilian experience in a related field" (as, for example, a construction engineer might). So what WAS the cited justification for giving him a direct commission?

In any case, it's worth (I think) at least saying (in a sentence) that this is how George Bush got his commission, at the very minimum. John Broughton 17:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The relevance of the direct appointment is in showing that Bush received special treatment from TXANG, and specifically from Walter Staudt who commanded the 187th FIG at the time. Its important to note that the form used for direct appointment (see http://www.glcq.com/docs/(68-09-04)direct_board.pdf ) includes a large space where the subjects professional qualification are to be discussed. Its nearly blank -- all it says is (paraphrase) 'we think he should get the promotion'. The purpose of the 'direct appointment' process was to provide officer status to those who already had the significant professional qualifications in those specialties to which all who were assigned were officers (i.e. lawyer, doctors, etc.) Given that the sole purpose of the direct appointment was to allow Bush to attend pilot training, Bush's complete lack of pilot experience of any kind, and his abysmal test scores on the key skills needed by a pilot, should have disqualified him from a 'direct appointment.'

The facts on direct commissions.

Sorry to break up the conspiracy theories here, but direct commissions were the standard procedure for all pilot and navigator candidates in the Air National Guard in 1968 and for many years thereafter. If you go into the National Guard archives, you can even see it referred to in the recruiting brochures of that era. Years later when the Air National Guard established a military training facility at Knoxville TN the process was changed.

Controversial Article: Higher standard of sourcing, needs to be NPOV

Clearly, any topic about George W. Bush is going to be controversial, since there are those that loathe him and want to push any negative claim about him into the limelight, and there are those who love him, and would like him declared a hero and any disparaging remarks ignored or removed from all discussion.

As such, this article really needs to be held to a high standard. Basically, any statement, for or against him, really needs to be CITED, and cited inline, so the statements can be immediately verified independantly.

I also note that this article is slanted against Bush, despite the fact that I've been reading other wiki articles that throw these claims into question. Again, more reason for citing sources!

Since almost every statement probably needs to be cited in an article such as this, I would highly reccomend the usage of the WP:FOOTNOTES style of citation.

I have tagged the top of the article with these issues, as well as put a number of citation needed tags in the article. Fieari 23:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states:

If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic.

Could you please make a more specific explanation of why you placed a NPOV tag, per the last phrase in the cited section. Thanks very much, Derex 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I tagged one or two statements. But in general, the purpose of the article seems to be the presentation of disputed facts to draw the reader to a specific conclusion. I know that it isn't an undisputed fact that George W. Bush had a terrible military record, but that's the conclusion that this article suggests be drawn. More dissenting views should be presented, not in a "debate" fashion, but simply for comprehensiveness, because there is a significant portion of the population that disagrees, and that should be represented as such. The article itself, I feel, is close to being a WP:POV fork as it is... Fieari 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's a fair characterization. The facts presented may lead you to a specific conclusion, but that's not a problem unless the phrasing is leading. However, you say they are disputed, which would indeed be a problem. Could you give an example of a disputed fact, which is not characterized as such? I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I don't know what that might be, and a specific would be helpful.

On the other hand I agree with you that a broader discussion of public views would be helpful. It is true that a significant portion of Americans don't think this is an issue, and some polling data might be useful to establish that. I do agree with you that a few items need sourcing, but that's a different issue.

Of course, it's not your obligation to fix the article. But, typically the npov tag is used for a fairly narrowly defined dispute. For a broader, less-specific complaint, you might consider npovcheck with an explanatory note. It does look like the article could use a good polishing though, it was obviously written during the campaign.

By the way, this and the various corresponding Kerry controversy articles were spun off at the suggestion of arbcom. Derex 23:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

More dissenting views should be presented, not in a "debate" fashion, but simply for comprehensiveness, because there is a significant portion of the population that disagrees, and that should be represented as such. It would be helpful if you could cite a wikipedia policy that says that on a controversial subject, a wikipedia article should (roughly) represent (pro-con) the views of the population.

Speaking only for myself, I find it problematical that you talk about the importance of including "views" rather than "facts". If you want to have a small section of this article to discuss what the U.S. population feels about Bush's military service, fine, but to argue that (say) because one-third of the population thinks he had a fine, upstanding military career, then one-third of the article (or, for that matter, ANY percentage) should represent that view, is very strange. John Broughton 01:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "Timeline" section

I changed the sentence "Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, as commander of the Texas Air National Guard" to "Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron (Texas Air National Guard)." Lt Col Killian was certainly not the commander of the Texas Air National Guard, whatever that means. Clearly, many of the contributors to this article have little or no knowledge of military matters in general, and the Air National Guard in particular. Hildenja 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this admittedly minor error. Certainly many, and quite possibly most contributors to the article have had little personal experience in the military. On the other hand, most are fairly intelligent folks who can read and understand news articles and other sources. And certainly a number of contributors, particularly those editing text about technical matters like pay records, have extensive military backgrounds. Hopefully it's the combined knowledge of everyone that is incorporated into the article, not the inadequacies of any particular person or group. John Broughton | Talk 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare this article to other, more mundane subjects. Most Wikipedia contributors probably have extensive knowledge of the subject upon which they write, and are eager to share that knowledge with others. To say, "...most are fairly intelligent folks who can read and understand news articles and other sources," sums up this article quite well. One can tell by reading the discussion page that this article is about bashing the President for political gain. This story was timed to hurt the President a few weeks before the 2004 election.

My own father was in the Air National Guard in the 1960s, and had a position considerably less hazardous than a fighter pilot. I know he missed a few drill weekends here and there. Gee, was he AWOL? Did he serve less honorably than Kerry? I guess the point I'm making is that anybody who is knowledgable about the Air National Guard knows there is no story here. The press and certain Wikipedia contributors seem to be putting a spin on this story to expose dirt that does not exist, taking advantage of the fact that the Air National Guard is unfamiliar to most people. Contributors who get their information from news articles and other sources, who do not understand the complexities of the Air National Guard and how it interacts with the U.S. Air Force, are repeating some of the same mistakes and spin that we hear in the media. Personal experience in the military is not a requirement, but extensive knowledge of the subject matter should be. Hildenja 03:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making sweeping statements such as "there is no story here" and other broad generalizations, if you disagree with portions of this article (for what you may feel are objective, non-partisan reasons), I suggest you discuss your objections on a point-by-point basis, preferably with citations--this article seems to contain reasonably verifiable statements, and appears to be reasonably well-cited (modulo the clearly marked citation needed sections)--if you disagree with any of the sources, and have evidence to the contrary, do speak up. Traumerei 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

timeline image should be delete

timeline image should be delete. violates WP:V#SELF. As this section explains ...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. simonwoodside.com not well-known professional researcher or well-known professional journalist. 72.36.251.234 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes made on suspension date

Changed 3d sentence to: "...As a result, his flight status was suspended by his "cmdr" (commander) on 1 Aug 72, confirmed by then-Col Bobby Hodges on 5 Sep 72 [31] and confirmed again by a National Guard Bureau order on September 29 ..."

This suits the actual facts as provided by the paperwork: George Bush was suspended on August 1st, 1972 by his "cmdr" (Killian) according to the suspension document cited and the confirmation document of then-Col Bobby Hodges (also cited here)

The ARPC document says:...Verbal orders of the cmdr on 1 Aug 1972 suspending 1STLT George W Bush...from flying status are confirmed...." This means that George Bush's commander gave him a suspension order verbally on Augustr 1st, 1972 and that is the effective date. There was a paper copy of this order--its what the two confirmation documents are confirming. Bush's "cmdr" didn't phone his oprders in to HQ for confirmation, he wrote a memo about what he did and sent it up the chain of commandefor confirmation. That document is missing from Bush's records. Hodges' confirmation cited says: "...In accordance with AFM 35-13 para 2-29m, failure to accomplish annual medical examination, 1st Lt George W Bush is suspended from flying status effective date 1 Aug 1972..."

AFM35-13 para 2-29m [32] states that ".. All rated officers on flying status must accomplish a medical examination annually... Failure to accomplish a required medical examination disqualifies the officer for flying duty and he will be suspended effective the first day of the month following his birthmonth..." George Bush was born in July: that makes the effective date of his suspension to be August 1, 1972, as the two confirmation document state also.

This is important to consider when evaluating the CBS supension memo: it has the right date. [33] August 1st. Bush was supended on that date according to the two confirmation docjuments. It also has the right information: the TXANG DID get someone to fly Bush's plane after he stopped flying, disproving the theory that the TXANG was glad to see him go because his plane was being replaced. Bush's plane kept flying for two more years after he left.

Hodges confirmation can't be the original order--its dated 6 weeks after the event and makes no mention about "verbal orders" having been given so the ARPC was confirming a different document than his: one that metioned haveing given the orders verbally.

The original orders should be in Bush's files by regulation AFM 35-13 para 2-10b2 (cited above) "...CBPO-SA will insure that the unit personnel record of an aeronautical order which...imposes or revokes a suspension...will be acknowledged by the person concerned tro indicate time and date of receipt of orders..." Its not, one of the reasons they scrambled Bush's documents before releasing them.

There are two confirmation documents but not the document they're confirming--Killian's original order. Marian Knox claimed to have typed that order but said the CBS version wasn't it. Where is the original order that Killian did deliver to Bush on August 1sst, 1972. There never was an alternative order given by Bush's supporters, although one HAD to be written and dated "on or before the effective date..." (para 2-10, cited) One thing for sure: George Bush knows whether the CBS order is the one Killian read to him on August 1st--and has never denied it, nor have his aides.

Changes to "Flight physical" section

I have altered this slightly to reflect the truth in Bush';s documents: First paragraphs changed to: "By regulation , National Guard pilots were required to take and pass an annual physical in order to remain in flight status, in the three months prior to a pilot's birthday (in Bush's case, July 6). For reasons that are unclear, Bush apparently chose not to take this mandatory physical examination in mid-1972, thus ending his pilot's career. He never flew again after April 15, 1972.

This is the truth: Bush was supended from Flying for failure to take his required physical. He never flew again after April 15th, 1972

3d paragraph change: " The document directly orders Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing ("Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13") but there is no evidence Bush obeyed this order. The Air Force regulation cited here, AFM 35-13 Para 2-29m [2] required the commander of Bush's Texas National Guard unit to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination" but there is no evidence this investigation ever occurred. This has never been explained.

Again the truth: the investigation mandated by AFM 35-13 para 2-29m apparently never happened, although both confirmation documents call for it. [34] [35] None of the principals in this matter--Bush,Hodges, Martin or Staudt have ever commented on Bush's suspension or explained why there was no investigation as mandated by regulations.

4th paragraph: Added: "...There also should be a signed acknowledgement by George Bush of his suspension order but there is none..." This is once again the truth: the sentence: "...("Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13") is a direct order to sign his suspension order [36] AFM35-13b2 para 2-10 says that "...CBPOSA will insure that the unit personnel record of an aeronautical order that...imposes or revokes a suspension...will be acknowlegegde by the person concerned to indicate time and date of receipt of orders...." By any reading of this regulation, there should be a a signed acknowlegement of Bush's suspension by him in his files,regardless of the reason for his suspension. There is none. If BUsh failed to obey this order, he failed to obey a direct written order--and there's no evidence he did.

5th paragraph: added: "...Although he had taken the physical twice previously by flight surgeons,..." because its the truth and makes his statement even more absurd--Bush knew when he said it it wasn't true: flight physicals are NEVER given by a private doctor. Also added " purportedly" to "...where Bush purportedly drilled in October and November 1972 and in January 1973..." and added "There is no record of his attendance in the 187th Albama ANG." There is no record of him ever attending trainings at the Alabama unit and they deny to this day there is any record of him there. When it is said: "There are no records showing him there, it is the same as saying: "The records show he wasn't there" or the the whole purpose of record keeeping for attendance is defeated. His pay records [37] show that he was paid for different days than his authorization [38]

The approval cited above is a very curious document: It states that BUsh will not be able to maintain his flight requirements in that unit. But BUsh had been suspended from flying the previous month (august 1st)--he didn't HAVE any flight requirements. This shows that Bush was still falsely listed as a pilot after his supsnsion from flying--as do the rest of his documents. (see also AFM 35-13 para 2-7 [39] "...If 30 days have passed and the officer has not been medically certified for return to flying status,change the officers flying status to reflect a grounded status..." this was never done--Bush was a kept listed as a pilot, 1125D, untill his discharge, 14 months after his suspension. This has never been explained.}

How and why did George Bush continue to get paid to be a pilot for 14 months (52 days) after he was suspended from flying? Thats never been explained either.

exlrrp 67.142.130.14 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nickname" section

Anomalocaris and I disagree as to whether this section, which he/she added, belongs in the article. I believe it does not: as I stated in my edit summary, when I removed it, this is negative info (which requires good sourcing); is of a trivial value (who cares about his nickname, if not commonly used, as it is not?) and the sources that are cited (blogs) are generally considering not credible, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:External links. Anomalocaris has responded (edit summary, putting it back in): of course it's blogs that's the whole point.

I'll defer to other editors on this matter, having stated my opinion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes and Links.

Many of the footnotes and links referenced in this piece have been scrubbed and are not available.

George Bush's discharge

No study of Beorge Bush's military service would be complete without reading and understanding the information on his discharge: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

  Note that this document is NOT a discharge from miitary service, but only from the ANG.
  Subject is transferred to the Air Personnel Reserve Center, 3800 York St., Denver, CO.,
  which will keep his name on a list until his 6 year obligation is met.  Nothing abnormal.
  This is the same thing it says on my DD-214.  After 4 years of active duty, my name sat
  on a list in Denver for 2 years until my 6 year obligation was fulfilled.  This document
  also shows that he had no qualifications BEYOND the 1125D, and DID have 2 decorations:
  TAFMS and TAFCS (anyone care to translate?).  Obviously he didn't qualify as expert with
  the M-16 by hitting the target 59 times with 60 rounds.

  Gatr 19:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Far from the honorable service, Bush and his supporters want to portray, it shows a man who was stripped of all his qualifications and medals. The "NONE" in his qualifications box is extremely significant, especially when compared to his job title. According to his discharge, he was completely, absolutely, inarguably and unequivocably unqualified to hold the ONLY job he is listed as having. This is a huge anomaly--like a truck driver without a driver's license--how did THAT work? And what did George Bush do to get paid a pilots salary after he had been stripped of all his qualifications? He says "back office paperwork" but thats not what he was paid to do. Whatever he was doing after he was stripped of all his qualifications, he was surely unqualified to do it.

He sure didn't fly to earn his pilots pay, he didn't fly at all after April 15, 1972 but he continued to get paid as a pilot, for pilot's work, for 14 months after his suspension: 52 days in all. (suspension date: Aug 1, 1972) (Pay records: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73milpay-p1.html ) This discharge shows the true character of his service--he was unqualified to hold the job he got paid for after Aug 1, 1972.

  Military pilots have never received anything called "pilot's pay" and there is no extra pay
  for piloting an aircraft. In addition to base pay (given for showing up, regardless of
  duties performed), an individual can receive flight pay for being on board an airborne
  aircraft under orders.  This reqires a minimum of 4 hours of flight time per month, BUT,
  under a complicated formula, hours can be carried over from month to month.

  Here's an interesting question.  Does an experienced pilot have to be on flight status to
  sit in the back seat of a trainer with a less-experienced pilot?

  Gatr 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

When Bush chose not to take his flight physical, his superiors were required to convene a flight board and investigate why he didn't take his physical, then take appropriate measures, acccording to the regulation he was suspended under--AFM 35-13 para 2-29m. There is absolutely no evidence they ever did this, the paperwork shows they kept Bush listed as a pilot=--and PAID as a pilot untill his discharge.

One of the basic lies in the argument against the CBS papers was that there was no "AFM 35-13" (see: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213508/posts Point # 50 "...There is no such Air Force Manual 35-13...") You can see AFM 35-13 here: http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf and see it referred to on both suspension confirmation documents: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif and http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-09-05)flight_status_order.pdf

Instead of investigating and disciplining Bush as they were required to do, his superiors helped him in trying to gain an illegal transfer through the use of false information. In this document: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc7.gif Bush certifies to be true and correct that he was an F-86 pilot who had never been to ANY military schools ('none") and that his permenent adddress was a Post Office Box in ALabama. This is obviously false but his superiors immediately approved it anyway : http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-06-02)trans_txang_indorse.pdf (Notice the "signatures" are stamped "signed" not actual signatures) This request was turned down.(http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-07-31)trans_rejection.pdf) leaving Bush still in the 147th/111th.

When Bush was suspended for failing to take his physical, his qualifications to fly were automatically canceled according to regulation AFM 35-13 para2-11e: http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf "...The original aeronautical order that placed a rated oficer on flying status to fly regularly and frequently will remain valid until the officer....d) is suspended from flying status under paragraph 2-29...") So Bush lost the right to be called a pilot when he was suspended from flying under para 2-29 on August 1, 1972--and also to be PAID as a pilot. But his superiors illegally kept him listed and paid as a pilot. This is fraud--and embezzlement. When Bush signed the paychecks for pilots work he did not do--that he KNEW he didn't do, he committed embezzlement of federal funds.

This is extremely important to understand--that George Bush's flying status ended Aug 1st, 1972-- because what makes this particular document false: http://www.glcq.com/docs/points_1973_summary_handwritten.pdf On this document, Major Rufus MArtin certifies ("certified correct") Bush to be a pilot ("Plt on-fly") for May 1972-73 when Bush had not flown the whole year and was supended from flying for the last 8 months of it--losing all his qualifications and the right to be called a pilot.As can be seen from the regulation, Bush was no longer a pilot after August 1st 1972. But he was kept listed--and PAID as a pilot--illegally thereafter. ANY document that lists Bush as a pilot after August 1st 1972 is falsified, according to AFM35-13 para 2-11e and, with one exception, they all do.

Major Martin knew all about Bushs suspension, his signature is on one of the confirmation documents. He, like Bush, has his signature on an entirely falsified document: there is no basis in fact that Bush deserved to be called a pilot this year--certainly not for the last 8 months of it. Martin made this statement without ANY backup info at all, he did not get it fron the only two units Bush could have been assigned to--both of which deny that he was there the whole year. (see http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-05-02)oetr_not_observed.pdf ) It needs to be pointed out that Major Martin's signature is also on Bush's discharge, the only signature on it.

Bush's discharge shows the truth about the end of his service--that he was kept listed as a pilot long after he had lost all his qualifications to be considered as such.

The complete lack of any medals showing on this discharge is also significant. Bush was authorized the National Defense Service Medal for 6 months active duty and a pistol qualfication badge. He lost the pistol qualification when he was stripped of ALL his qualifications but he was still entitled to wear the NDSM. The fact that not even this is showing indicates he was stripped of his mdeals as well as his qualifications.

The TAFMS and TAFCS entered in his qualifications box is a mystery. These are not medals, they stand for, respectively, Total Accumulated Federal Military/Civilian Service. These are types of training days and there should be a colon and a number after each of them indicating total accumulated days in each category. The fact that there are no colons or numbers after them is extremely significant: it means this has been altered. Typing in just the TAFMS and TAFCS is useless, meaningless, like typing in DOB (date of birth) and leaving the rest blank. There would be no logical or legitimate reason for a personnell officer to type just these in and not the colon and number. If he didn't want to put in the information about TAFCS and TAFMS he could have just left it blank without typing them in.

This suggests that the document was altered later to make it look like TAFMS and TAFCS were medals and to cancel out the information the colons and numbers would show. But one thing is certain: george Bush's dichatrge does not show one single medal--a huge anomaly for someone who was allegedly the pride of the TXANG.

Another impostant point. Although his commanders rhapsodize about what a leader George Bush was, he never had any leadership post at all in the military. His one promotion was an automatic time raise.

The remarks box also deserves scrutiny. This statement is also extremely significant: "...Officer has a six year service obligation...and has completed 5 years 4 motnhs and 5 days..." Thats an unequivocal stament that Bush did not finish his military service commitment unless you think that 5 years 4 months and 5 days equals 6 years. The "early Out" story does not cover this, he's being discharged to transfer to another unit--not go to HBS.

That "5 years 4 months and 5 days" tally also includes the gaps in his pay records ( cited above): 6 months, 2 months and 1 month. During these months, Bush was on the roles of no unit at all and didn't even get paid for it yet these months of provable non-attendance are included in this tally. This is fraud.

Its also important to note the different angle the lines in this box run from the rest of the document and how the margins are different. There are signs of whiteout, like the two letters outside the margins on the upper right side and the marks on the left side between the first and second lines. This, along with the whiting out of the TAFC/MS colons and numbers indicate falsification of this document. This is the sloppiest typed discharge this editor has ever seen--they didn't want Bush to frame this andd show it proudly.

No study of Bush's discharge would be complete without asking why he wasn't there to sign it. George Bush was sitting in class in Harvard the day this was written in Texas. There is no legitimate reason why someone would not show up to sign his discharge, especially if he put any value on it, and lack of his signature, along with the other altered information makes this discharge false and fraudulent.

Exlrrp 67.142.130.26 16:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Bush's discharge=

I appreciate the editing thathas been done up to now and am endeavoring to supply the citations suggested and explain why there are no citations on some.

FirstParagraph. "...No document has been found that releases him from this date other than his discharge..." (citation needed) I don't know how to supply a citation for something that isn't there. I defy anyone concerned with this matter to study Bush's military documents and point out one single document where Bush's May 26, 1974 is officially changed or any reason is given for changing a legal agreement that Bush signed his name to more than once. Neverthess, I am keeping this "citation needed here." "...There is further writing over this box that is illegible.(citation needed)..." The citation is the discharge itself--anyone can look at the discharge itself and see the illegibility in this box and in other places so I am removing the "citation needed" here.

2d paragraph: "...This shows that the Texas Air National Guard did not know Bush’s mailing address or how to contact him when this was written.(citation needed)..." The TXANG would have put Bush's true and accurate home addresss on the form if they had known it--they would have no reason not to, and it is illegal not to put down true and current information on an official form. The fact that they only wrote "Harvard Business School, Boston (sic) Mass" indicates they didn't even know the right town he was in: Harvard is not in Boston, its in Cambridge. The fact that this is an entirely inaccurate "Permanent Address for Mailing purposes" is stark and outright: George Bush would not have received mail addressed to this address. It was NOT George Bush's permanent address for mailing purposes, making this entry inaccurate and false. Its not the only inacccurate,false or questionable entry here either. That they didn't know Bush's true home address or even the right town he was in is evident right on this discharge so I am removing the "citation needed." The discharge IS the only citation needed here.

3d paragraph: The citations for these statements come right off the wikipedia page above. I have inserted citations of the relevant sentences where citations were requested. This seems awkward to me, if there's a better way change it.

I have no problem with the rest of the editing done this far

exlrrp 67.142.130.47 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

While much of Harvard University is in Cambridge, the Harvard Business School and football stadium are actually in Boston. The business school was founded in Cambridge in 1908, but in 1927, it moved across the Charles River to its present location in Allston (part of Boston). There is no reason to think that mail addressed to a current student at the address given ("Harvard Business School, Boston, Mass.") would not reach its intended recipient. J496 14:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

not fulfilling obligation and TAFMS

There are numerous ways to obtain an early release from the military with an honorable discharge, especially the Air Force. One can imagine that an early release was all the more obtainable during that lax era of the ANG. I've personally known individuals who have separated honorably from the Air Force after completing only half of their "obligation" (not through Palace Chase). These Airmen were not released due to bad conduct, they simply applied for it. An Airman may pursue one of many categories of early separation. Some of these categories are early release for the holiday season (if an Airman's actual date of separation falls during the holiday season, he or she may apply for a separation prior to), early separation to accept public office, early separation to pursue education (hmmmm), and early separation due to pregnancy. The claim that Bush's early release is somehow indicative of special treatment is ill-founded. The man simply asked to be let out early and was allowed to do so. This is actually much more common than one might think.

The fact that the TAFMS is not followed by any date is a little fishy, as is the acronym's location on the document, but I highly doubt that it was placed there in an effort to fool somebody into believing it was an acronym for a medal. Any military or government offical reviewing the document, be it in 1974 or 2004, would have immediately recognized this acronym. Had someone created or altered this document, that someone surely would have known this.

As for omissions and inaccuracies on official documents, keep in mind that we're talking about the Air Force, an incredibly complex and bureaucratic organization. Add to that a component that doesn't hold itself to as high of a standard and you have some idea of the ANG of the 60s and 70s. 69.146.156.208 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

==== There are indeed different ways to seperate from the Air Force--and one of them is "fraudulently." That is how George W Bush obtained his discharge. BUsh's discharge was secured based on credited days that are provably fraudulent. Bush didn't "game his way out of the system" his superiors did it for him.

George Bush was suspended from flying on August 1st, 1972. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif ) AFM 35-13 para 2-11 says: "The original aeronautical order that placed a rated officer on flying status to fly REGULARLY and FREQUENTLY will remain valid untill:......d)is suspended from flying status under para 2-29..." http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf

ANy reasonable interpretation of this regulation using the English language means that the pilot loses his flight status when he is suspended under Para 2-29. Put another way, after he is suspended from flying for failing to take his physical, he is no longer considered a pilot officially. And he should no longer be listed and PAID as a pilot.

Yet George Bush was kept listed and paid as a pilot for 14 months (52 paid days) after he was suspended from flying. This is what his discharge proves--he was kept listed as a pilot, in complete violation of AFM 35-13 Para 2-11, untill his discharge. This goes way beyond the "lax discipline" allegations--its dereliction of duty, misrepresentation and fraud. Bush's superiors falsely kept him listed and paid as a pilot--WITH FLIGHT PAY-- for 14 months (52 paid days)after he had been suspended from flying and had lost the right to be considered--or PAID-- as a pilot. Pay records: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73milpay-p1.html

In this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/points_1973_summary_handwritten.pdf Rufus Martin, personnell officer of the 147th "certifies correct" that George BUsh was a "Plt...On Fly" for the year May-72-73. Yet Bush was suspended from flying on August 1st, 1972, 4 months into this year, as Martin knew well, because his signature is on one of the suspension confirmation documents : http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-09-05)flight_status_order.pdf Martin is falsely certifying Bush to be a "Plt...On Fly" in complete violation of para 2-11. This is a crime: fraud and misrepresentation.

This fraud and misrepresentation is what allowed Budh to keep getting paid as a pilot--long after he had been suspended from flying. Any document that lists Bush as a pilot, or "on-fly" or in AFSC 1125D, after August 1st, 1972 is fraudulent--and they all do. Bush's discharge is predicated on dozens of days he was falsely credited as being a pilot and that makes his discharge entirely fraudulent. Bush should have been reassigned as of MAy 1972 acccording to this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-06-29)oetr_notice.pdf "... This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he is no longer training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment...." That statement says what Bush's superiors SHOULD have done but they did not--reassign him to another job besides pilot since he had lost ALL his qualifications to be considered as such. This they did not do, a complete dereliction of duty on their parts. They kept him fraudulently lised--and PAID---as a pilot as if he had never been suspended.

In the OETR covering this year http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-05-02)oetr_not_observed.pdf no mention is made at all of Bush's suspension--its like it didn't happen. Yet this is a pilots performance rerport. What could be more important in rating a pilot's performance than the fact that he was suspended from flying for failing to take his physical? Yet this fact is never mentioned and Bush is STILL klisteded as a pilot--- 8 months after his suspension from flying. 8 months after losing all his qualifications.

The Special treament Bush got from hs superiors is evident throughout his papers but no more so than the speed with which his requests--one of them illegal-- was approved. His first request for transfer http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-05-24)trans_application.pdf, which was turned down, is full of falsifications. In this Bush "certifies as true and correct" that his AFSC was 1125B, that he had, unbeleivably, not been to ANY military schools, and that his permanent address was a PO box of the political organization he was working for. To say this is not false is to say that Bush and his superiors didn't know his AFSC and that they thought he hadn't been to ANY military schools ("...none...")

Bush';s 2d request for transfer http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-09-05)187th_request.pdf is even more questionable. This is not a military request, its a personal note, not even signed full signature, and the lack of cc's indicates that the higher command (ARPC) never saw it as they were required to do. Consider the dates: Bush's suspension is confirmed on Sep 5th and his transfer request is OKed by Killian and Hodges within two days--even before the OK comes back from the AL unit.

No one in the military service got this instantaneous approval of whatever they did, even when illegal--its an indication of the special status Bush was in: Congressman's son.

As regards the "lax era." Bush's superiors were federal commanders of federal units. They were officers in the National Guard, a federal organization. They were bound to their duty under the AFM and the UCMJ. Any diversion from this is dereliction of duty--and thats what happened here--they were duty bound to investigate why Bush failed to take his physical, and to reclassify Bush and reassign him after he was suspended from flying This they did not do--a complete violation of their duties. Bush and his superiors were well aware that he was not performing the pilots duty he was getting paid for--this is embezzlement of federal funds. Its time for some accountability--its time the American people learned exactly what Bush was paid for those 52 days after he was suspended from flying.

Re: TAFMS. There is no logical or justifiable reason for Martin to have typed in just the TAFMS and TAFCS in Bush's awards box, without the colons or the number of days in category. If he didn't want to put that information in he would have just left it blank entirely. He wasn't trying to pump up Bush's record, if so, he would have shown the one medal Bush was entitled to, the NDSM, after "5 years 4 months and 5 days" (allegedly.) (Bush lost his other medal, a pistol qualification badge when he was stripped of ALL his qualifications (see discharge: "Qualifications: NONE")The implication is that this was whited out later and this is consistent with the apparent whiteout of the remarks box: see how the margins are different from the rest of the page, the way the lines run at a different angle to the rest of the page. Look at the characters ouside the margin on the upper right side, the marks on the upper left side. This box has been whitedout and retyped, no doubt long after it was originally written. It possible that the person whited it out wanted to leave something in the Awards box--it would look very naked without it.

The statement on his discharge says plainly " Officer has a six year commitment....and has completed 5 years 4 months and 5 days..." This is a clear statment that Bush did not finish his commitment, unless you think that completeing 5 years 4 months and 5 days is the same as completeiung a 6 year commitment. Bush's supporters obviously do but the rest of the world does not. This "5 years 4 months and 5 days" tally is fraudulent, they count all the gaps in his pay records and even includes August and September of '73--the two months between Bush's last paid day and his discharge. This statement does not appear on my discharge and I got an early out for college too--3 months, which they told me was all they could give. My early out was to get a bachelors degree--they let Bush out to go to grad school, hardly an urgent priority for anyone but Bush. My discharge,unlike Bush's, shows I was qualified to hold the job I was getting paid for with the medals appropriate to the service I rendered--and furthermore, unlike Bush, I showed up to sign it--because I was prouyd of it and what it represented. Bush was sitting in class the day his discharge was drawn up, showing he had no regard for it at all, sdisn't even care about it enough to show up to sign it. The day of his discharge should have been his last paid day--but its not. Whats the explanation for that? That the military is a correspondence oourse like Bush's followers want to believe?

Furthermore, Bush missed the whole 2 weeks mandatory training in August of '73, yet was paid for 19 days in July--most of these days there was no unit training going on. There's nothing that releases Bush from this obligation, his request for discharge is dated Sep 5 1973 http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-05)discharge_request.pdf AFTER. Why didn't Bush show up for this mandatory training? Why didn't he put in for discharge on the last day of July, his last paid day, instead of having to come all the way back from Cambridge to do it again in September. Or did he? Did he MAIL in his request for discharge? And his superiors approved it? The military was not a correspondence course for anyone but Bush, indicating more special treatment.

The lax standards attributed to the ANG during this era are no excuse for the falsifications, dereliction of duty, fraud and misrepresentation evident in Bush's files. Visible crimes have been committed, includig fraud, misrepresentation,dereliction of duty and embezzlement. Thats why they scrambled up Bush's records before they released them, something no innocent person would do.

exlrrp 67.142.130.48 14:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any ANG interceptor pilots here to clarify this, but, since I served in NORAD from 68 to 72, I DO know that the ANG has had responsibility for over 50 years for providing NORAD with interceptors on combat alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If an interceptor pilot pulled combat alert, shouldn't he get paid for it, even if there was no unit training going on?

Also, the Wikipedia article on 111th Fighter Squadron states:

On 6 May 1971 the unit received F-101F Voodoo fighter interceptors and became the training center for all Air National Guard interceptors. In August 1974, after 14 years of service, the unit's F-102s were retired, but the unit maintained a full fleet of F-101s.

At the time, for Regulars, at least, the AF prohibited any formal school for someone with less than 1 year of active duty remaining. I have seen nothing that says W was cross-trained in F-101s, and a surplus F-102 pilot would just sit around twiddling his thumbs.

Gatr 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, he's shady

I am in complete agreement that the details of Bush's military service and subsequent discharge are somewhat unclear. However, I believe nitpicking every minor inconsistency in his paperwork is a bit unfair.

In the Air Force, the AFSC for missile maintenance is 2M0--. It can be 2M031 for those involved in the maintenance of the electronics systems that provide support to the Minuteman III ICBM, 2M032 for those who actually handle the warhead and guidance system, or 2M033 for those who maintain the facilities. Furthermore, the 2M031 career field can be further broken into 2M031B for those involved in the maintenance and repair of Air-launched Cruise Missiles. My point is, 1125B sounds a lot like 1125D. Isn't it possible that Bush is just a retard and didn't know his AFSC?

As far as not listing basic training, OTS, or UPT under "military schools", isn't it possible that this was misinterpreted as "military academies"?

Much has been said about Bush's commanders failing in their duty, that their actions were a complete violation of the UCMJ. Absolutely. However, the UCMJ exists because servicemen and women fail in their duty everyday. If everybody in the military were honest, there would be no need for the UCMJ. Integrity is not as widespread as recruiters would have you believe. I agree that the aforementioned officers should have had enough personal integrity to ensure that Bush's requests for transfer and early separation were completed to perfection and fed through the proper channels, but not everybody in the military holds themselves accountable. To them, it's just a job. This is especially true of the ANG (seen the interview footage of the ANG Colonel wearing his epaulettes incorrectly?). I'm not convinced that those officers' lack of integrity is indicative of a massive cover up. Even if it was, don't act so surprised that there are dishonest people in the military. They abound.

Who cares if Bush got out of his contract early? I agree that he didn't complete the amount of time that was reported (5 years, 4 months, 5 days), but to argue that he violated the terms of his contract even if he did complete that amount of time is absurd. I'm currently in the process of getting out a full two years before the expiration of my contract. Why? To pursue a master's degree and because I have a better paying job on the outside. Why is getting a master's degree not a priority? If the Air Force is looking to cut costs by letting people out of their contracts early (like they're doing now and like they did toward the end of Bush's term), why is that such a bad thing? It's legal. The argument, to me, sounds like "Bush should have felt such a deep commitment to service that he could not bring himself to serve a day less than those stipulated in his original contract, even if the Air Force came to him and offered him an early release." Ridiculous.69.146.156.208 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Picking Nits

"...I believe nitpicking every minor inconsistency in his paperwork is a bit unfair...." Whats unfair about showing all the laws broken, the falsifications and misrepresentations, in Bush obtaining his discharge? These aren't "minor inconsistencies," they prove federal crimes! The truth is not neutral to Bush and his former superiors, it convicts them. I Might point out that Bush's supporters went through EVERY conceivable detail of Kerrey's career when it suited their agenda. And Bush paid people to do it.

"...Isn't it possible that Bush is just a retard and didn't know his AFSC?...": I would say thats impossible for someone smart enough to learn to fly a jet, then get into Harvard Business School and then get elected Governor and then President. But its also absolutely impossible for his superiors not to have known it either, yet they reviewed and approved it. The phony AFSC was put down twice which hardly makes it a typo. Bush didn't type his request anyway, Martin did it for him. But Bush is still responsible for it: its his signature on the bottom certfiying it to be true and correct.

The notion that they thought "military schools" meant "military acadamies" is absurd. It says: "Military schools attended (indicate date, course number or title and location)" Its very clear what they wanted--military schools attended that would add legitmacy to the request. Bush had been to at least Basic and flight school-- so "none" is an outright lie in that box. Its an impossibility--you can't be ANY kind of pilot in the AF without going to school. At the bottom, Bush certifies "that the data contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge..." That means that BUsh is responsible for its contents. (So are his superiors who signed off on it)Its not true and correct, its an outright lie that his AFSC was 1125B and that he hadn't been to any military school. Bush has his name signed to an outright lie--which his superiors approved.

"...Much has been said about Bush's commanders failing in their duty, that their actions were a complete violation of the UCMJ. Absolutely...." Then you agree their actions were a complete violation of the UCMJ? That means they broke the law--that they broke the rules and failed to follow procedures specifically set down for these eventualities---thats illegal!! Surely you must think that someone who broke the law should be held accountable for it! Anybody else would be held accountable and its a mark of Bush's special favored status that he wasn't.

"...I agree that the aforementioned officers should have had enough personal integrity to ensure that Bush's requests for transfer and early separation were completed to perfection and fed through the proper channels, but not everybody in the military holds themselves accountable...." Youre exactly right!! They didn't have enough integrity to do their jobs!! But these people get PAID federal money to do their jobs--and failure to do so is dereliction of duty. Thats what we're looking at here: Bush got an honorable discharge because his superiors failed to do their clearcut duty: to investigate and hold him acountable for his failure to take his physical. And they need to be held accountable for it because they won't hold themselves accountable for it.

"...I'm not convinced that those officers' lack of integrity is indicative of a massive cover up...." No, its indicative of corruption--the coverup came later.

"...Even if it was, don't act so surprised that there are dishonest people in the military..." I am an honorably discharged Army veteran, served in Vietnam and other places. Its no surprise to me that there are corrupt people in the military. Thats what the UCMJ and AFM are for--to establish and maintain integrity but they only do that if they are enforced.And those are the rules I and everyone else had to play by--everyone but people like GWB and his former commanders. The fact that they didn't should be noted, definitely.

"...Who cares if Bush got out of his contract early?..." The real question is: who cares if Bush got out of his contract ILLEGALLY? And the answer is: All of America should--this is our commander in chief, the one who just extended all his soldiers Iraq tours by 3 months. If, as you agree, the "5 years 4 months and 5 days" is fraudulent then that means the whole discharge should be considered fraudulent. And there's more: it says plainly he was NOT qualified, in capital letters yet (See discharge: "NONE) to hold the ONLY job he's listed as having--whats legal about that? Its a huge anomaly and calls into question the whole legality of his discharge, not to mention he wasn't there to sign it. GWB waves this dkischarge around but you never hear him discussing it.

America should care and undestand that our commander in chief was paid for 52 days as a pilot, with flight pay, after he had been suspended from flying because this is embezzlement of federal funds. AFM 35-13 para 2-11 (cited above) says plainly that the order that put a pilot on flying status is invalidated after he is suspended under Para 2-29m. That means his flight status was invalidated, he was no longer a pilot--and was no longer to be PAID as a pilot. Rufus Martin knew this well, he was the personnell officer of a large FEDERAL unit, required to know all the regulations concerning his job. Yet Martin, in this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/points_1973_summary_handwritten.pdf certifies Bush to be a "Plt--on fly" for this whole year--when Bush had been suspended 4 months into it and had not flown the whole year. This is false--its fraud!! Martin had no justifiable grounds at all to certify Bush as a pilot for this year--but did anyway, allowing Bush to get paid for 14 days this year--after he had been suspended from flying. (there's no certification at all of BUsh to cover the last 38 days he was paid as a pilot)

Bush could NOT have performed the work he was paid to do because he was suspended from doing it by the same people who continued to pay him for work they suspended him from doing. This is illegal, fraudulent, misrepresentation.

And when Bush endorsed and deposited the checks for work he had not done, was suspended from doing, that he KNEW he hadn't done, he committed the crime of embezzlement of federal funds. You don't REALLY think he should have gotten flight pay after he had been suspended from flying do you? The Air Force sure doesn't, its why they included regulations like AFM 35-13 para 2-11 and they meant for their commanders to enforce them. Nevertheless, what Bush's paperwork proves is that he was ONLY listed and paid as a pilot after his suspension untill his discharge.

"...If the Air Force is looking to cut costs by letting people out of their contracts early (like they're doing now and like they did toward the end of Bush's term), why is that such a bad thing?..." If they were looking to cut costs by letting Bush go, then why did they hire a higher ranking man, a captain, one Jan P Linke, to take his place? They didn't retire Bush's airplane when he decided not to fly any more, they got someone else to fly it when he wouldn't. Hiring a captaion to take the place of a 1st Lt is hardly a cost cutting measure. The fact that they hired someone to fly his plane after he quit shoots the "he quit because his plane was going obsolete" argument right out of the skies. Further more, the AF continued to pay Bush as a pilot, with flight pay, for 52 more days AFTER he had been suspended from flying! What kind of "costcutting" is THAT? The American people sure didn't get their money's worth on THAT, now did they?

"...The argument, to me, sounds like "Bush should have felt such a deep commitment to service that he could not bring himself to serve a day less than those stipulated in his original contract, even if the Air Force came to him and offered him an early release...." No the facts as shown in Bush's paperwork, even his discharge, show that BUsh was kept listed as a pilot--and PAID as a pilot for pilots work he didn't perform and was not qualified for (actually DISqualified from ) for 14 months (52 paid days) Bush was not entitled to get paid for pilot's work after he had been suspended from flying but his superiors kept him fraudulently listed as a pilot. Bush embezzled federal funds when he took the money for work he hadn't done--KNEW he hadn't done.

The facts of this story go way, WAY beyond the "it was just lax discipline." Serious federal crimes were committed here including, fraud, misrepresentation, dereliction of duty and embezzlement. And no one has ever been, or probably ever will be, held accountable for it. But the truth must be known.

exlrrp 67.142.130.41 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, get a grip! You're trying to make the ANG equivalent to the Air Force, and the ANG is definitely not the Air Force. If he was 'Flying Status', it means he was OK to fly irrespective of his instrument card. He wasn't actively flying. And he hadn't been grounded. His medical was within reach, as was his instrument card. His current type (F-102) was being phased out (gone from Vietnam in 1968, and being converted to target drones at the end of 1972), and it would be a whole lot of work to transition to a new type. His replacement would not be flying "Bush's plane" - he'd be current on the new replacement model. It's a waste of money to type an old pilot on a new plane near the end of his service. It costs a small fortune. But Bush was still a pilot. So, in 1972, Bush was in line to be a volunteer instructor [40]. I think you're just being a bit emotional about all of this. Take a deep breath! BomberJoe 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is just flatout wrong and reveals a complete lack of understanding for the regulations involved. Bush lost the right to be called a pilot when he was suspended from flying under Reg. AFM 35-13, para 2-29m on 8/1/72. Regulation para 2-11 says specifically: "The original order that placed a rated officer on flying status to fly regularly and frequently will remanin valid untill the officer...d) is suspended from flying staus under para 2-29..." http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf That means that the order that made him a pilot was no longer valid when he was suspended for failing to take his physical. That means that--officially!-- George Bush was no longer was a pilot after 8/1/72, the day he was suspended under para 2-29m. George BUsh should have been reclassified and reassigned in May 1972 according to this document: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc12.gif yet he was not--he was illegally kept listed--and PAID--- as a pilot for 14 months after his suspension. Youre wrong about his not being grounded, too. George Bush was officially grounded by this document: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif And he was grounded for reasons that had nothing to do with his plane "being obsolete." The 111th kept using F102a's untll 1974 and his replacement was flying the very plane George Bush walked away from. There is not one word about Bush's plane "going obsolete" ih his paperwork, that has absolutely nothng to do with hs suspension or unexcused absences. He was suspended for failing to take his physical, which had nothing to do with his plane. You will not be able to Show me ANY offical document in his record indicating the status of his plane was the reason he didn't take his physical. But I can show you this: http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-05-26)oetr_1972.pdf wherein his superiors say, 6 weeks after he quit flying, that: "...Suggested assignments: Lt Bush should remain in his present assignment..." Thats right, at the time Bush quit flying, his superiors wanted him to remain in his present assignmenmt--flying F102s out of Ellington. They would hardly have said this if his plane was going obsolete and they didn't need him any more. There's nothing in ANY of his documents indicating he quit flying because his plane was going obsolete. There's no official reason at all ever given in his paperwork for failing to take his physical, evidently they never even asked him wwhy he didn't take it. He may have been "... in line to be a volunteer instructor" but thats definitely not what he did and whats the excuse for that? According to his pay records, http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73milpay-p1.html there's a SIX month gap after he quit flying where in he never showed up at all! Didn't show up at all, according to his own pay records! Whats the excuse for THAT? It had nothing to do with his "plane going obsolete", his plane was sitting on the runway waiting for him to take his physical. Whats the excuse for B ush not showing up for the MANDATORY 15 days training in both Aug 72 and Aug 73? His plane "going obsolete" had nothing to do with his suspension and even less to do with all his unexcused and unexplained absences. And he was DEFINTELY grounded. 67.142.130.47 15:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Awfully written.

"In the 2004 Presidential Campaign, the Democratic Party chose a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, John F. Kerry, as its presidential nominee."... Kerry is probably more known as being ANTI-Vietnam. Just one of the many problems with NPOV and weasel words in this article. --66.227.194.89 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding rebuttal

I have added a rebuttal to the entry about George BUsh's mailing address on his discharge. The statement says there is no reason to doubt Bush would have gotten mail at that address. I have checked with the Harvard Business school--they don't deliver mail to the students, they only hold them for pickup. Bush would have had to check with the mailroom frequently to get mail there, a highly irregular means of getting one's mail. Bush was required to keep the military apprised of his currwent address because he was not discharged from the military, only transferred from the TXANG. (see his discharge: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif "reason and authority for discharge") Yet on this discharge there's only an incomplete address for Harvard Business School (the full address: "Harvard Business School, Soldier's Field, Boston MA, 02163") (the discharge has the zipcode wrong, they list it 02263, a further indication Bush would not have received mail here easily) The TXANG also uses this address as Bush's Home of Record on this document: http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-18)discharge_hodges_indorse.pdf the same month he requested discharge. It was neither Bush's Home of record nor his mailing address. Bush's mailing address was 373 Broadway Cambridge Mass,02138 acccording to subsequent documents. (see: http://www.glcq.com/docs/(74-11-21)arpc_discharge.pdf ) Furthermore, George Bush does not include a return address on his Request for discharge http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-05)discharge_request.pdf although he does say he is moving to Boston to attend Harvard Business School. How then would the TXANG know where to contact him to tell him his request had been approved? Bush must have had all the confidence in the world that his request would be approved because he was attending class in HBS on the day this was approved by his Wing commander, Bobby Hodges (see http://www.glcq.com/docs/(73-09-18)discharge_hodges_indorse.pdf ) Notice that on this approval, Bush is still listed as a "Pilot Fighter Intcp 1125D..." although by this date it has been 14 months since he was suspended from flying and 18 months since his last flight. His suspension on August 1st, 1972 removed him from flight status according to AFM 35-13 para 2-11 ( http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf ) but he was still kept falsely listed as a pilot up untill his discharge, as tough his suspension had never happned at all. This document proves it.

There's nothing wrong with him still being a pilot until his discharge. I don't know what you're thinking of. He WAS a pilot, and having a fit over it won't change the basic fact that he was a pilot right up to the end of his service. He's probably still a pilot if you want to debate about it. BomberJoe 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no debate at all about this: youre completely wrong and have no facts or references to back you up. Regulation para 2-11 says specifically: "The original order that placed a rated officer on flying status to fly regularly and frequently will remanin valid untill the officer...d) is suspended from flying status under para 2-29..." http://www.glcq.com/regs/35-13_1971.pdf Do you understand that? The order that placed a pilot on flying status is invalid when he is suspended for failure to take his physical---thereafter he is no longer a pilot untill he is again ordered onto flying status. Therefore your statement that he is still a pilot is completely wrong with no basis in fact---according to AFM 35-13 para 2-11. Please confine your comments about my emotional state to the toilet, they have no place in a rational debate. Facts and refernces count--anything else is BS.

deletions by User:131.107.0.73

This wholesale deletion of sourced information is not justifed. You may have some valid points as suggested in your comment on your first edit (" who has pointed out these inconsistencies and made these suggestions? ") - but that seems to point towards a couple of {{Fact}} templates rather than wholesale deletion of this information. Dlabtot 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Flight Physicals

The physical that they are talking about is a flight officers only physical, only required if one is going to stay on flight status. Any flight officer that doesn't take the annual physical for whatever reason, will be removed from flying duty no matter what the reason (including transfer to non-flying duty), it's standard procedure. I am sure even Chuck Yeager received formal orders grounded him from flight status after his retirement from the USAF.

Also mandatory drug testing was no instituted until the 1980's, and it was only mandatory for new enlistees. Existing officers (enlisted, or commissioned) only received drug testing after it was instituted in lots (for example a who unit would be tested), or after an accident.

As said by a guardsmen on a flying forum:

"I hope I don't run for President, because they would go apeshit looking at my flying records:

"He had to get rechecked in the Huey THREE times! He must have been a poor pilot....his medical clearance expired for a MONTH! What physical problems was he hiding? Why didn't he get a physical as required by regulation? He FAILED an evaluation in pilot training, more evidence that he wasn't the great pilot he acts like he is..."

And he said:

"One thing you need to understand to make any sense of this is the Guard is VERY flexible when it comes to your civilian occupation. Generally, if your civilian job takes you away from your unit in such a capacity that you can't make your traditional obligation (ie attend unit drill on the weekends), you can either make it up via other ways, or in some cases you can be exempt from attending altogether.

In short, the Guard can't legally force you to give up your civilian occupation just to serve with a particular unit once a month. If Bush left to work on a political campaign in Alabama, and the campaign is legitimate (and it was), then the Texas Air Guard can't force him to come back to serve.

Bush requested to transfer, and that was denied. It was denied NOT because they wanted Bush to come back to Texas, but because Bush was an F-102 pilot, and he wasn't trained to fulfill any other career field. Plus he requested to transfer to the Air Force Reserve, which is a totally different entity. AFRes is a Federal organization, whereas the TXANG is a state organization. Bush received a direct commission (which is legal and not uncommon in the Guard), but that commission was a state commission with Federal recognition. In other words, he was a commissioned officer in the TXANG, but the federal government recognized his authority as such. However, he did not possess a federal full commission. So he was ineligible to serve as a commissioned officer in the AFRes.

I know, it sounds sketchy to some, but that's the way it works. We had a guy who was direct commissioned in the LA ARNG back in the late 1990s, and after flying helicopters for a while he wanted to fly airplanes. He couldn't go to the Reserves because he held a state commission. He couldn't attend federal OCS/OTS (Officer Candidate School) because you can't hold a commission of any kind prior to entry. So his only choice was to transfer to the LAANG to fly F-15s, which he did."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PPGMD (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 August 2004 (UTC)

The issue isn't "how it works", the issue is whether Bush fulfilled his obligations under US law and military regulations. As a Ready Reservist with a Military Service Obligation (MSO) whose draft status was dependent upon fulfilling that obligation, Bush was required by law and military regulation to maintain his readiness to fulfill his role as a pilot with his unit at all times. Bush's MSO required him to attend at least 90% of the monthly training held by his unit each fiscal year, or at least make them up in the manner required under military regulations. He didn't come close to that in his last three years of his MSO. Bush's job title (technically, his Air Force Specialty) required him to maintain his flight status at all times, and that included passing a flight physical each year AND putting in an addition number of flight hours (technically, "Additional Flight Training Periods" -- I believe it was 12 at that time) each quarter. (This flight requirement was what Turnipseed was referring to when he authorized Bush to show up for substitute duty in Alabama when he wrote "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group.")

The failure of Texas Air National Guard officials to enforce the regulations with regard to Bush has no bearing on the question of whether Bush fulfilled his service commitment, any more than a crooked cop who ignores a drug dealer means that no crime is being committed by the drug dealer. Bush's own military records clearly demonstrate that he failed to fulfill his duty, and that is really the only relevant issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

He fulfilled his obligation, point blank. As a former Guardsmen this is how it works. There are many ways to interpret the regulations and still be withing regs while appearing to be in violation to a dumb son of a bitch like yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.38.217 (talk • contribs) 02:16 GMT, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

William Turnipseed

After looking into Turnipseed's comments about the Bush AWOL story, it seems that Turnipseed may have been misquoted, or his statements taken out of context:

Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.

But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson's reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush's service. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.

Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html

How should the article be altered to reflet this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TDC (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 September 2004 (UTC)

Signature

I have read that the signature was confirmed to be from the same person by handwritting experts. If there is something saying that the signature is not exactly the same as others of the same name, but not neccessarily from a different hand, there should at least be mention that a handwritting expert consulted by CBS before airing the report confirmed that it was by the same hand. Kevin Baas | talk 17:51, 11 September 2004 (UTC)

Waiting list

From the CBS report:

The fact is that there is sharply conflicting information about whether a waiting list existed at all as of spring 1968 for entrance into the TexAND. As discussed previously in Section A of this chapter, Mapes expressed in a 1999 e-mail to her Senior Broadcast and Executive partners that "this squad did not have a waiting list" in 1968 and that the "Colonel who ran it appeared to keep about 20 places open at all times." Further, as discussed previously, Major General Hodges had also advised Mapes in 1991 that the Group had no waiting list, particularly for volunteers who wanted to be fighter pilots."

Page 141 http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf

Edit will reflect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.249.174 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 January 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to change article on January 21, 2005

The following change, by 199.29.196.5, which seems somewhat rational, is not:

"The records show that George W. Bush earned 842 points during his first four years in the Texas Air National Guard. Using the 50 point per year requirement for the TANG, this amounts to almost 17 years worth of service. Adding in the 56 points for each of the last two years make the total equivalent to 19 years worth of service."

It's flatly wrong to equate 50 points to a year of service. While on active duty, for example, a service member earns 365 points. Using the logic of 199.29.196.5, then, every active duty service member is really doing SEVEN years of service every year. That's absurd.

50 points is the MINIMUM needed for a good retirement year. That's all. It's like saying that you have to work for a company for at least 1000 hours in order to qualify for vesting purposes for a retirement account. Someone who works 2000 hours DOES NOT get credit for two years.

"This fact has been glossed over by the media and political opponents looking to validate the story that George W. Bush didn't complete his service."

That's absurd. This "fact" appears to have been just discovered by 199.29.196.5. No servious source (including Fox, the Washington Times, or other conversative, Bush-supporting organization) has ever claimed that George Bush served the equivalent of 19 years. They'd be laughed out of town.

"By the 2004 presidential campaign, the media even went so far as to conjure up forged documents to try to make this story stick. That George W. Bush put in that much time and was honorable discharged has been ignored in this whole affair."

This is sheer point of view - extreme point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.103.152.43 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 January 2005 (UTC)

Changes to "Six Year Obligation" section

I have deleted the entire paragraph referencing factcheck.org, because of redundancy, and factcheck's inaccurate representation of Bush's requirements. The paragraph was redundant because factcheck's sole source for the (non-existent) "50 retirement point" requirement was Albert Lloyd, who is cited in the previous paragraph. The factcheck piece is also inaccurate not merely for citing a non-existent requirement for Bush, but also in its presentation of Bush's training obligations. Factcheck said "The newspaper said Guardsman are required to serve 15 days of active duty to meet training requirements" which is a distortion of what was written in the cited article in the Boston Globe, which noted that Bush was required to perform 48 periods of inactive duty training. The records show that Bush didn't fulfill the 48 period requirement, a fact that FactCheck had to ignore to reach its "conclusions".

The Factcheck piece is full of distortions and irrelevancies (like citing 82 days served in during the calendar years of 1972 and 73, when the US military used the fiscal year in determining whether someone had met their obligations) and is wholly unreliable and intellectually dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "missed drills" section

I deleted the entire paragraph which stated that Bush did not fulfill his 15 day active duty requirement in FY 72-73. The writer cited only the nine days of credited active duty in May, 1973. However, Bush was also credited with six days of active duty in June, 73, bringing him to the 15 day minimum (notwithstanding the question of whether Bush actually showed up.)

I also deleted the phrase "as Bush had no intention of being in the military long enough to qualify for lifetime benefts" and replaced it with "as there was no actual requirement for Bush to qualify for six years toward retirement. (Fulfilling his actual training obligations would have resulted in far more than 50 points per retirement year.)" Although its obvious that the deleted statement is true, its also irrelevant. What is relevant is that the "50 retirement point" requirement did not exist for Bush.

Finally, I deleted (from another section) the paragraph that suggested that Bush was "punished" by adding six months to his 6 year term in the military. There is simply no justification for this implication. Under Federal regulations at that time, all officers who were "discharged" were actually maintained on the rolls in an inactive status for a minimum of six month -- (there was a special "group" called the Inactive Status List Reserve Section, which was a list of former officers who, with Congressional approval, could be reactivated if there was a national emergency.) Bush's "discharge" papers (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(74-05-01)arpc_nars-b_to_islrs.pdf) actually transfer him to ISLRS effective the date on which his MSO ended. An undated note (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(undated)arpc_discharge_request.pdf) from Bush asked how he could get out of ISLRS, and while there is no actual response to this request in Bush's files, the Air Force did apparently respond by sending Bush a "resignation form" from ISLRS which Bush submitted on 11-8-74 (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(74-11-08)islrs_resignation_form.pdf ) (this document was one of those that were released only because of the AP lawsuit).

(aside... there is a "50 point requirement" for officers in order to maintain their active status. To simplify, being in active status allowed one to accumulate time served toward gratuitous points; when someone was placed into an inactive status, they no longer accumulated that time served toward gratuitous points. (Bush was not "required" to maintain "active status", rather, as someone with a Military Service Obligation, the military was required to maintain Bush in an "active status" unless there was something very seriously wrong.)

This raises the question of Albert Lloyd's basic integrity, because the points record he cites as providing Bush with a full year for retirement in 73-74 was generated because Bush had been placed in an "inactive status" effective Sept 15, 1973. (See http://www.glcq.com/docs/points_1974_summary.pdf ) Had Lloyd cited this "status" requirement, the document he used would have raised immediate questions because it places Bush in an "inactive status" at a time when he needed all his gratuitous points to get to 50. My guess is that Lloyd understood this, and created the "retirement points" out of whole cloth, rather than bring attention to the fact that Bush was not collecting points toward time served as of Sept 15, 1973.)

paul lukasiak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes to "Drill attendance" section

Changed the wording “filled out” to “submitted.” In the sentence. “Then, on May 24, 1972, Bush filled out a form requesting a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama.” We don’t know who filled out the form, the 147th’s FIG personnel officer, Rufus Martin, has acknowledged that he was involved in this bogus transfer attempt, and there are numerous significant anomolies (like the fact that Bush’s Air Force Specialty Code is entered wrong twice, not to mention the fact that the instructions at the top of the page clearly state that the form is to be filled out to the “present unit of assignment”, instead Bush sent it directly to Bricken) that make it clear that Bush was trying to pull a fast one with the help of Martin. )

Changed “according to” to “based on” in the next sentence “According to his application, he was already in Alabama at work on the Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, “ While the application clearly implies that Bush is already in Alabama working for Allison and Trevalen, it doesn’t actually say it. Indeed, the “address and telephone number” provided by Bush for his then current residence was that of Allison and Trevalen –

Added the heading

Irregularities in Bush’s Transfer Request

And the following text

, “The transfer request (http://www.glcq.com/docs/(72-05-24)trans_application.pdf ) itself was highly irregular. The instructions at the top of the page (and military procedure manuals) make it clear that it should have first been submitted to his “present unit of assignment”, yet Bush first submitted it to the unit to which he wanted to transfer. The current address (Item 5) that Bush listed was that of the offices of Allison and Travelan, and despite the fact that this could only be a temporary address at best, no permanent address was included per the instructions on the form. The form twice (Items 7 and 15) lists the wrong Air Force Specialty Code for Bush; it has 1125B (designating a fighter pilot trained to fly two planes no longer in service, the F-89 and/or F94) rather than 1125D (designating an F-102 pilot). And while the form does list the Training Category of the 9921st ARS (Item 17), it does not, as instructed (Item 16), list Bush’s own training category (Training Category A).

The back of the form is also filled out incorrectly. The “first indorsement” is supposed to be from the Guardsman’s current unit of assignment, who upon approval sends it to the receiving unit. The “second indorsement” is to come from the receiving unit, which is supposed to not only approve the transfer to the unit, but indicate the specific vacant position (the “Position Control Number”) to which the Guardman will be assigned. Instead, Bricken filled out the first indorsement, and sent it back to Bush personally.

Furthermore, “Air Reserve Squadrons” were a special kind of unit, In general, Air Reserve Squadrons consisted of individuals with specific civilian professional qualifications (lawyers, doctors, clergy) which would be needed in the event of a mobilization, but whose job within the military did not require the constant “military” training required of combat personnel. But “Training Category G” Air Reserve Squadrons included “Members of Congress and other key Federal employees.” (http://www.glcq.com/cfrs/102.pdf, section 102.3) Bush, of course, was neither. More importantly, assignments to Air Reserrve Squadrons were controlled completely by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver Colorado, unlike “regular” Reserve and Guard units, individual Air Reserve Squadrons had no power to approve or disapprove transfers.

Deleted the sentence” On May 26, Reese H. Bricken, commander of the 9921st, wrote to Bush to tell him that his application had been accepted.” And replaced it with “On May 26, Reese H. Bricken, commander of the 9921st, “approved” Bush’s application for transfer. Bricken also made it clear that he understood that the transfer request was highly irregular, writing “You already understand that this is a Training Category G, Pay Group None, Reserve Section MM proposition.” (emphasis added). As an obligated Reservist, Bush was in “Training Category A”, which required the 48 periods of inactive duty training, and 15 days of active duty training, and was required to remain in that Training Category. Training Category “G” offered no training at all.

The “training category” issue is key here, because under Air Force regulations (AFM 35-3, paragraph 14-6) “If a member…will be unable to further train with his unit because of an impending change of residence,…he is required to sign a statement that he has been counseled.” That “counseling” included notifying Bush of his obligation to find a new unit with which he could fulfill his training obligations.

Rational for major addition. This information is more fully fleshed out in my piece at http://www.glcq.com/trans. The bottom line on this transfer request is that it was not merely highly irregular, but has all the earmarks of a scam designed to get Bush out of his training obligation with the Air National Guard. Rufus Martin has acknowledged both that he suggested the 9921st and that he knew that Bush was ineligible for transfer to that unit at the time the request was made. This was not, as if is often described, some kind of “temporary transfer”, if it had been approved, it would have removed Bush from the Air National Guard entirely – and relieved Bush of any obligation to perform any training whatsoever. It is important, IMHO, to make the true nature of this transfer request known, and it is especially important to make it clear that despite the transfer request, Bush remained obligated to train with the 147th, rather than suggest (as the current version does) that because Bush had gotten “approval” from Bricken and Hodges, he was somehow off the hook for training while the request was being processed. (see below).

Added the subheading The Transfer Request is Rejected, and subsequent performance

Deleted the first request for a citation in the paragraph which begins…”On July 21st…” and provided a link to the appropriate document from which both quotes were taken.

Replaced “This rejection left Bush obligated to continue his duty with his Texas Air National Guard unit, the 111th at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, Texas.[citation needed] From the records, and from statements from Colonel Bricken, it seems clear that Bush did not report for any duty at the 9921st, and no claims to the contrary have been made.[neutrality disputed]” with “Throughout this period, Bush remained obligated to train with his Texas unit, or perform substitute training each month. Bush service chronology (his AF-11, see http://www.glcq.com/docs/(undated)af_11_unscribbled.pdf ) shows no indication that the 147th ever transferred Bush out of its control, nor do Bush’s payroll records for the period in question (http://www.glcq.com/docs/payroll_72q2.pdf ) show any indication that any personnel action was officially taken by the 147th relieving him of his obligation to train with that unit. Nevertheless, Bush’s records show that he is credited with no training during these months. “ And Colonel Bricken is on record as stating that Bush made no effort to participate as a Guardsman with the 9921st.

Rationale: The current version suggests that until the transfer was rejected, Bush was not obligated to train. This is simply not the case.

Deleted the Paragraph

“Bush's failure to drill in Alabama during July, August, and September 1972 potentially means that Bush was "Absent Without Leave" for the months in question, and that even if he later "made up" the absences (most were not), he was AWOL at the time.[original research?] Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan, has reviewed the payroll records and concluded that they indicate that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. [14]”

Rationale: The first sentence uses “AWOL” in an inappropriate fashion – Air Force regulations contain specific policies and procedures to deal with the failure to perform required monthly training administratively; i.e. order the violator to active duty to complete his Military Service Obligation. “AWOL” should not be used in discussions of the failure to fulfill inactive duty training requirements. (That being said, there is an argument to be made that Bush was, indeed, AWOL, because his superiors were not empowered to excuse his extended absence from inactive duty training. In that sense, the extended absence without proper authorization could be considered AWOL, but as noted above, the Air Force had administrative procedures that precluded the use of the AWOL provisions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice in such cases.) The second sentence is deleted because Korb was equivocal on the issue of Bush’s failure to fulfill his obligations for fiscal year 72-73, and Bush’s absence during the period of the “transfer request” was during that fiscal year. (and I should know – it was my research on the payroll records that Korb used in making that statement – with regard to FY 72-73, Korb feels that, although Bush was in technical violation of the requirements, it was not uncommon to allow Guardsmen to perform extra duty prior to going away for a couple of months, and ignoring the technical violation of the regulations. Although Korb acknowledges that there is no evidence that such extra duty was requested, authorized, or performed, he was unwilling to go “on the record” regarding Bush’s dereliction for FY 72-73.) Korb’s statement is, however, relevant and valuable, it just doesn’t belong immediately after a discussion of Bush’s transfer request.

Added “More than a month after the ARPC rejected Bush's transfer request” to the paragraph which begins “on September 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Alabama "for the months of September, October, and November." ‘

Rationale: The fact that Bush waited more than a month to apply for “equivalent duty” after the rejection of a transfer request he knew was likely to be rejected reflects the lack of urgency Bush felt with regard to fulfilling his obligations. By the time Bush received the transfer rejection, he had already blown off two full months of required training; and failed to complete his required flight physical. The fact that he waited a month and a half before seeking permission to train elsewhere is part of a pattern of disinterest in fulfilling his obligations that are necessary to understand his records.

Provided a link to Bush’s payroll records which show payment for inactive duty training in October and November, 1972. (the fact that the data entry for these dates was not done until December 22, 1972 – a fact reflected in the julian date (357) at the end of the data entry lines found at the bottom of the page that correspond to these payments, is also highly relevant. Under regulations, notification of “equivalent training” done with a different unit had to be sent by the training unit within 48 hours of the training being accomplished. If everything had been on the “up and up”, i.e. if all the proper approvals had been given, this data would have been entered weeks earlier. )

Provided link to payroll records showing payment for April 73 duty.

(as to relevancy, given that Bush’s OER for the period including April 73 said that he didn’t show up for training in Texas in the previous 12 months, the lack of any supporting evidence is a strong indication that Bush may have been getting paid despite not showing up. )

Added : “Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for President Ronald Reagan, has reviewed the payroll records for Bush last two years of service, and concluded that they indicate that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result. [14]” to the end of the section.

Rationale: It had to go somewhere, and at the end of the section seemed appropriate.

paul lukasiak

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.87.215 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the transfer request

you never noticed the most obvious falsehood of all and its right near the middle of the page: "Military schools attended...none" NONE? Thats impossible!! That's completely untrue--Bush Had been to several military schools by this time. Look at the bottom of the page: "I certify that the data contained herein is true and correct top the best of my knowledge..." On this page Bush declares himself to be an F86 pilot, who has never attended ANY military schools and permanently lives in a post office box in Alabama. he certifies this to be true "to the best of his knowledge..." Think Bush didn';t know his own AFSC? Think his superiors didn't know it? Think they didn't know if he had been to school or not? Think they didn't know his permanent address wasn't a PO Box? This is a falsified document, there's no other rational explanation for it. George Bush's signature is confirming informaation to be true that is a flatout lie--and he SIGNED it! (or maybe not---I agree Martin may have signed it) this has to be the most outrageously falsified document of any future president ever. To disagree with that one must say that Bush didn't know his own AFSC, his permanent address or whether he had been to a military school or not. And his superiors didn't know either.

I want to thank you Paul for all your work, but you and everyone else miss the main point: Bush was PAID to be a pilot for pilot's work for 14 months AFTER he had been suspended from flying. (August 1st, 1972--see date correction below) He was able to do this because his superiors fraudulently kept him listed--and PAID---as a pilot until his "honorable discharge" although he had been stripped of ALL his qualifications. This is fraud! And many other crimes as well, like dereliction of duty and embezzlement. No one has ever explained how and why Bush was paid as a pilot, to be a pilot when he was suspended from flying and was on the rolls of NO unit at all.

(Another main point you miss: Bush didn't game his way out of the military, his superiors did it for him)

Why was George Bush getting paid after 1 Aug 72 to be a pilot? Thats when he was stripped of ALL his qualifications (see discharge: "Qualifications: NONE") Nevertheless, the pay records show him getting paid 52 more days after his supension. He is ONLY listed as a pilot, there's nothing else they call him.

On this document: [41] Martin falsely states that Bush earned 56 points that year (May 72-73) for being a "plt on-fly." This is false: Bush was suspended on August 1st, 1972, four months into that year. After that, he was no longer a "plt on-fly" and it was criminal to pay him--or certify--him as such. he didn't fly at all, the whole year! Yet we have Martin's signature certifying this to be true. This is fraud! This is another falsification--unless you think Bush should be credited and paid for pilot's work he was suspended from doing and he himself admits he didn't do. ALL these points for this year are fraudulent because they were awarded to Bush for being a "plt on-fly" and he was not--which makes Bush's discharge fraudulent also.

George BUsh was paid to be a pilot, with flight pay, for 14 days this year and for 38 more days untill his discharge, 14 months after his suspension from flying when he never flew at all and doesn't even claim he did. Thats all right there on your own website. Thats why they scrambled his papers when they released them. Bush and his superiors defrauded his way out of the service and thats what his records show.

Look at the OETR 72-73: [42] "...Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the time of this report..." that means he wasn't paid through through the 111th's or through their authorization that whole year--but the 187th Alabama ANG has no record of him there either. That mmeans he wasn't paid through that unit either, ever, since he didn't sign in. His pay records differ from their training days and his transfer "approval" shows different days than his pay records. So how did george BUsh get paid for 14 days this year for work he had beeen suspended from doing and when the only two units he cculd have been in say he wasn't there? this is fraud and embezzlement: he was paid on the false premise that he was a "plt on-fly" And he knew when he signed the checks that he hadn't done the work.

Look at the response to the correction notice for the OETR covering this year: [43] "...This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he is no longer training in his AFSC or in his unit of assignment..." That says it right there: he should have been reassigned/reclassified in May 1972--and he wasn't! He was kept listed as a pilot, 1125D, throughout his "service" until his "honorable discharge." This is FRAUD! His superiors falsely kept him listed as a pilot--and PAID as a pilot--for work they had suspended him from doing, at a time when they claim he wsn't in their unit. See also [44] "...If 30 days have passed and the officer has not been medically certified for return to pilots status,change the officers flying code to reflect a grounded status..." Bush's superiors violated this regulation when they kept him as a pilot. Also"...The original aeronautical order that placed a rated officer on flying status TO FLY REGULARLY AND FREQUENTLY will remain valid untill....d: is suspended from flying status under 2-29..." Bush's superiors did none of this--they kept him fraudulently listed as a pilot for 14 more months.

When George BUsh signed checks for pilot's work he could not have done, because he was suspended from doing it he committed embezzlement of federal funds--and his superiors aided and abetted him by committing crimes of their own. Or explain why they kept him listed and paid as a pilot all the way untill his discharge when he had been suspended from flying and hadn't flown an inch.

exlrrp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.38 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)