Posted on 09/07/2004 4:46:21 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
AP: Lawsuit Gets Bush Guard Papers Out
2 minutes ago
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) was ranked in the middle of his Air National Guard class and flew more than 336 hours in a fighter jet before letting his pilot status lapse and missing a key readiness drill, according to his flight records belatedly uncovered Tuesday under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Pentagon (news - web sites) and Bush's campaign have claimed for months that all records detailing his fighter pilot career have been made public, but defense officials said they found two dozen new records detailing his training and flight logs after The Associated Press filed a lawsuit and crafted new requests under the public records law.
"Previous requests from other requesters for President Bush's Individual Flight Records did not lead to the discovery of these records because at the time President Bush left the service, flight records were subject to retention for only 24 months and we understood that neither the Air Force nor the Texas Air National Guard retained such records thereafter," the Pentagon told the AP.
"Out of an abundance of caution," the government "searched a file that had been preserved in spite of this policy" and found the Bush records, the letter said. "The Department of Defense (news - web sites) regrets this oversight during the previous search efforts."
The records show Bush, a lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, was ranked No. 22 in a class of 53 pilots when he finished his flight training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1969.
Over the next three years, he logged 326.4 hours as a pilot and an additional 9.9 hours as a co-pilot, mostly in his the F-102a jet used to intercept
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
I'm not sure, but here's a link to the National Archives page that covers military records, the FOIA and the Privacy Act:
Frankly, from the way this page reads, I have no idea how the press was able to sue for these records since the page claims that it is up to the individual to determine whether he/she wants their records made public. If the Globe actually got ALL of the records, Bush apparently didn't fight any of this. But from what I can see, the bottom line is that the person would have to approve the release of the records. It looks pretty clear-cut to me, unless anyone out there with more information on this can help.
One would think that if a media group, individual, etc., could file suit for military records, it would be a more common occurrence. Hell, I'd file a suit to get access to my uncle's WWII records. I can't now, because I'm not his widow, sister or his child. And since he's dead, his wife is dead, and they had no children, it seems a shame that as one of his last relatives on this earth, I'm not allowed to see the record of a soldier who has been dead since 1964. Yet the media can get ahold of the President's ANG records?
If suing was an option, one would think that a group such as the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, which has several lawyers amongst its ranks, would have taken this route themselves to access all of Kerry's records. So something doesn't smell right to me on this lawsuit bit. Even if Bush filed Form 180, it would seem that any new releases of his records, whenever they came to light, would have to be approved by the person whose records they are.
Is the AP filing a similar suit to force the release of all of Kerry's records?
Three or four hours is more reasonable as you say, but one is enough.
dropped Latin?! Bad mistake!!!
If that is the case, why are the media filing FOIA requests to get information on Bush's National Guard service?
Your post is what would be helpful for media to share with today's Americans, instead of trying to smear one National Guardsman who has an honorable discharge.
I had a brother-in-law, a grad of the Naval Academy who was involuntarily extended after his 4 years were up. By the time he was released, so many pilots had gotten out ahead of him, that I know there was a glut of prospective airline pilots in the US.
It took a decided downhill turn from there. I wouldn't send my children there today.
We have reporters putting in articles that will reflect errors in reporting. Why? Why ruin a reputation as a reporter?
%%%%%
Liberalism is a religion. They "feel" that their "faith" has been attacked. They must respond to the "non-believers." [us]
I'm sure we'll see kerry's military records any second now.
Thanks Howlin
I agree, it could be nothing. All the more reason to get the information out.
I still think there is more of an incentive than a reporter just playing as a democrat.
There has to be a monetary reason that the main stream media is willing to throw away 50% of its audience. Why do that when they could have 100% of the audience and the resulting ad rates?
Our 50% are deluded, misguided, redneck, illiterate, etc and as soon as we become "enlightened" we will be able and willing to follow their version of the news.
This is what I truly believe is how they see the 'red state' people.
I agree but they are sure stupid to run away 50% of their audience to Fox over their politics. Fox would not stand a chance if the free networks provided fair and balanced coverage.
I wonder if there are plans to "control" alternative news sources if the dems get in power.
There is bound to be something making the media willing to run off their audiences and lie to the remaining 50%. Just don't think politics is all of it. How many of us kept our mouths shut for years at our jobs to prevent conflict on our jobs (for free)?
You do not need to wonder. Just listen to the way Dems describe 'hate' speech and 'negative' campaigning.
Anything that does not agree with THEIR world view will most definitely become forbidden if they increase
their power in government.
Isn't it amazing. I heard mentioned that they are endeavoring to make us accept the double standard as the norm. That scared me.
Think I will start countering every instance I run across "we can't", "what will the dems say", if we do that the dems will say ......". Why? Because it plays right into their objective - a set of rules for us and no rules for them.
We give them power every time we don't do something because of what the dems think. Which is a surrender in my book without even a battle.
You are right. There ARE two sets of rules. Every time we fail to do or say something "because of what the dems will think" we have given up a bit more ground.
Their choices to fight dirty are breath-taking. I'm not saying we should fight dirty, I am just saying we need to face the fact, just as if we were looking at a bear or a pitbull terrier, that their version of what is acceptable is different from ours.
President Bush recognizes this. He does not reply to taunts and ugliness. He just keeps on going with his programs and visions. We are so lucky to have him in the Oval Office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.