Skip to comments.Who is Gerald Lechliter?
Posted on 09/08/2004 12:01:11 AM PDT by airedale
The column entitled "Missing in Action" by Nicolas Kristof in the 9/8/04 edition concludes:
"The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. It's not fair to say Mr. Bush deserted. My sense is that he (like some others at the time) neglected his National Guard obligations, did the bare minimum to avoid serious trouble and was finally let off by commanders who considered him a headache but felt it wasn't worth the hassle to punish him.
"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the full 32-page analysis here http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf ). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released.
Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh. "
Who the heck is Gerald Lechliter and the others mentioned in the Op-Ed? What are their ties to the Kerry campaign, the DNC and the various 527's supporting Kerry. I checked Open Secrets and Lechliter doesn't show up as donating money for the last 2 election cycles or the current one.
This material that the NY Times columnist uses needs to bed addressed and if it's inaccurate it needs to be countered in an effective manner. Considering how the NY Times and its columnist trashed the Swift Vets and any one else who questions the background of a Democrat its important to check into the background of those supporting Kerry and sliming President Bush.
In other words, Lechliter aspires to be...drum roll, please...The Next John Kerry.
Clinton's draft dodging didn't matter so why does it matter now?
If Bush spent over 300 hours in a flying bomb does it matter now?
If Kerry spent 4 months on a boat does it matter now?
Kerry's Senate votes do matter and Bush's performance while president does matter !
This him too?
I am outraged by your new policies on genetically engineered (GE)foods.
Despite overwhelming consumer demand, your agency still fails to require
safety testing and mandatory labeling for GE foods. Your notification
policy is an insult to consumers, and irresponsibly ignores strong
scientific evidence of numerous potential health and environmental risks
to GE foods. You should be aware that these foods could be toxic, could
cause allergic responses, could have lower nutrition value, could
compromise immune responses in consumers, and could cause irreparable
damage to the environment.
I am also greatly opposed to your new voluntary labeling policy, which
denies consumers a basic right to know. Without mandatory labeling,
neither consumers nor health professionals will know if an allergic or
toxic reaction was the result of a genetically engineered food. Consumers
will also be deprived of the critical knowledge they need to hold food
producers liable should any of these novel foods prove hazardous.
Your proposed rules ignore serious concerns, and appear to be a decision
made to convenience industry at the expense of public health and the
environment. I will not accept your attempt to make me a guinea pig of
these untested foods, and I trust you will take my concern along with the
thousands of others into serious consideration.
(removed personal address)
Vice President Dick Cheney
FDA Dockets Management [Docket No. 00N-1396]
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Bill Nelson
Representative John L. Mica
Representative Ric KellerFDA Dockets Management [Docket No. 00D-1598]
See the letter from Gerald A. Lechliter here[8/16]:
The analysis documents serious shortcomings that go to the heart of Bush's credibility and honesty and proves that he not only shirked his duty but committed serious offenses. The analysis is footnoted to his records and the contemporaneous regulations and beyond a reasonable doubt shows the following:
* The pay records released by the White House this past winter prove Bush received unauthorized, i.e., fraudulent, payments for inactive duty training, even if he did show up for duty.
The 2004 memorandum from Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Albert C. Lloyd, who affirmed for the White House that Bush met his retention/retirement year point requirement, is an obfuscation, or outright deception, that disregarded Bush's failure to meet the statutory and regulatory fiscal year satisfactory participation requirement. It discussed only the meeting of retention/retirement year point totals, an entirely different issue irrelevant to the satisfactory participation requirement.
Bush's superiors in the Texas Air National Guard failed to take required regulatory actions when Bush missed required training and failed to take his flight physical.
Despite seemingly laudatory comments, Bush's May 1972 officer performance report was a clear and unmistakable indication that his performance had declined from the annual 1971 report. The report was the kiss of death for an officer and was written before he left for Alabama that year.
Bush did not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for satisfactory participation from 1972 to 1973.
The analysis is long (32 pages), and could serve as the basis for an article that could be widely publicized. I'm willing to send the analysis and documentation to any disinterested party to confirm my findings. [Send request to The Crisis Papers (email@example.com) and we'll forward to the author. -- Eds.]
Note the use of "fiscal year" by Lichliter, which has been debunked in the thread below even though used extensively by the Boston Globe. Perhaps Gerald supplied more than we think?
Note Boston Globe article here where "fiscal" term is used: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1209792/posts
We know exactly what Lechliter supplied. The New York Slimes has reprinted it on its website here:
Also look for Jerry Lechliter. Here's a response from a Kent County, Delaware FOIA request he filed:
May 24, 2000
Civil Division-Kent County (739-7641)
Mr. Gerald A. Lechliter
[Address Omitted], DE
Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against University of Delaware
Dear Mr. Lechliter:
By letter dated February 14, 2000 (received by this Office on February 17, 2000), you alleged that the University of Delaware ("the University") had violated with Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Chapter 100 ("FOIA"), by denying your request for access to public records. By letter dated February 15, 2000, you further alleged that the University violated FOIA by meeting in executive session to approve a land transfer without notice to the public.
By letter dated February 28, 2000, we asked the University to respond to your complaints within ten days. The University asked for an extension of time until March 15, 2000, which we granted. We received the University's response on March 20, 2000 and sent you a copy, to which you responded by letter dated March 22, 2000. We then asked the University for supplemental information, which we received on April 7, 2000.
By letter dated January 24, 2000 to the President of the University, you expressed concern about the transfer of University property to Beebe Medical Center in 1997 (72.23 acres) and the proposed transfer of almost 100 acres to New Road LLC, a private developer. You stated that a local citizens group with which you are involved, Citizens Against Town Sprawl (CATS), "has attempted to ascertain certain facts, such as purchase/selling prices and contractual provisions, in the history of the research park, and has been met by a wall of official silence from both Beebe and UD."
By letter dated February 1, 2000, you asked the University to answer a list of 27 questions before February 23, 2000, "the date for public discussion of rezoning parcels of UD land for New Road Limited Liability Corporation to develop into an age restricted residential community."
By letter dated February 14, 2000 you made another request to add four additional questions to the list of questions enclosed with your letter of February 1, 2000.
In addition to the foregoing exchange of letters, there were several informal telephone conferences between representatives of the Department of Justice with you and also between this office and William Manning, Esquire, attorney for the University.
In its response to your complaint, the University takes the position that FOIA does not require a public body to provide information to a citizen in a question-and-answer format, but only to make public records available for inspection and copying. To the extent you have requested actual documents, the University contends that you are only entitled to records relating to the expenditure of state, but not federal, funds. According to the University, "the parcels of land in question were not acquired with state funds. The only public funds expended on these parcels were those dollars transferred to the University from the State as an economic development grant and used to pay for various infrastructure improvements." The University has verbally agreed to provide you with "copies of the agreements with the site contractors employed to perform these improvements."
As for your allegation that the University violated the open meeting requirements of FOIA, according to the University, the full Board of Trustees never met to discuss the proposed land transfer to New Road LLC. Rather, the Executive Committee of the Board met to consider and approve that transaction.
A. Public Records
As a general rule, FOIA requires that "[a]ll public records shall be open to inspection and copying by citizens of the State during regular business hours by the custodian of the records for the appropriate public body." 29 Del. C. Section 10003(a). FOIA exempts from disclosure, however, records in the custody of the University of Delaware unless they "relat[e] to the expenditure of public funds." Id. Section 1000(2)(g). FOIA defines "public funds" as "those funds derived from the State or any political subdivision of the State." Id. Section 10002(c).
We note that your letters of January 24, February 1, and February 14, 2000 did not make a request to review specific documents. Rather, you asked for information, by talking with University officials or through a list of questions, regarding the land transfers. Like the public records laws in other states, Delaware's FOIA "does not compel the agency to provide answers to questions posed by the inquirer." Kenyon v. Garrels, Ill. App., 540 N.E.2d 595, 597 (1989). A public body has discretion to provide information to citizens in other formats, but that is a policy decision. The law only requires that public records be made available for inspection and copying.
According to your letter of March 22, 2000, the University received a federal grant of $950,000 from the Economic Development Administration to help fund the infrastructure for the Marine Research Park in Lewes. The University also received a "$450,000.00 state grant for the same purpose." Since we have no enforcement powers over documents governed by the federal FOIA, we cannot address the request insofar as it seeks documents relating to the federal grant. With respect to the University, the requirements of FOIA are not triggered by the receipt and expenditure of federal funds. As for state funds, according to the University they were used exclusively for "infrastructure improvements." Any documents relating to the spending of state funds for those infrastructure improvements are "public records" under FOIA, and the University must make them available for inspection and copying. Because the University has offered to do so upon its receipt of this opinion, we consider that part of your FOIA complaint resolved.
B. Open Meeting
FOIA exempts the University from the open meeting requirements except for a "meeting of the full Board of Trustees." 29 Del. C. Section 10002(g). According to the University, the full Board of Trustees did not meet to discuss or consider or approve the transfer of University land to New Road LLC, but rather that decision was made by the Executive Committee of the Board. For most public bodies, the open meeting law also covers any "committee" of the public body. See Section 10002(a). While Section 10002(g) states that the Board of Trustees is a public body, it also states that only meetings of the "full Board of Trustees" (emphasis added) shall be a "meeting" as that term is defined in Section 10002(e). Therefore, any meeting of a subcommittee or ad hoc committee of the full Board of Trustees is exempt from the public meeting requirements of FOIA.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the University may have violated the public records requirements of FOIA by not making available documents relating to the expenditure of state funds for the Marine Research Park to you. Because the University has offered to make those documents available for your inspection and copying, the University has remediated any violation. In complying with FOIA, the University is neither required to answer particular questions you have posed nor is it required to meet with you to discuss any matters raised by your request. We conclude that the University did not violate the open meeting requirements of FOIA because the decision to approve the land transfer to New Road LLC was made, not by the full Board of Trustees, but rather by the Executive Committee of the Board. Because the Executive Committee is not a "public body" for purposes of FOIA, the Committee was not required to hold its meeting in public.
Very truly yours,
W. Michael Tupman
Deputy Attorney General
Michael J. Rich
cc: The Honorable M. Jane Brady, Attorney General
William E. Manning, Esquire
Mr. Phillip G. Johnson
Here's a good one. Read the last two paragraphs. I WONDER what Mr. Lechliter would say about releasing John Kerry's records. The same argument applies to those.
THIS IS PART 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. CLICK HERE FOR PART 1.
No matter what the time Bush served he was NEVER a traitor,or aided the enemy as Kerry did how could anyone with an ounce of intelligence put our nation in the hand of John Kerry
>> Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh. "
So far the President (along with his campaign) has refused to slime the 'slime', even though the 'slime' has continually slimed the President. The President is full of grace and truth.
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.