Who is Gerald Lechliter?

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 it’s columnist trashed the Swift Vets and any one else who questions the background of a Democrat it’s important to check into the background of those supporting Kerry and sliming President Bush.

This him too?

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/May01/051501/00D-1598_emc-003483.txt

---

Dear FDA,

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.

Sincerely,

Gerald Lechliter

Gerald Lechliter
(removed personal address)

CC:
The President
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 (crisispapers@comcast.net) and we'll forward to the author. -- Eds.]

http://www.crisispapers.org/features/awol-letters.htm
_______________________________________________________
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

Also look for Jerry Lechliter. Here's a response from a Kent County, Delaware FOIA request he filed:
<a href="http://www.state.de.us/attgen/main_page/opinions/2000/00ib08.htm

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

APPROVED

Michael J. Rich
State Solicitor

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.

http://www.buzzflash.com/mailbag/04/02/mai04042.html

THIS IS PART 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2004 BUZZFLASH MAILBAG. CLICK HERE FOR PART 1.

Subj: Bush's Military Service

I'm a retired (1999) Army colonel with enlisted active service in the USMC (1967-69). Just as Mr. James Moore's article indicated, I also was piqued by questions about Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) during another war, Vietnam, in the last presidential campaign. One, however, doesn't have to denigrate service in the National Guard, as the President intimated in his interview on Meet the Press, to comment that service there was a way of avoiding more arduous, and dangerous service in the active force, since President Johnson made an early decision to fight the war with draftees and not to call up the Reserve or National Guard forces. Right now, President Bush is not only the commander in chief, leading our Nation's armed forces, but also, in his own words, is a “wartime President.”Moreover, he has used the uniform to garner political support. The question as to whether he fulfilled his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard (TANG) during another war, therefore, is germane to his fitness to serve as President and his reelection.

I also requested and received a copy of his releasable records from the Army and Air National Guard Bureau in late 2000. My letter deals only with the quality of his service in the TANG documented in the released records and does not touch on other sensitive issues such as his direct commission without going through Officer Candidate School and his being chosen for pilot training although he had the lowest possible qualifying score. Both, however, do smack of favoritism in that era.

Without doubt, there is absolutely no evidence about the President’s duty in Alabama in the summer and fall of 1972. Most important, the President has an annual officer efficiency report from his TANG unit, dated May 2, 1973, for the period May 1, 1972, through April 30, 1973, in which both officers, lieutenant colonels, say they hadn't seen him since May 1972: “Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.”But there is not one shred of documentary evidence, normally an Air Force Form 190 proving attendance at any drills in Alabama, and not one witness has come forward to attest to his attendance at any meetings in Alabama. On the contrary, the commander of the unit and another officer are on record as saying they never saw him. Why wasn't he given a report or a letter sent from the Alabama unit to his TANG unit? Moreover, he departed for Alabama without first obtaining approval to serve in a unit there. That is hardly conduct to be commended.

But the report raises a bigger question: Why didn't he attend any drills in his TANG unit after he returned to Texas from Alabama sometime around November 1972? That's five months of “no show.”The 1973 report even suggests that his unit commander didn't even know Lieutenant Bush was back in Texas.

There are documents in his record that purport to show that he made up lost time after receiving two special orders commanding him to active duty. But this supposed active service is not documented on the proper form, Air Force Form 190, as are all his previous active duty stints in the TANG. The form documenting these points is unsigned and undated, and, therefore, not credible. There is no signed, official document in his record showing that he earned any active duty points after May 1972. In fact, his Form 2, documenting service with a final entry of October 1973, clearly states he earned only 22 active duty training points in 1972; none are listed for 1973, and the "last paid" entry, although blurred on my copy, looks like 1972.

As to the origin of these questionable documents, an allegation has already been made in print by a former TANG lieutenant colonel, Bill Burkett, that the President's records were “scrubbed”of any derogatory information when he was governor and in charge of the TANG. Could someone close to the President have put this questionable form in his file to cover the gap in service? A simple forensic analysis of the paper in his file would answer this question. Altering and destroying official records are, by the way, a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. section 2071.

There are, however, other shortcomings in the file that need explanation. He failed to take his flight physical and was grounded in written orders dated September 19, 1972. Did he not have an obligation to take it? After all, the government, i.e., U.S. taxpayers, paid about $1 million to train him to fly. Some research on the regulations would provide proof that he was in violation not only of a standing order, because there is absolutely no evidence he ever took a flight physical and flew after 1972, but also of written orders directing him to take it : “Off[icer] will comply with para[graph] 2-10, A[ir] F[orce] M[annual] 35-13”; the orders were signed by a major general.

Additionally, his officer efficiency rating by the same officers was lower in 1972 than in 1971. Normally, such a report was the kiss of death for an officer. Why was he rated lower in his "Performance of Duties" block in 1972 than in 1971?

During the last presidential campaign, the President claimed that he flew for "several years" after earning his wings. The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" defines "several" as "a number more than two or three." His record, however, only documents 22 months of flying. Such exaggeration and obfuscation is hardly in keeping with the President's promise to restore "dignity and honor to the White House."

Before commenting further on the President’s TANG service, the major media should obtain all of the President’s records, to include finance, medical, disciplinary, and tax, to become better informed for at least an in depth article or a probing interview about the President’s military service. The finance records should show all attendance at meetings because he would have been paid for them. The other records might flesh out the inferences that can be drawn from those records already released. In any event, the media should not give him a bye this time around because his service is relevant to his right to serve as Commander in Chief in war. Moreover, the media should obtain the help of an Air Force military personnel officer familiar with the contemporaneous regulations and forms for the Air National Guard.

Finally, the American people are entitled to have his complete military record before them so that each voter can judge his service record during another war is pertinment to his worthiness for reelection.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Lechliter
Lewes, DE

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.