Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More DNC lies. Bush DID serve in the U.S. Air Force
Common Knowledge ^ | 13 Sep 2004 | Vanity

Posted on 09/13/2004 7:25:05 AM PDT by Rokke

The latest democrat attempt to slander President Bush, is a claim that he lied about claiming to have served in the Air Force as well as the Texas Air National Guard. What the weed smoking, draft dodging democrat operatives don't realize is that when Bush attended undergraduate pilot training, he had to be on active duty orders, and assigned to the active duty training wing at Moody Air Force Base that conducted the training. For the purposes of UCMJ authority, and evalutor authority, Air National Guard personel become members of the Air Force during their training.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: idiotdems
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: sharktrager

Why then does the fact the "memo's" report that Bush failed to take a flight physical IAW AFM 35-16 have any significance if in fact he was not a member and subject to those regulations? Or Have we discovered proff that the "forger" was equally mistaken and unaware of the difference?


21 posted on 09/13/2004 8:33:03 AM PDT by Irelamb (Over the hill BOSUN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lemura

And the quote is from a US Air Force spokesman who spoke to the AP.

Regardless of who published it, the Air Force is on record saying training does not count as active duty.

By the logic of some here I can say I served in the Air Force because I received orders from the Air Force to get a physical on an Air Force base when I was in ROTC.


22 posted on 09/13/2004 8:34:31 AM PDT by sharktrager (Nobody deserves our hostility when they are in a time of need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Why are we even discussing this?

He's been Commander in Chief for three and a half years..


23 posted on 09/13/2004 8:37:18 AM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
He's been Commander in Chief for three and a half years..

That's what will count to the US voters. Unfortunately, we have to keep the Internet chatter up to date. It gets spread around pretty fast.

24 posted on 09/13/2004 8:40:21 AM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lemura

US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 38 > PART II > CHAPTER 19 > SUBCHAPTER III > Sec. 1965.

Sec. 1965. - Definitions


For the purpose of this subchapter -

(1)

The term ''active duty'' means -

(A)

full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training;

(B)

full-time duty (other than for training purposes) as a commissioned officer of the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service;

(C)

full-time duty as a commissioned officer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and

(D)

full-time duty as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, United States Air Force Academy, or the United States Coast Guard Academy.

(2)

The term ''active duty for training'' means -

(A)

full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes;

(B)

full-time duty for training purposes performed as a commissioned officer of the Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service;

(C)

full-time duty as a member, cadet, or midshipman of the Reserve Officers Training Corps while attending field training or practice cruises; and

(D)

in the case of members of the National Guard or Air National Guard of any State, full-time duty under sections 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, United States Code.

(3)

The term ''inactive duty training'' means -

(A)

duty (other than full-time duty) prescribed or authorized for Reserves (including commissioned officers of the Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service) which duty is scheduled in advance by competent authority to begin at a specific time and place; and

(B)

in the case of a member of the National Guard or Air National Guard of any State, such term means duty (other than full-time duty) which is scheduled in advance by competent authority to begin at a specific time and place under sections 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, United States Code.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/38/1965.html


25 posted on 09/13/2004 8:44:47 AM PDT by sharktrager (Nobody deserves our hostility when they are in a time of need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RVN Airplane Driver

Thank you. That was my understanding of it as well.

And I thought Terry McAuliffe was a fool before. If he's letting his elves play with something this lame...man, I underestimated the situation.


26 posted on 09/13/2004 8:45:03 AM PDT by RichInOC (The National Guard isn't real military? Tell that to the guys who are deployed right now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Received a question this morning from a journalism ethics prof who wanted to find out how many duty days Pres Bush was credited with:

I that in his records? May on each OER?

Also, I could not find his last OER The one from 1 May 73 to 30 Sep 73. Is that in the original group of documents on-line?
27 posted on 09/13/2004 8:47:52 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
It's semantics, really. Yes, any time a Reservist goes, say, for any sort of extended training (starting with Basic Training), they're technically on "active duty" at that time.

Technically, the Bush campaign was correct in saying he'd served on active duty but, if it was merely for training purposes, it's kinda misleading still.

Regardless, at worse Bush would have been guilty of embellishing slightly for effect, something Kerry is far more guilty of doing with his time in service.

This is such a non-issue it's not even funny. GDub just needs to keep on keeping on talking about the future, talking about the issues...and questioning why his opponent seems more interested in discussing the issues of 1972 (for example) rather than 2004.

28 posted on 09/13/2004 8:49:44 AM PDT by LincolnLover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager

My former priest is NG active duty now he has been on active duty for 18 mos and he has never left the country.


29 posted on 09/13/2004 8:51:44 AM PDT by tiki (Win one against the Flipper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Received a question this morning from a journalism ethics prof who wanted to find out how many duty days Pres Bush was credited with:

Post#18. His service was accepted, and received an honorable discharge. Had he not done enough, he would have gotten an dishonorable discharge. The military was satisfied. That's all that matters. Period.
Your professor can take it up with the Air Force if he/she disapproves of their policies.

30 posted on 09/13/2004 8:54:01 AM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager

Apparently everyone on this thread but me can download copies of President Bush's military records.
Can anyone get his DD214? It is a SEPARATION FROM ACTIVE DUTY document. All Reserve and NG trainees get these when they leave training...it is also the document that all active duty personell get when they separate from service. Just post that and end this ignorant fish-guy's argument!

Yes, while in training you are distinguished as Reserve or NG, but you are NG on ACTIVE ORDERS...EXACTLY the same designation as an activated Reservist. I have stared at trainee files long enough as a Drill Sergeant to know that much.


31 posted on 09/13/2004 8:58:18 AM PDT by DRILL SGT. D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

I think this is splitting hairs. What uniform do members of the Air National Guard wear?... it's the US Air Force uniform not the French Foreign Legion. Guard members are subject to call up and serve as they are in Iraq just as regular members of the US military.


32 posted on 09/13/2004 9:00:58 AM PDT by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Also, I could not find his last OER The one from 1 May 73 to 30 Sep 73.

Men were comming home from Vietnam in 1972. Reserves were encouraged to leave since that time. Bush stayed a little longer to fill his obligations.


33 posted on 09/13/2004 9:02:21 AM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tiki
That is not what I said. I said training is not active duty. They are separate, as defined by the DOD and VA. The poster claimed I was saying his time overseas is not active duty, which is not at all what I said.
34 posted on 09/13/2004 9:05:06 AM PDT by sharktrager (Nobody deserves our hostility when they are in a time of need.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Right.

That's the one I read that was released last week: It is signed by Major Martin, dated mid Nov 1973, for the period from the previous year: May 72 to May 73.

This OER is obviously a gap-filler since Bush was out-of-state for much of the year, and was filed after Bush was discharged 1 Oct 73. (The 111th Sqd probably got a hit during an inspection of Bush's records,and had to write this to fix the problem before the records could be archived. An administrative error, fixed by the major because Col Killian didn't file one. No problems.

So, he would still need an OER for 1 May 73 to 30 Sep 73.
35 posted on 09/13/2004 9:13:45 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager
This does seem to cover it from a legalistic standpoint. Although discussion on the thread indicates that the concept is easily misunderstood or misinterpreted. From a legalistic standpoint, a question remains unanswered. Are these the definitions in effect in 1968 when Bush was on active duty for training? His status can only be defined by the definitions in effect when he served.
36 posted on 09/13/2004 9:17:04 AM PDT by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager

While I am sure that the Cornell School of Law is the premier source for all things military, you may want to try looking military regulations up on military sites. If you had done that, you would know, and this is a quote from the Department of Defense web site ( www.defenselink.mil ... note the ".mil" part)

Active Duty:
Definition: (DOD) Full-time duty in the active military service of the United States. This includes members of the Reserve Components serving on active duty or full-time training duty, but does not include full-time National Guard duty (i.e. disaster relief). Also called AD. See also active duty for training


And, before you misinterpret the facts and use them as proof for your ignorant argument, the NG, in this case, is included in the "Reserve Components", hence the plurality.


37 posted on 09/13/2004 9:20:09 AM PDT by DRILL SGT. D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
So, he would still need an OER for 1 May 73 to 30 Sep 73.

Why? The military didn't seem to mind. He was honorably discharged. There's no conspiracy here.

38 posted on 09/13/2004 9:27:38 AM PDT by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

Oh, I completely agree.

It's a minor admin "fix" of a problem about an officer already honorably discharged. Nothing more sinister than that.


39 posted on 09/13/2004 9:30:52 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sharktrager

or, if you prefer:
(this is a copy and paste from another thread on this site)

"I prefer to read the definition provoded by the Air Force Personell office: http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/sascasstats/Help/FAQ.asp

Definitions

Active Duty

An employment status of the United States Air Force personnel that states the member was Regular Air Force, or Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve in training or on duty."


40 posted on 09/13/2004 9:33:53 AM PDT by DRILL SGT. D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson