Probably One of the Most Vicious Anti-Bush Letters You'll Ever Read

Lewiston Sun-Journal ^ | May 12, 2003 | Paul Macri

[bogeybob]

Hail to the great hyprocrite

Paul F. Macri, Auburn, Maine

President Bush is a great American, a great American hypocrite, that is.

My stomach turned last Thursday night as Bush’s jet landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and America saw him in a flight suit for the first time since he went AWOL from the Texas National Guard more than 30 years ago.

Don’t those cheering sailors — who truly are brave and did serve their country — know that Dubya conveniently sat out the Vietnam War, not as a protester or Rhodes Scholar, but with a rich boy’s “in” to the National Guard? And he couldn’t even hack that for the length of his sign-up, so he went AWOL his last year to run a Republican campaign in Alabama.

He was never punished, as a regular soldier would have been, and even got an “honorable” discharge.

Karl Rove knows that you can’t lose by underestimating the intelligence of the American voter, so I’m sure we’ll be seeing these pictures soon in campaign ads.

Bush was “unelected” in 2000. Shame on him.

If he’s “unelected” again in 2004, shame on us for having an economic, political and class double standard.

All is forgiven if you went to Yale and then pretended that you were in the military — if your father is a rich Republican and former president of the United States.

Beware being a smart boy from Tennessee who went to Vietnam or a Rhodes Scholar (a true intellectual achievement) from Arkansas. Oh, and also a Democrat.

[El Gato]

Perhaps Bush could have been in AL without the notice of Turnipseed - I defer to the three of you with National Guard experience - but without documentation? How does he get the points for his time then?

I find it very interesting that the 1973 points accounting record is shown and available, but not the 1972 one. By everyone's accounting it, should show some activity in early 1972, and then it should also show any inactive duty training accomplished at the AL unit, or not show any as the case may be. No service between Jan and mid May is a little unusual, but not outside the rules. If the 1973 document was available, why not the 1972 one? Or maybe it was, and those with an agenda just don't include it in their "case".

The best thing to have would be the original Form 40s, but I wouldn't think those are retained for very long.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Having re-read all the documents, and noticing AGAIN the "NO" (for number of days!) spoken of above ...

How do these "prove" he "went AWOL" as you somehow believe? And as the democrats claim in their lies?

I SEE the specific paperwork that shows he DID get approval for training out-of-state, and that he DID do it by getting active duty credit for that period.

What's the problem?

Are you claiming (somehow) that "boilerplate" paragraphs (about not missing assignments) "prove" he missed assignments?

Notice that there are the same kind of "boilerplate" paragraphs to Reservists going on active duty about needing ID cards and going to the commisary on base are in his orders to Alabama. Does this mean he tried to sneak in and buy goods on the days he wasn't in training?

[Robert A Cook PE]

I think that the key points:

These vaunted documents don't show any problems, BUT CAN BE LIED ABOUT to "pretend" there is a problem (such as the phoney claim about correcting the Officer eval. report and about the "missing training warning" to a gulible reporter).

But the pay records for the period between Sept 72 and Dec 72 would "prove" attendance in AL.... and those are (deliberately ?) not included. His tax records for 1972 wouldn't be useful, except to establish how many total days he was paid.

[bootless]

Gawd, he's stupid, too. Completely passing up the AWOL myth... he can't even do the math. Bush 41 was not a former POTUS during Vietnam... Sheesh.

[Egregious Philbin]

And what is the big "favor" (or influence peddling, if you will) that is such a crisis for you?

So Barnes claimed he asked for a fighter pilot spot on behalf of Bush?

He didn't claim, he swore under oath that he did it. Influence peddling is always a crisis for me. I'd imagine, no matter how "hot" the fighter, that many drafted soldiers would have preferred the National Guard option. Some articles claim, though I can't find the proof, that Bush was bumped about 500 spots, and scored in the bottom 25% on the test, making the "favor" even more egregious.

...by exploiting lies about two weekends of duty in Alabama - THAT HE SERVED.

You continue to make this assertion without proof.

Forget Clinton and Gore, we're talking about Bush.

[Egregious Philbin]

If the 1973 document was available, why not the 1972 one? Or maybe it was, and those with an agenda just don't include it in their "case".

That doesn't make sense - if the Bush campaign had that document, they could put an end to this debate immediately, right?

[Egregious Philbin]

could have put an end to it

[Egregious Philbin]

Having re-read all the documents, and noticing AGAIN the "NO" (for number of days!) spoken of above ...

I cannot find this in any of the documents. Can you link to it?

I SEE the specific paperwork that shows he DID get approval for training out-of-state, and that he DID do it by getting active duty credit for that period.

Bush's request for transfer (in May 1972), then the acceptance of the transfer (also in May 1972), then the denial of the transfer (suspiciously hard to read date?), then acceptance of 2nd request, which is not proof that he did the time. Bush's military history, which makes no mention of AL. Bush doing his time in 1973, not 1972, and not in AL. What does this say, except that he certainly wasn’t doing his time in Texas from May 1972 to April 1973? This says they thought he was in AL, but is still not proof.

Are you claiming (somehow) that "boilerplate" paragraphs (about not missing assignments) "prove" he missed assignments?

As I said earlier, El Gato called the misrepresentation of that one in an earlier post. Not all articles misrepresented it, however.

[Robert A Cook PE]

There is no debate (amonst Bush supporters...)

It is the democrat operators who are claiming he was (as quoted above!) that he was "AWOL" and that he skipped out of duty.

Neither is true: It is YOUR side that must prove he skipped duty, or stop making false claims.

It is obvious Bush NEVER was AWOL, never was misassigned, and there is NO evidence he ever missed ANY duty days: he was credited for training days during that period in the 1973 papers, so he obviously served those days.

I see plenty of evidence in those those papers that he went a long way OUT OF HIS WAY to impose on his CO and his duty officer to get permission to go serve in Alabama, and lost flight time (MONEY!) and "observed training days" (PROMOTIONS!) by serving in Alabama.

[Junior]

First off, it's really easy for a NG or Reservist to transfer to the IRR (Inactive Ready Reserve), and it's not considered AWOL. Secondly, at least Bush had the cojones to don a uniform. The last president we had couldn't bring himself to actually fulfill his duty.

[Robert A Cook PE]

This document from your references (For 1973 (?) - and why is it relevent at all in your crusade I don't know ?) has the "NO" used properly as a "header" to the "9" for April 73 duty days.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif

Again: Show me some documents that indicate Bush missed training days in the period Oct and Nov of 1972. These all show he was working in 1973 ...

You have shown me nothing to back up your claims.

---...---

I don't believe ANY national democrat politician - regardless of whether they are under oath or not, after they claim ignorance or "I don't remember" several thousand times infornt of Congress while trying to investigate Clinton's bribes and treasonous sale of military/commercial secrets to China.

Are you going to claim "Barnes" statement is somehow relevent and "truthful" without any backup or evidence that it was actually somehow "evil" or "reprehensible", while claiming Bush is flat out lying when he says he (Bush) was on active duty in Alabama?

Asking for an appointment in the ANG ISN'T illegal, by the way.

Taking millions in foreign money is illegal.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic..."

Sorry, but Airman Basic is an E-1, an enlisted rank, and cannot fly jets.

[cookcounty]

"Beware being a smart boy from Tennessee who went to Vietnam "

Oh please. There is absolutely nothing in Al Gore's academic record to suggest that he is a "smart boy," though hes has planted the rumor in many a journalist's fertile, sympathetic brain that his SAT score was just marvelous. Al flunked out of Law School and then flunked out of Divinity School---what a smarty.

Then the "smart boy" went to Vietnam. Not for 12 months, like everybody else, but for 5 months, so that, as he admits, he could go back home and help get his poor father re-elected to the Senate. No doubt the world as we know it would have fallen into darkness had young Al not run home to help his daddy.

And where did Albert the Golden spend his 5 months? ----why, he was billeted with the 229th Engineers smack in the middle of Ton Son Nhut Air Force Base, widely considered the "safest" chunk of real estate in the RVN.

[TexasCajun]

...at least we don't have a Rapist-in-the-White-House any longer!

Bill Clinton is not man, he's a coward and a liar!

[El Gato]

That doesn't make sense - if the Bush campaign had that document, they could put an end to this debate immediately, right?

If they have it, it will come out in due time, menaing somewhat closer to the election. They haven't really talked much about the issue in quite some time. It's also possible ARPC lost it, they are good at that sort of thing. Even if he didn't gain a single point in 1972, the document for '72 should still exist. If they are saved at ARPC that is. I don't know why they should save them at all, once someone is separated....oh well there is one reason, they might rejoin I suppose, but they would only need to maintain the totals and a few milestone dates (i.e. date first joined, date commisioned, date of last promotion, etc), not the entire points record. If they are not saved at ARPC, where did the '73 copy come from? Some records are maintained "locally" as well, and this may be a record from the Texas Guard, rather than from Air Reserve Pesonnel Center.

[Leisler]

No, I am quite sure. First he had to go to officer training school. Until he was commissioned, after successful completion of officer training he was enlisted. Most officers cadets, candidates, and such go through a period were they are enlisted, as did Bush . Very common.

[El Gato]

"Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic..." Sorry, but Airman Basic is an E-1, an enlisted rank, and cannot fly jets.

None the less, he was enlisted as an AB before he got his commision. The same thing is true of every ROTC cadet. We were enlisted in the reserve as an E-1, in a non-pay status until we got our commision. (Even if we got a scholarship, that money and our ROTC monthly stipend were not "pay" which was nice since it meant it wasn't taxed). This was so that if we failed to complete the program, they could order us to extended active duty as an enlisted airman.

In Bush's case it meant he wasn't subject to being drafted while his commission paperwork went through. They did make him go to basic training aparently, somewhat surprising since I'd expect them to send him to some form of Officer Canidate school instead. OCS is not strictly required for a Guard commision, nor for a reserve or regular commission for nurses, JAGs and doctors, although there is a shorty version even for them, IIRC.

[Egregious Philbin]

There is no debate (amongst Bush supporters...)

Again, it sounds to me like you're only hearing what you want to hear. It's not "my side," it's wanting to know the truth.

I see plenty of evidence in those those papers that he went a long way OUT OF HIS WAY to impose on his CO and his duty officer to get permission to go serve in Alabama, and lost flight time (MONEY!) and "observed training days" (PROMOTIONS!) by serving in Alabama.

You're spinning. Perhaps he went out of his way for fear of getting in trouble if he didn't? Like he needed the money or desired the promotion!

[Egregious Philbin]

This document from your references (For 1973 (?) - and why is it relevent at all in your crusade I don't know ?) has the "NO" used properly as a "header" to the "9" for April 73 duty days.

Thanks for the link and finally we can agree on something. I think I ignored that document because it didn't seem relevant to what you're calling my "crusade." If any article used that document to make their case, then you can dismiss it. Most articles, however, didn't.

You have shown me nothing to back up your claims.

In my #209, I give you the sequence of documents as I see it. They do show Bush wasn't in TX from May 1972-April 1973. There are no document to show that he did his time in AL. You can't back up your claims either.

Are you going to claim "Barnes" statement is somehow relevent and "truthful" without any backup or evidence that it was actually somehow "evil" or "reprehensible", while claiming Bush is flat out lying when he says he (Bush) was on active duty in Alabama?

I'm saying that it was in Barnes' interest to tell the truth on the matter, and Bush's interest to lie. Who said "evil"? I am tempted by "reprehensible," if I understand you correctly here.