Whether I served or not is not relevant to the matter of Bush's skipping out of National Guard service. I do not claim to be an expert on National Guard procedure either now or 35 years ago. However, I am very astute at analyzing available evidence and considering the sources thereof. You want expert testimony? You won't get it from me, but you'll get it from Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret) Air National Guard Commanding Officer who says "I have reviewed the assumptions that Lukasiak had to use through the first 63 months of Bush's career - before Bush just quit and was transferred to an obvious records hold - and believe that his conclusions are correct." http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=23055 And what is it that the Lukasiak study concludes? DESERTER, in bold caps. DESERTER You want to play that game? So, Bush is not a deserter because I'm not an expert? Well, keep defending your retarded candidate with that retarded argument... but then be big enough to accept its corollary: Bush is a DESERTER because an EXPERT says so. But more importantly, the exhaustive study says so]
First of all, I'll at least be courteous enough to answer you on your own thread without being ridiculous enough to start a new one to draw attention to myself. Democrats.com...yeah there's an unbiased source. So, you admit that you know nothing about National Guard attendance procedures...only what you've read. That's enough for me. Case closed.
An expert from democrats.com is not a reliable expert. Where is the proof he was a "deserter" or "AWOL"? You have yet to show any. You even said he didn't even show up once at Alabama and then linked to records that showed he not only showed up, but fulfilled his duties.
Say what? The expert is not the website, but the man the website quoted, a retired Guard commanding officer, plus the exhaustive study upon which he was commenting. Did you bother to read it? I presented PLENTY of evidence, by linking the study. There is a separate study by another military man, the Lechliter study, even more exhaustive than this one, which reaches the same conclusion: BUSH IS A DESERTER
I skimmed it just now. It says that no records show he met the minimum requirements, but the records do show he met the required 50 points. Honest question: If he was indeed AWOL those 5 months wouldn't his CO's call him AWOL, wouldn't that have been in the records? His 5 months gone didn't affect his point total, is there an explanation for that? I'll go ahead and confess, like you, I only know what I've read regarding this subject. Something I just read. It would be impossible for Bush to be AWOL in the Alabama National Guard, because he was never officially in the AL NG. He was not required to do any drills or go to any meetings in Alabama. He only did them to reach his required 50 points.
more on those 50 points US News & World Report, generally a conservative publication, did its own analysis of Bush's records and here is their conclusion: U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement...... Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of the first four years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam War wound down, his performance slumped, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. He did no drills for one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not evaluate his performance because he "has not been observed." Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation, stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation." Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have compliance and sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and Duke University law professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an insult to the Guard to suggest it." The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and author of an official history of the Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says, "they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation." http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm It all leads to just one obvious conclusion: DESERTER
No, it doesn't prove that he is a deserter. The records show he got the 50 points, from my understanding you can get the points from more than just attending the drills.
Why are Democrats making this such a big issue in this election while for 8 years we had a man in office (Clinton) he was off burning American flags during Vietnam??? This election isn't about who has the better military record, its supposed to be about who is better fit to lead this country. By the way, I'm not a Republican.
That article was very interesting. You have people saying he served honorably and people saying he didn't. He still fulfilled his duties by acquiring the 50 points. I go back to his honorable discharge, why would he get the discharge if he didn't earn it? The "proof" that it was because of special treatment was in the forged documents and people that weren't there saying "it just had to be special treatment". These people have no right to speak of this, they weren't in his boat. As John Kerry's surrogates would say. The terms deserter and AWOL still don't fit what happened. It may be something else, but it wasn't either of those. Wouldn't the records say he was AWOL ? Deserter doesn't fit, because he had 2 years of full active duty followed by 2 years where he was part-time where he did more than he was required to do. It's only a 5 month span (I've read it may be only 3, but I'll go with 5 based on the common theme and records) in the last 16 months of his service that is in question (which actually makes the left and media look a little desperate). If it's true he was never required to attend any meetings or drills in Alabama, he definitely wasn't AWOL. It could come out tomorrow that he never served and it's all been "A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy". Everyone I know, including myself, would still vote for him. His service has no impact on my reasons for supporting him. I just took issue with your original post on the subject.
