Question:
Do you think President Bush has kept his Promises to America's Retired Military & Veterans?

Biker

Choices:
Yes
No
Not Sure

 

The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. The problem is that American don't know and in some cases don't care to know their own history. The some it is always "America Love It or Leave It". That to me is one of the dumbest thing anyone can say, because that in itself is a sign to administrations such this one is that they can do whatever they want to do to Americans and they will take it and love us for it. This is exactly what Bush has done and will continue to do while some Americans still believe that Mr. Bush is an honorable. These Americans wouldn't know the truth even if it slapped them in the face.

The Bush Administration has taken a page out of Adolf Hitler's Playbook and that was called the "The Big Lie". It says that if you tell a lie long enough, the lie becomes the truth. Even Abraham Lincoln referred to it when he said "You can fool some of the people, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people, all of the time. The Bush Administration knew that they only had to fool enough that would guarantee the election. Now those that were fooled are crying now that they lied to me and now I don't trust them. You have done your homework. Even Eisenhower tried to warn us about the military/industrial complex in 1961. About how some corporation existed solely for war and profitted during war and would prefer to build a billion dollar weapons system then build schools or hospitals. We were warned, but some of didn't listen. Those that voted for this man and his administration fell for the "Big Lie" and now the blood of those that died in Iraq are on your hands as well, along with the total destruction on the constitution and democracy as we know it. Unfortunately, there are many veterans that fall into this category. It would hurt if you not vote against your own self interest in the next election.

Also, for those of you who still believe we still live in a democracy, by definition "Fascism" is when large corporations dictate governmental policies and legislation. No when you say you are fighting for democracy, think again. You are fighting to help these corporations overthrow a sovereign government and to steal their oil. We need to take this country back and please thoroughly investigate what a candidate is all about, keeping in mind that the Republican are for corporations and believe that Veterans' benefits like Social Securtiy disability benefits are socialism and that we are bums looking for handouts.

Wow, I didn't even know that this discusion was here; of course then again i'm fairly new to this website.

I looked at the poll question to this discusion, and it showed that 92% aproved of the Bush adminerstration, but I have read 9 post which contradicts the out come of the poll results.

I understand, everone's concerens, angry, and issues with this adminerstration. I agree whole heartdly that this adminerstration; has let its veterans and its military down.

We, as veteran's complain, but we seldomly act upon our complaints. When we were in the military, we were taught to obey orders from our superiors, and somehow we still have that mind set. We set and complain while our country is being taken over by giant coporations.

These corporations, control everything, that we put our lives on the line to defend, and yet we do nothin, but set and complain.

I have to admitt it; i'm guilty of it too, but the fact is our government is in shambles; We have corrupt politicans, judges, lawyers, and police officer's. Our executive branch, our judiciary branch, and our legislative branch of government is a joke. At one time I was proud to be an American and it was an honor to serve my country, in order to protect the freedoms that other country's enveyed, but now, that I am out of the military and am wiser; I can see, that I had been temporarly blinded to reality.

While our fellow bretherns are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting and dieing, to establish a "free democracy"; we set idly by, knowing dam well that own democracy is in jeopardy.

The real question is; what do we do about it?
Complaining about it is not the Answer. Voteing and hoping that a new party will change things is not the answer. The way, that I see it; we have to desolve the powers of special intrest caucuses that control our government, and we have to hold those who are responsible for deceiving the American people accountable for their actions.

If this is the solution; then what is the resolve, and what will it take to bring it about?

Overthrowing our on government is the one and only answer? I'm not talking about going in with guns ablazing. The kind of overthrow, that I am talking about involves a nation wide shut down by the American people; stop everything, and say we have had enough and we will not allow bussiness to go on as usual until we are satisfied that our demands are meet.

This overthrow will have to be in increments and over a period of time; an immediate overthrow will throw America into shock, so it has to be slow process, and we have to start at the top and work our way down; to the last department making sure we weed out all the corruption.

We have to make it clear to our new president that we the people want a change; and these changes have to begin before we put anybody else into office. This change will begin with an investigation into our executive branch, our judiciary branch, and then our legislative branch.

This is just one thought on how we can regain control of our government; of cousre we will have to commandeer a media outlet in order to get the message out, but that shouldn't be a problem. LOL

Let me know what your ideals and thoughts on this discussion. Talk to everyone later.

There is a saying in the African American community regarding Democrats and Republicans. This basically is why most African Americans vote Democrat. "When Democrats are in office, they give you a little and you get to keep it", "When Republicans are in office, they don't give you anything and take away what you have."

I am very surprised that anyone in this day and age would consider voting Republican, when America should have learned a valuable lesson from Nixon and the Vietnam War. Then there was President Eisenhower, that warned us about the military/industrial complex in 1961. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time and no one paid attention. The plan to eventually take over the world was being hatched by the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal at the Project for the New American Century in the late 80's and now everyone is surprised that Bush doesn't support the troops. They never intended to support the troops (basic Econ 101)

Understand this, the Republicans are there to make money for the large corporations. The Corporations will pay these politicians and the American public be damned. They know that outside their base of supporters, they can scare enough people into voting Republican and then they would get close enough where they could steal the elections. What did they use to scare some people into voting for Bush? God, Guns, and Gays. Those that bought that crap, know who you are and you where duped, suckered, hoodwinked, chumped into voting the neocons into office and have blood on your hands also. The sole purpose for the neocons to control the US Government was to control the oil in the Middle East. Why Iraq you say? Well Iraq was crippled after the first Gulf War and they were easy, or so they thought. I would have been easier if the Decider had not mention a "Holy War", once he said that, then war in Iraq went from there to include every Muslim in the entire world. That what happens when stupid people think and are allowed to say things they just don't understand.

Those vets that serve in the Iraq War, should have studied the Vietnam War before you enlisted in a military that was run by a Republican. That way you would have learned or where aware of what you were about to get yourself into.

During the Vietnam war, they knew that they could not win that war back in 1966, but they kept sending in troops and more troops. Most of the troops killed came after Johnson's surge plan in 1966. Aside from the political and military plan being a disaster. One should really take a look at the complete history of Agent Orange. Once you do this you will see that this country stopped supporting the troops long before this president, he is just continueing what was started under Ronald Reagan. Before you start blaming Bush, you need to see that the military/industrial complex needs a war and our politicians are paid to give it to them, because there is a lot of money at stake. Forget about Democracy, it has nothing to do with democracy any more, it all about the rich getting richer, so you need to watch out for the remaining time of this President's Administration for another 9/11 surprise. The next time I hope you see it for what it really is. A money grab.

You also need to understand about the "Revolving Door" in government, then you will really see who the government really works for now. There is going to have to be a major overhaul of the Veterans System and America will not pay attention long enough for that to happen. Not as long as we have such pressing news as Paris Hilton going to jail and the Sopranos ending. America has ADD. Not only are our politicians dysfunctional, but America in general is dysfunctional.

Feb. 5, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon won't use an Internet voting system for overseas U.S. citizens this fall because of concerns about its security, an official said Thursday.

The official, who requested anonymity, said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz made the decision to scrap the system because Pentagon officials were not certain they could "assure the legitimacy of votes that would be cast.''


Computer security experts who last month reviewed the Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment, or SERVE, had urged the Pentagon to scrap the system, saying it was too vulnerable. The experts said the system could be penetrated by hackers who could change votes or gather information about users.

"Internet voting presents far too many opportunities for hackers or even terrorists to interfere with fair and accurate voting, potentially in ways impossible to detect,'' the experts said in a statement Jan. 21. "Such tampering could alter election results, particularly in close contests.''

Despite the concerns, Pentagon officials had said they still planned to use the system this fall and would test it during Tuesday's South Carolina primary. But the day before the voting the Pentagon called off the South Carolina test.

About 6 million U.S. voters live overseas, most of them members of the military or their

http://www.hillnews.com/news/020504/veterans.aspx

New revelations on Bush's missing year in Air National Guard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's too bad that all this was hushed up in the 2000 election. Not only is Bush incompetent to be president, he's also a disgrace to the uniform. He did not fullfill his responsibilities to the service of his country. Therefore, he is not fit to to hold any elective office.

Yakima

www.salon.com/news/featur...nal_guard/

This would not have happened without Michael Moore's allegedly inappropriate use of the word "deserter." You could argue about the propriety, but the country owes him a great debt of gratitude.

Bush's missing year

In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard service and later lied about it. With the media finally paying attention, will he now come clean?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Feb. 5, 2004 | In 1972, George W. Bush simply walked away from
his pilot duties in the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required
weekend drill sessions for many months, probably for more than a
year, and did not take a mandatory annual physical exam, which
resulted in his being grounded. Nonetheless, Bush, the son of a well-
connected Texas congressman, received an honorable discharge.

If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a year, military
attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to active duty or,
more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a less-than-
honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty would be especially
swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman were a fully trained
pilot, as Bush was.

Bush's National Guard record, long ignored by the media, has
surfaced with a vengeance. If the topic continues to rage, and if the
media presses him, Bush may finally be forced to release his full
military records, which could reveal the truth. By refusing to make
all those records public, Bush has until now broken with a long-
standing tradition of U.S. presidential candidates.

Democrats have seized on the story of Bush's "missing year," which
was first raised in a 2000 Boston Globe article. This week Democratic
front-runner Sen. John Kerry called on Bush to give a fuller
explanation of his service record. That brought an outraged response
from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot, who denounced Kerry's
request as a "slanderous attack" and "character assassination." White
House spokesman Scott McClellan also tried to slam the door on the
subject, declaiming that Democratic questions about Bush's military
service "have no place in politics and everyone should condemn them."

In a sign that the Bush team is taking the issue seriously, on
Wednesday Bush's campaign spokesman questioned the integrity of the
retired Guard commander who claims Bush failed to show for duty in
1972, citing the commander's recent donation to a Democratic
candidate for president.

Republicans clearly want to quarantine the issue of Bush's service
and have it labeled as outside the bounds of acceptable public
discourse. With good reason: If the story takes root it could do real
damage to Bush's reelection run, which is anchored on his image as a
trusted leader in America's war on terrorism. Trying to make the
subject go away could prove difficult, though. "It's a booby trap
that's out there ticking for Bush," warns retired U.S. Army Col.
David Hackworth. "His opponents are going to keep turning this screw
until something gives."

Right now, the network news is covering the political jousting. It
remains unclear, however, whether mainstream journalists will take
the time to examine Bush's military record and ask the president why,
after receiving pilot training that cost 1970s taxpayers nearly $1
million, he took it upon himself to decide he was finished with his
military requirements nearly two years before his six-year obligation
was up.

Bush's infrequent responses to questions on the issue have been by
turns false, misleading and contradictory. His memory has also proved
to be highly unreliable: During 2000, Bush variously could not
remember which weekends he served during the year in question, where
he served, under whose command, or what his duties were.

The story emerged in 2000 when the Boston Globe's Walter Robinson,
after combing through 160 pages of military documents and
interviewing Bush's former commanders, reported that Bush's flying
career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972
when he asked for, and was inexplicably granted, a transfer to a
paper-pushing Guard unit in Alabama. During this time Bush worked on
the Senate campaign of a friend of his father's. With his six-year
Guard commitment, Bush was obligated to serve through 1973. But
according to his own discharge papers, there is no record that he did
any training after May 1972. Indeed, there is no record that Bush
performed any Guard service in Alabama at all. In 2000, a group of
veterans offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who could confirm Bush's
Alabama Guard service. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Guardsmen who were
in Bush's unit, not a single person came forward.

In 1973 Bush returned his Houston Guard unit, but in May of that
year his commanders could not complete his annual officer
effectiveness rating report because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Based on
those records, as well as interviews with Texas Air National
guardsmen, the Globe raised serious questions as to whether Bush ever
reported for duty at all during 1973.

Throughout the 2000 campaign Bush aides never forcefully questioned
the Globe's account. Instead, they searched for military documents
that would support Bush's claim that he did indeed attend drill
duties during the year in question. His aides eventually uncovered
one piece of paper that seemed to bolster their case that he had
attended drill in late 1972, but the document was torn and did not
have Bush's full name on it.

Today, the White House says that although Bush did miss some
weekend drills, he eventually made them up, and more importantly he
received an honorable discharge. Bush supporters routinely cite the
president's honorable discharge as the ultimate proof that there was
nothing unbecoming about his military service.

But experts say that citation does not wipe away the questions. "An
honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record," says Grant
Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired Marine
Corps lieutenant colonel who served as a judge advocate, or JAG
officer. "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills
and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the
extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over
these types of issues. Lattin notes that the Guard "is obviously very
political, even more so than other military institutions, and is
subject to political influence."

For failing to attend required monthly drill sessions and refusing
to take a physical, 1st Lt. Bush just as easily could have been moved
to active duty, given a less-than-honorable discharge, or had his
flying rights permanently revoked, says Eugene Fidell, a leading
Washington expert on military law. "For a fully trained pilot, he was
assigned to a nothing job [in Alabama], and the available records
indicate he never performed that job."

In the Guard today, as a general rule, "if someone doesn't show up
for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be
separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable
discharge" most likely noting "unsatisfactory participation," says
D.C. military lawyer David Sheldon, who served in the Navy and
represented officers before the Court of Military Appeals.

Meanwhile, recent questions have surfaced not only about Bush's
military service, but his official records. "I think some documents
were taken out" of his military file, the Boston Globe's Robinson
tells Salon. "And there's at least one document that appears to have
been inserted into his record in early 2000." That document -- the
aforementioned torn page that did not have Bush's full name on it --
plays a central role in the story.

"His records have clearly been cleaned up," says author James
Moore, whose upcoming book, "Bush's War for Re-election," will
examine the issue of Bush's military service in great detail. Moore
says as far back as 1994, when Bush first ran for governor of Texas,
his political aides "began contacting commanders and roommates and
people who would spin and cover up his Guard record. And when my book
comes out, people will be on the record testifying to that fact:
witnesses who helped clean up Bush's military file."

If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard
service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release
the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard
could make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and
total retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light
on where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between
1972 and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through
Freedom of Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or
private cannot be released without Bush's permission.)

Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of
presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's
father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill
Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft
status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences
with "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the
Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force,
the Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State
and Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according
to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.

Calls to the White House seeking comment on if and when the
president's full military records will be released were not returned.

The spark that reignited this issue came when ABC News anchor Peter
Jennings, co-moderating a Democratic debate on Jan. 22, asked retired
Gen. Wesley Clark why he did not repudiate comments made by his
supporter, filmmaker Michael Moore, who publicly labeled Bush
a "deserter." Jennings editorialized, "Now that's a reckless charge
not supported by the facts."

Republican pundits agreed. Bill Bennett, a director of Empower
America, told Fox News that Clark's "failure to distance himself,
repudiate, absolutely condemn Michael Moore's description of the
president as a deserter was a terrible thing."

Most informed observers agree that Moore's choice of words was
sloppy and inaccurate. "Deserter" is a criminal term: It refers to a
military personnel who abandons his post with no intention of ever
returning. But Democrats have taken hold of the broader issue of
whether Bush was AWOL. Their willingness to bring up a previously off-
limits subject reflects their sense that Bush's aura of invincibility
has worn off and the confidence imparted by Kerry's resurgent
campaign. Democrats feel Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has the
personal history to question Bush's service.

But the issue is also ripe because of Bush's own reelection
strategy. By donning a fighter flight suit and landing on the USS
Abraham Lincoln for a photo-op in May 2003, he has tried to paint
himself as a seasoned military leader in the United States' war on
terrorism. With newfound aggressiveness, Democrats are trying to
puncture that aura by hammering away on the fact that Bush's own
military record fails to back it up.

That's what Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe
did this Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," when he referred to Bush
as "a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." That brought a
quick rebuttal from South Carolina's Republican Gov. Mark Sanford,
who told CNN it was wrong for Democrats to be "taking shots at [Bush]
for being a guardsman."

In similar fashion, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., claimed Tuesday
night that by bringing up Bush's National Guard service, the
Democrats are impugning the patriotism of guardsmen, implying that
their contributions are less worthy than those who serve in the
military. As those disingenuous comments suggest, Republicans are
trying to change the subject, falsely framing the debate as a repeat
of the National Guard controversy that dogged Vice President Dan
Quayle during the 1988 presidential campaign.

It's easy to see why they're pursuing this strategy. If the story
were simply about how Bush used his family connections to land a slot
in the Texas Air National Guard (and all indications are he did just
that ), it wouldn't matter much. But the real story is not how Bush
got into the Guard. It's how he got out.

Until the last two days the mainstream media has routinely ignored
or downplayed the issue. Slate columnist Michael Kinsley took
euphemism to new heights when he wrote in a Dec. 5 column that Bush
was "lackadaisical" about fulfilling his Guard requirement. On Jan.
17, the Associated Press, recapping the "deserter" controversy, did
Bush a favor, erroneously reporting that his absent-without-leave
time lasted just three months in 1972, instead of the 12-18 months
actually in question. And on Feb. 1, ABC News, suggesting Democrats
might turn off voters by attacking Bush's military service, reported
Bush simply "missed some weekends of training." None of those
descriptions come anywhere near describing the established facts at
the center of the controversy.

Perhaps that's not surprising. The press, apparently deeming the
National Guard story unworthy, paid more attention to the debate over
Moore's "deserter" comment than they did to the actual story of
Bush's unexplained absence when it came out during the 2000 campaign.

While co-moderating the Democratic debate, ABC News' Jennings was
sure he knew the facts about Bush's military record. But as the Daily
Howler noted, a search of the LexisNexis electronic database
indicates that ABC's "World News Tonight," hosted by Jennings, never
once during the 2000 campaign ran a report about the questions
surrounding Bush's military record. Asked if ignoring the story was a
mistake, and whether ABC News planned to pursue it in 2004, a network
spokeswoman told Salon, "We continue to examine the records of all
the candidates running for president, including President Bush. If
and when we have a story about one of the candidates, we'll report it
to our audience."

ABC was not alone in turning away from the story in 2000. CBS News
did the same thing, and so did NBC News. But it was the New York
Times, and the way the paper of record avoided the issue of Bush's no-
show military service, that stands out as the most unusual. To this
day, the Times has never reported that in 1972 the Texas Air National
Guard grounded Bush for failing to take a required physical exam. Nor
has the paper ever reported that neither Bush nor his aides can point
to a single person who saw Bush, the hard-to-miss son of a
congressman and U.S. ambassador, perform any active duty requirements
during the final 18 months of his service. Instead, the Times served
up stories that failed to delve deep into the issue.

The Boston Globe story broke on May 23, 2000. The next day Bush
answered reporters' questions on the campaign trial, defending his
military record. His comments were covered by the Times Union (of
Albany, N.Y.), the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and
the Houston Chronicle, among others, which all considered the story
newsworthy. Not the Times: The paper ignored the fact Bush was forced
to respond to allegations that he'd been AWOL during his Guard
service.

Throughout the 2000 campaign, the Times' Nicholas Kristof wrote a
series of biographical dispatches about Bush's personal history. On
July 11, he wrote about Bush's post-college years, including his
National Guard service, but no mention was made of the controversy
surrounding Bush's missing year.

The Times finally addressed the issue on July 22, two months after
the Globe exposé was published. The Times article, written by Jo
Thomas, focused on Bush's post-Yale years in the late '60s and
early '70s. In a section on the National Guard controversy, the Times
reported that Bush's commanding officer had told the Boston Globe
that Bush had never showed up, quoted Bush as insisting that he had,
and noted that "Emily Marks, who worked in the Blount campaign and
dated Mr. Bush, said she recalls that he returned to Montgomery after
the election to serve with the Air National Guard." But then the
Times went on to write, "National Guard records provided by the Guard
and by the Bush campaign indicate he did serve on Nov. 29, 1972,
after the election. These records also show a gap in service from
that time to the previous May. Mr. Bush says he made up for the lost
time in subsequent months, and guard records show he received credit
for having performed all the required service."

On Oct. 31, the Boston Globe published another damning story,
suggesting Bush failed to serve -- in fact, did not even show up for
duty-- during the final 18 months of his commitment. The Times'
Thomas quickly wrote, "A review of records by The New York Times
indicated that some of those concerns [about Bush's absence] may be
unfounded." Contradicting the Globe's account of Bush war service,
the paper reported that Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett "pointed to a
document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four
days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972,
and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and
May."

The document cited by the Times is apparently the mysterious torn
paper that appeared in Bush's records in 2000. That document,
a "Statement of Points Earned," tracks when guardsmen have served,
and whether they have fulfilled their annual duty. It contains
references to "29" and "14" and other numbers whose meaning is not
clear. The Times did not inform its readers that the document is
badly torn, undated, and unsigned; does not have Bush's name on it
(just a wayward "W"); and has a redacted Social Security number.

"The Times got spun by Dan Bartlett," Robinson at the Globe told
Salon. He and others note that if the documents provided by the Bush
campaign proved he did Guard duty upon returning to Houston in
January and April of 1973, then why, on Bush's annual effectiveness
report signed by two superiors, did it say, "Lt. Bush has not been
observed at this unit during the period of the report," which covered
the dates between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973?

"I had a lot of arguments with Dan Bartlett and never got spun by
him," says Thomas, now an assistant chancellor for public affairs at
the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. "But if he gave me
some documents that proved his point, I'm not going to ignore them."
She added, "The Times carried no brief for or against Bush."

Nonetheless, the author James Moore says it was those two Times
stories, which seemed to back up Bush's sketchy account of his Guard
service, that effectively stopped other reporters from pursuing the
story.

Here are the known facts of that story: Following his graduation
from Yale University in 1968, with the Vietnam War raging, Bush
vaulted to the top of a 500-person waiting list to land a coveted
spot in the Texas Air National Guard. Then, despite having no
aviation or ROTC experience, he was approved for an automatic
commission as a second lieutenant and assignment to flight school.

By every indication, Bush's service between 1970 and 1972 as a
fully trained pilot in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron near
Houston was commendable. But then came the spring of 1972 -- and Bush
simply vanished.

Contrary to the official campaign biography that appeared on the
Bush Web site during 2000, which stated he flew fighter planes until
his discharge in late 1973, Bush flew for the last time ever in April
1972. In May, he moved to Alabama to help out in the Senate campaign
of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. Bush asked to be
transferred to an Alabama Air National Guard unit where he could
do "equivalent training." Bush asked to be transferred to a postal
unit for paper-pushing duties -- and remarkably, his Houston
commanders signed off on the request. But officials at the Air
Reserve Personnel Center in Denver eventually overruled the request,
pointing out the obvious: Doing paperwork in a postal unit did not
qualify as "equivalent training" for a fully trained pilot.

The situation remained unresolved for months. During that time,
Bush was still obligated to attend drill sessions with his regular
unit near Houston. Guard records indicate he did not.

In September 1972, Bush won approval to do temporary training at
the 187th Squadron in Montgomery. But the unit's commander, retired
Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, told the Boston Globe he was "dead
certain" Bush never showed. "Had he reported in, I would have had
some recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight
training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would
have remembered."

On Wednesday, Bush-Cheney '04 spokesman Terry Holt told Salon that
Turnipseed recently donated $500 to Sen. John Edwards' campaign. Holt
questioned whether the motives behind Turnipseed's comments regarding
Bush's service were "pure," or whether he's part of a "political
attack." Turnipseed could not be reached for comment.

In any case, as already noted, there is no official National Guard
record of Bush's ever serving in Alabama, and not a single guardsman
who served at that time has ever come forward and corroborated that
Bush was there.

Meanwhile, in July of that summer, Bush's "failure to accomplish"
his mandatory annual physical (that is, to take it) forced the Guard
to ground him.

Following Blount's election loss in November, Bush returned to
Houston. But he did not return to his Guard duties, at least
according to his commanding officers. In May 1973, his two superior
officers at Ellington Air Force Base noted on Bush's evaluation that
he had not been seen during the previous year. In the comments
section, Lt. Col. William Harris Jr. wrote that Bush "cleared this
base on 15 May 1972, and has been performing equivalent training in a
non flying role with the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base,
Alabama." The problem is, Bush never reported for duty there, or
anywhere else in Alabama. According to his discharge papers, Bush
took the whole year off instead.

Bush was finally recorded as having crammed in 36 active-duty
credits during May, June and July 1973, thereby meeting his minimal
requirement. But as the Boston Globe pointed out, nobody connected
with the Texas unit recalls seeing Bush during his cram sessions,
leading to suspicions that Bush was given credits for active duty he
did not perform.

The suspicion stems in part from the incorrect, and inconsistent,
answers that Bush and his spokesmen have given to the question of
why, after going through extraordinarily rigorous flight training, he
simply walked away from flying. The day the Globe story appeared on
May 23, 2000, Bush explained to reporters that when he returned to
Houston in 1973, his old fighter plane was being phased out. "There
was a conscious decision not to retrain me in an airplane," he said,
suggesting it was the Texas Air National Guard's decision to end his
flying career. That's not true. The plane to which Bush was
referring, the F-102, was phased out during the 1970s, but it was
still being used in 1973. Bush did not tell reporters about his
failed physical exam and how that resulted in his being grounded.

That misleading answer about Bush's Guard service was just one of
many the candidate and his aides gave during the campaign. For
instance, a campaign official told Cox News reporters in July 1999
that Bush's transfer to the Alabama Guard unit was for the same
flying job he held in Texas. That's false. There was no flying
involved at either Alabama unit (not that Bush ever reported to them,
according to Guard records), and without passing a physical, Bush
couldn't fly anyway.

Also in July 1999, Bush's then-spokeswoman Karen Hughes told the
Associated Press it was accurate for Bush to suggest, as he'd done in
a previous campaign, that he served "in the U.S. Air Force," when in
fact he served in the Air National Guard.

Asked in 2000 why Bush failed to take his physical in July 1972,
the campaign gave two different explanations. The first was that Bush
was (supposedly) serving in Alabama and his personal physician was in
Texas, so he couldn't get a physical. That's false. By military
regulations, Bush could not have received a military physical from
his personal physician, only from an Air Force flight surgeon, and
there were several assigned to nearby Maxwell Air Force Base in
Montgomery, Ala. The other explanation was that because Bush was no
longer flying, he didn't need to take a physical. But that simply
highlights the extraordinary nature of Bush's service and the
peculiar notion that he took it upon himself to decide that a) he was
no longer a pilot and b) he didn't have to take a physical.

Early in September 1973, Bush submitted a request to effectively
end any requirements to attend monthly drills. Despite Bush's record,
the request was approved. He was given an honorable discharge, and
that fall he enrolled in Harvard Business School.

One of the obvious questions raised by Bush's missing year is why
he was never brought up on any disciplinary charges under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and why he was given an honorable
discharge. (It's unlikely Bush could have run for president if he'd
been tainted with anything less than an honorable discharge from the
military.)

But the issue is not that black and white. "An honorable discharge
usually means the person has not committed any misconduct," says
retired JAG officer Lattin. "He may have failed to honor his
obligation, but he hasn't committed a criminal act. And that's an
important distinction."

It's important, because based on Lattin's interpretation of the
military law, a guardsman on non-active duty who fails to show up for
his monthly drill sessions, as Bush did, is not subject to the UCMJ.
The UCMJ, Lattin says, applies only to active-duty servicemen. And
while guardsmen who report for weekend duty are covered for those 48
hours by the UCMJ's unique codes (regarding desertion, being AWOL,
etc.), a non-active guardsman who refuses to report for duty in the
first place cannot be covered by the UCMJ. Instead, an absent-without-
leave guardsman is subject to the state's military codes of justice,
which mirror the UCMJ.
>
> But even then, says Lattin, cases of guardsmen who fail to attend
drill sessions are rarely dealt with under the military's criminal
code, but rather administratively, which is less burdensome.
Administrative options include transferring the solider to active
duty, or separating him from his unit while beginning dismissal
procedures that would likely -- although not always -- result in a
less than, or other than, honorable discharge. Also in Bush's case,
he could have been permanently stripped of his flight privileges.
>
So why was no administrative action taken against Bush during his
missing year or more? "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a
reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal
official," says Fidell, the military law expert. "Observers of the
Guard at that time have said it did seem to be an entity in which
connections might be helpful."

Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political in
the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very day.
One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not. If
George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward
not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."

Lattin stresses that the Bush episode, and the Guard's failure to
take any administrative actions against him, have to be viewed in
context of the early '70s. With the Vietnam War beginning to wind
down and the U.S. military battling endemic low morale, the Pentagon
showed little interest in chasing after absent-without-leave
guardsmen. "It was too hard and there were too many of them," says
Lattin. "There was a 'who cares' attitude. Commanders didn't want to
deal with them. And they knew they'd stir up a hornet's nest,
especially if one of the [missing guardsmen] was named George Bush."

Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.

Chiefh

HEs A BIG Liar,HE LIED about WMD,IRAQs NUCs,first planning to Invade IRAQ,Worst Of All HE Lied to US,He USES US FOR PHOTO OPPs, USA Veterans,His Party Stabbs US in the Back, Spends Billions,(over 100 Billion so far) Give's Us Crumbs,While his Comrades(The VicePres.) Makes Millions!

Man! ANYONE who even remotely supports George W Bush is either incredibly rich, incredibly STUPID or all of the above. Pollard would you please clarify which group you are so proudly a member of? Lest we forget, you are supporting a "man" who DESERTED his post. Yes he belongs in a big house, the one in Leavenworth, not on Pennsylvania Avenue!! Your rhetoric and ignorance make me believe that you are lying about your veteran's status. I also had to endure both Reagan and Bush Sr.'s abuse, and got nowhere until Clinton came in. NOW, I am finding the VA returning to their underhanded tactics, and getting away with it on a daily basis. WHY? Because they are encouraged to do so by the Bush administration, who wants to see the VA totally eliminated, which would mean more in tax rebates to the wealthiest 3% of americans. Lest we forget, Bush DIDN'T win, in fact he lost by more than half a million votes. And please save that Fox News Channel rubbish about the electoral college for someone who is in the market for a deal on the Brooklyn Bridge. I am not buying today. Those phony "performance surveys" are based largely on the replies of former P.O.W.'s and 100% SC vets!!! Look at the stats!! Of course this group is most entitled to benefits, and I would never begrudge a vet who is getting care. But when a P.O.W. with a headache gets in front of 10 guys with legitimate health problems, just because of the classification system, and capitalizes on their status, making it hard on the rest of us to get in, THEN I have a problem with it. This is Bush's idea of compassion, and quality care that we deserve? Or is it just another way of trying to discourage vets from even trying? Unfortunatly, there are so many blind "sheeple" (half people-half sheep), who follow blindly, and eagerly gobble up the lies spoon-fed them by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, and line up for seconds! In my mind, the vets who fall into this catagory are the real traitors, not us! Not to get off the subject here, but Michael Moore's new book.."Dude, Where's My Country" will be out Tuesday Oct 7 2003, and should be required reading for anyone considering voting in 2004! If this deserter is re-appointed we will only have ourselves to blame.

I fought all through the 80's to get my claim approved and got crapped on by both Reagan and Bush Sr.
It was only after Clinton got in and made changes in the system did I get anywhere.
Now that Bush Jr is now "thief in chief" things are back to 1988 again where we "little" guys are getting crapped on again.
Clinton may not have been the best we could have had for a president but he was heads above the elitist crap we have in the office now.
I bet you swallow all the copswallow that the Repubes can jerk out.
try THINKING FOR YOUSELF

Pollard

Clinton did a great deal for the current military. If you are so ill advised that you do not know this then you might do some study prior to reading Limbaugh to the rest of us.

A Veteran who would vote for a republican is like a chicken voting for Col Sanders.

Funny, the Clinton did nothing for the active duty but attempt to balance a budget by cutting our throats. We finally get a President who supports the military and WINS war against others. He may not be helping the veterans yet but he sure is supporting our active side. Obviously, the problems with veteren benefits have been around for quite awhile. Both parties make a lot of promises when campaigning. Each has promised to fix social securtiy, education, taxes ect. This surely was not done in the last administration. Then again the last admin did nothing after the Cole when they knew where Bin Laden was. I am a registerd Independent, after the crap that Democrats pull, I will never vote for them again. I am a proud of our President, and ashamed that the Vets on this website are not. In case you have forgotten it was the Democratic party that put our military in a war with no support to win.

The truth: U.S.A. doesn't care about Veterans because Veterans are the only link to America's freedoms. The Veterans fought and defended this great country to ensure our freedom.

Veterans will stand strong to enforce our constitutional rights.

Our wonderful government doesn't want us to be free! They want total control. Our government wants to change our constitution, take our guns away, sell our soils to foreign powers, give our industrial businesses to foreign lands, create financial hardship upon our people to restrain their powers, so that our country can move in with Marshal Law so that U.S.A. can dictate to all of us: what to do, who to have contact with, etc...the list goes on.

As long as there are Veterans that are living-our freedoms will stay preserved. The U.S.A. knows that and has made every attempt to eradicate our Veterans and quiet their couragous voice. Why? Total Control.

There are very few WWI Veterans left and unfortunately our WWII Veterans are also diminishing at rapid rates. The Veterans' health care system has failed them and continues to fail them. Gee, I wonder why? Get my point. Can't one see that with all the complaints about how terrible and negligient the health care system and benefits are for the Veterans, that nothing is ever being done to rectify it. The television and newspaper media are not allowed to reveal the horrors of Veterans' Abuse in this country and they are far to cowardly to admit their faults.

Why? Because our government fuels this destructive mode against the Veterans.

USA is so controlled and it is going to get worse, because more and more people are afraid to voice their concerns due to direct retaliation from our government. Free Country? You tell me.

U.S.A. is suppose to allow our people to freedom of speech.

Why do you think that hardly no attorneys want to take on obvious negligient medical abuse cases that so many Veterans have? Because the attorneys can't afford to fight the battle of federal law (MP-5) that is in force to oppose the Veterans' claims. Believe me, some cases are won but I assure you that the attorneys that may have won the cases are no longer successful because the government reprimands all that opposes them!

All people, Veterans and Civilians better stand up to the USA governmental control and censorship before it is really to late!

Back Our Veterans and Preserve Everyones' Right To Freedom, Liberty, and Happiness!

Veterans are used by the American government for human experimentation. Our government will never admit that-but it's sadly true![/B] The biowarfare and chemical destruction techniques that are happening all around us are more "experimental" wars with the soul purpose of creating subjects to study the effects of DNA destruction and how this "DNA" destruction is passed down from one generation to the next. Someone must be scarificed (our veterans) in order to preserve our human race.

Our "Wars" are funded by Filthy Foreign Monies that are involved with experimentation and development of the "so called Super Human."

Don't forget that USA is the source behind these deadly germs and chemicals. Iraq did get their strains from USA.

Veterans gave this country and its people so much and the Veterans have received nothing back, although they were promised: "Veterans First." What a joke. It makes me sick to witness the destruction of our people by "our own" people. One would think that they were in a bad science fiction nightmare.

Of course, no one in "power or authority" is listening, because they have direct orders to ignore the Veterans' concerns and issues, to blow them off as if each are mentally incompetent, so that the "truth" about our country's functioning and foreign trade, isn't known. Once an individual is declared "mentally incompetent" they are stripped of their life and rights.

It happens everyday in our USA courts, and the "disabled and elderly" are cropped into "governmental, state, and local" nursing homes. Their estates are consumed by the probate courts and liquidated off for profit.

Start paying attention, and observe if you can, our disabled, handicapped, and elderly folks. Where are they all? One doesn't see them out on the streets, nor out in the public viewing. Why? Because the government would much rather "throw" them away because to our government "these" people aren't "worth the cost" to provide them with the devices that could bring quality back into their life.

Look around see if you can find someone that is mentally and physically challenged enjoying themselves as "healthy" individuals do. If you do please extend your hand and open up your heart and help them, at least please smile at them and say hello. So many of these individuals are our Veterans and so many of them are being "thrown away" and taken out of view of our society. Please do not allow this to happen any longer, because one day this may be you.

Demand that no Veteran should go homeless or hungry! This is America and we have money for everyone but not our own human lives. Why?

VETERANS STAND STRONG AND STAND UNITED!

American Veterans to lead the way. Vote Veterans all the way.

PLEASE GOD, BLESS OUR VETERANS.

When you answer this question you have to compare him to something! and when you compare him to the last President you have to say he is a great improvment

Our esteemed politicians have a long history of ignoring their promises to our military, starting with the Revolution that made us a country independent from Great Briton.
The first broken promise was that in place of pay a soldier would receive land in the western areas of the new country. This promise was never honored.
When veterans (on their own) went west of the Appalachians and made their own farms on the promised lands, President Washington sent in the militia to remove them from “his” land. Prior to the revolution, George Washington had Colonel Crawford – who was on government business as a surveyor – stake blaze claims in Washington’s name. These claims included most of the Ohio Valley and Western Pennsylvania. When he realized that they could not be easily evicted from “his” land, he arranged that a tax be placed on whisky – and the tax had to be paid in specie.
At the time there was a severe shortage of specie all over the country, and gold and silver coinage was completely lacking in the western areas where trade was carried on with the barter method. Surplus corn was converted to whisky for transport to the east and down river to New Orleans. Whisky was far easier to transport by pack mule than was the grain. When the whisky arrived at market it would be traded for needed manufactured goods which were then transported back to the farmers.
The “refusal” of the settlers to pay their tax resulted in the “Whisky Rebellion”, and Washington then had an excuse to send in a large militia force against the veterans.
After WWI we had the “Bonus Marchers” being attacked by regular Army troops when they gathered in Washington DC to bring the matter of their broken promise to the attention of the People.
No, our elected representatives seldom honor their promises, and the bunch we have in office now are no different than their predecessors.
Talk is cheap.

Robert G. Scott, SFC, USA (Ret)

I keep trying to tell allof you, you have the means to put all the scum in prison by pursuing the secret coded number issue on your DD-214. This is HOLOCAUST 2, denial of Due Process of Law is an act of WAR. An Act of Treason. Its so easy, " upon the signature of 2 or more persons, or, testimony in open court ", you can charge these scum with GENOCIDE & WAR CRIMES. MY NAME GOES FIRST, whose next ???

No Bush hasn't keep his promises. This country needs to take care of its Vets. Past, present, and future. We have no securely without men and women in uniform. We need to take care of them. I'm a vet too. I have the usual Hep-C, PTSD, drinking bull shit that most have. I also know the job of war was dangerous when I took it. I was paid. Overseas pay, combat pay, and my base pay. In full and on time. Yes I need help. I need it now. The people in Washington have a dam hard job in front of them. Yes I wont a cut of the tax dollar, the bigger the better, but I wont my family to be safe first. If our elected leaders are convinced that we need to lock and load to keep my family safe, then lets lock and load.

Semper Fi
Billy Joe

No he doesn't care about vets or any other individual American citizen, only the rich in the board rooms.

His election victory was a coup d-etat. I believed in him while he wrapped the flag around him and claimed God as his leader. Now I feel angry, lied to, and feel the need to call to arms to remove him from office. He's no American, he's got no true faith, and the dollar is his religion.

When someone calls me "unpartiotic" because I ask questions and demand answers, something very wrong is evident. We need to take back America before he sends us all to hell.

I can understand the hatred it took to compell a group to fly innocents into the Trade Center, we've become that not because zealots somewhere are jealous of America, it's because they know the results of these huge trans-national corporations that have located and taken every resource from everywhere. The boardrooms of these corporations are the men who Bush is of.

The next time I pick up arms and defend this country, it will be to help remove Bush from office, not lock and load on Iraqis or anyone overseas.

Bush is thinkin $$$$$$ He and Chaney stand to make another fortune thru Haliburten "clean ups" when its over. Worked for Bush 41 why not again, Voters never learn.

If the Dem's can manage to find a warm body who can walk a straight line , hold a cigar without hurting himself/or others, he has my vote in 2004

Just wait until all the NEW vets get back from Desert Storm II... Promises made but not kept (go all the way back to WWII) was instituted in 1995 by the "Contract with America" Republican Congress. Dubya's war, Desert Storm II will also be billed as Promises Made II.

What is this chickenhawk administration thinking??? or are they thinking at all...???

When Bush ran all he talked about was how he was going to help EVERYONE and trust him. Well I knew this was a lie and here we are in big trouble, how stupid can people be?

As a Vet I can not apply for benifits at the Bay Pines Hospital here in Florida as all applications are not being taken because of the lack of money. Bush has no problem spending it on HIS invasion does he so he and his oil buddies can get the oil. Remember fellow Vets when you vote GOP you are cutting your own throat, please wake up and vote correctly.

Bush demonstrated his utter contempt for the disabled Vet by threatened veto for the Concurrent receipt bill, and refusel to fund emegency VA hospital funds to leviate a huge backlog of disabled vets unable to get in to see a Dr., much less see a Get treatment.

This man is not our friend and we need to rember this in 2002.

HEPATITIS C IS IN EPEDIMIC PROPORTIONS AMONG US VETERANS AND THE VA IS DENYING MEDICAL CARE TO VETS. THEY LIE AND SAY YOUR LIVER HAS NO DAMAGE WHEN CIVILIAN DOCS FIND SEVERE LIVER DAMAGE. VETS ARE 500% MORE LIKELY TO HAVE IT THAN NON VETS.VIETNAM VETS HAVE THE LIONS SHARE OF THIS DISEASE. MORE PEOPLE IN THE US HAVE HCV THAN AIDS!!!VA DOCS WILL NOT TELL ME MY VIRAL LOAD OR GENO TYPE. THEY JUST WANT US TO DIE;THE EPEDIMIC WILL CONSUME THE COUNTRY WHILE ALL THE ATTENTION IS GIVEN TO AIDS. GET CHECKED BROTHERS AND SISTERS,IF NOT FOR YOURSELF THEN THINK OF YOUR FAMILY.