Bush Military History Project #20

[exlrrp]

This is being written as a journal in democraticunderground.com and crossposted on Dailykos and Myleftwing.
I urge readers of this series to obtain a copy of Unfit Commander by Glenn Smith, the only source of Bush's military papers in chronological order. Where internet references are not easily available I will give page numbers of this book for reference.
I also urge readers to become familiar with the report by Lt Col Gerald Lechliter, published in the NY Times, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/....
Or Google: NY Times Gerald Lechliter. I will be referring to both of these sources in this study.
I can be reached at [e-mail]

I was surprised to see two affirmative answers to the Question I posed yesterday: “Does the NONE in the qualifications box and the NO medals listed indicate adequate service by George W Bush?” Perhaps I ought to explain about discharges. The form you get on discharge, the DD214 is like a resume of your military experience. You want this to look good and adequately cover your service because you may very well be showing it to friends, family, prospective employers and certification agencies. Though errors and omissions may be made, the DD 214 is amendable. The author of this study has experience amending his DD214, adding two medals that were due him two decades after his honorable discharge. (Including the South Vietnamese Gallantry Cross—awarded 17 years after the country ceased to exist)

You want your discharge to look as good as possible because it’s the official record of an important part of your life—service to your country. And George W Bush has the most outrageously empty discharge of all. This is not the record of a Star of the TXANG, if discharges are accurate records of a person’s service than this one shows none at all. Worse than that, it shows someone who’s been stripped of all qualifications and medals and who didn’t finish his commitment.

I ask any other veteran reading this: go look at your DD214. Count your medals and qualifications—are there NONE in your medals and qualifications boxes? If so, whats the story with that? Doesn’t the NONE in Bush’s qualifications box and NO medals at all being listed mean that the USAF didn’t want George Bush to be proud of his discharge and show it off? ? They didn’t even list the two basic trainee medals he got: the NDSM and a pistol badge.

The fact that he never got one single medal after he left Basic Training indicates he was exceptionally unnotable. And the fact that he has NONE in his qualifications box means he was stripped of ALL of his qualifications because he DID have qualifications at one time. And thats what this “honorable discharge” shows. As a matter of fact—its an outrage.

This is a Kiss of Death discharge, it was never meant to be shown proudly. It shows that Bush walked away from his service completely unqualified to do the only job he’s listed as having. This is a huge anomaly and completely illegal—you can’t be listed as a pilot and paid as a pilot if you’re not qualified to be a pilot. But this discharge shows that’s exactly what they did. This discharge itself is proof of fraud.

Did you notice that Bush didn’t SIGN it? Could this be that like Killian and Harris on the OETR, he didn’t want to have his signature on a falsified document? Because the information on Bush’s discharge has been falsified.

Look at the Remarks box. Notice the two little letters up in the right hand corner out side the margins, the marks on the left side. These are signs of this box being whited out.
Notice how the lines of print in this box don’t match the angle of the rest of the lines on this form? OK all you fonts/formats/spacing typewriter experts: tell me how the lines on that box got straightened out without taking the form out of the typewriter, whiting out that box and retyping it. I don’t think you can do it—this box has apparently been whited out and retyped.

“Officer has a six year service obligation under the provisions of 10 USC 651…and has completed 5 years, 4 months and 5 days towards this obligation. America! What does this tell you but that George Ush didn’t finish his commitment? It says so very plainly in simple English. If you have a 6b year commitment and (only) complete 5 years mnths and 5 days of it you didn’t cullfil your commitment by almost 8 months. That’s what they’re saying here in no uncertain terms.

But this statement has obviously been whited out and retyped—what did it say before that? Something like: “this officer failed to complete his 6 year commitment?” That’s what they’re saying here but in nicer words. America has a statement that Bush didn’t finish his commitment right on his discharge—evidence of falsification too—and ignores it.

That “5 years 4 months and 5 days” falls apart as soon as its closely looked at. Bush is given credit for days he didn’t serve. Look at his pay records: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73milpay-p1.html Bush’s last paid day was July 30, 1973 and he can be placed at Harvard Business school in August but this count keeps counting until the day of his discharge over two months later.

Look at his pay records again. Bush was inarguably missing for 8 months of the year May 1972-73. During this time, there are no orders for him to be anywhere, the commanders of the only two units he could have been in say he wasn’t there and the records of those units show it. Yet he was paid for 14 days this year on dubious, and now missing, authorization..

Those 8 months are added in to the total, making a total of 10 months or more that George Bush was credited for that he absolutely did not serve—and the records show he did not serve: wasn’t there, wasn’t paid for it either, with no official reason ever given. The Bush people say he “made up” that lost time but there’s no orders or any other communication authorizing all these unexplained absences and “make ups.”

Lechliter does a good job of tearing through all the lies around this in section III-B: Bush’s Enlistment and Attendance at Required Training, pages 8-18. A pertinent quote: “…The most highly suspicious aspect of his…(Bush’s)…record is its incomplete, fragmentary nature. In some cases there are orders for ANACDUTRA but in most cases none. The regulations required documentation for attendance at ANACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. Up to May 1972, the proper attendance certificates are in the record. After that date, there are none…”

Bush and his people are trying to pretend that for George Bush the military was someplace he could drop into whenever he felt like it—but its not. Can I get an “up” on that from my fellow veterans?

So what our Commander in Chief’s “honorable discharge” shows is that he was stripped of his qualifications, they didn’t show ANY medals, they falsely stated his total of days and made a clear statement that he did not finish his military commitment.

So how the heck did he hide all that and beat TWO Vietnam Veterans with honorable discharges that show medals and qualifications? Answer He had a lot of help from the media? We’ll be discussing this in the future.

More on the worst military discharge in Presidential History and Rufus Martin, the guy who wrote it, in the next installment of BMHP.

[Hugin]

1. Interesting...

After 5 years shouldn't it say something on there somewhere Dub is qualified to fly
AIRPLANES?

Really?

I'd think so.

[SpiralHawk]

2. George AWOL Bush is an embarassment to

every self-respecting Connecticut preppy cheerleader on the planet.

[acmejack]

3. You know what else is missing?

I was examining my 214, it has an reenlistment eligibility code, 27 Remarks, equivalent to Box 32 on W's 214 there. (Mine is DD214N, Navy, but I am sure that Army and Air Force had them as well. My brother's Army 214 had one.) Do Officers 214 have them? We need to find out the answer to this question. I bet this coding did extend to Officers as well!