Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush's UNDESIRABLE Discharge from the National Guard

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:23 PM
Original message
Bush's UNDESIRABLE Discharge from the National Guard
Edited on Sat Jul-24-04 09:24 PM by johnfunk
That's right, Chimpy McFlightsuit fans -- Corrente has posted what looks to be a big development in what exactly happened to Bush Jr. at the end of his Alabama National Guard "service" , and merits attention as a hueueueueuge break in the story.
I'm not certain there is one. The DD214 is called the "Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty ."

HOWEVER I JUST saw this...)

on the order which SUPPOSEDLY gives Bush an "honorable discharge", the following words appear...

"DD FORM 258AF will be furnished"

And I just found this in the Code of Federal regulations, 32 CFR 887.7 {PDF}
(d) If (obsolete form) DD Form 258AF, Undesirable Discharge Certificate, has been issued,


Bwahahahaha -- there goes the Bush Boy's story about being honorably discharged! FReepers, prepare to wail and gnash your rotting teeth! Click here to read the joyful post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Az_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. there has to be a DD-214....
and it it's Undesirable, he's toast. I mean, how can this MF call up every NG soldier in the country when he's a No-Go?????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnfunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. A DD-258AF instead if a DD-214?
Can anyone say "toast on a stick in a fligfhtsuit costume?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Burnt, crisp Bu$h toast. Just they way we like it.
Yum.

So, we better maybe start studyin' up on John McCain, or figure out who else they are going to run?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Big news. My hope is he is exposed for the lying phony he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. I am the :cough: undesirable WAR PRESIDENT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. if true, this would be HUGE....
Bushco would burn the entire repository to destroy his records.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. But, but, but...
...that all happened before he was 45! You can't blame him for being irresponsible before that age! He wasn't given the right information and it was all a big misunderestimation!

Please let this be true!!!!! He's toast if he didn't get an honorable discharge, even many right wing Bush*bots won't support him if that's true. His cover story will be one lie too many, even for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanparty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. But he's supposedly a "war president" ...
... uhh wait, that is he's a "peace president" that's warrior like. He's like Mr Kung Fu, walking around all Zen like while staying lilly white even in the bright sun of Texas.

Anyway, they can't really get around the fact that they've been lying to everybody about this shit. The real killer is the drug abuse. If someone can put a skewer through this (potentially from finding records regarding Dubaya's record of "public service") Dubaya will go down in a landslide.

BTW, I also think that the old FEC allegations will come back up after the Martha Stewart trial. Martha got a pretty stiff fine for being "tipped off by a friend". Well, Bush was a regular insider and dumped all his stock before the company went belly up. THEN, he lied about it to investigators.

What happened the the nations first son???? ..... NOTHING!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. NOMINATED n/t
pleasepleaseplease let this be true...

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is major, he's stated over and over
"I was honorably discharged"....how much deception can he get away with. MKJ

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Important if true.
Maybe someone should ask him for his DD FORM 258AF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. What would be the difference between undesirable and dishonorable?
Any military folks know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Dishonorable is pretty hard to earn....
You would have to commit some very serious crimes. Undesirables are much more common. You can get one for being a general fuck-up. A lot of undesirables and conditions other than honorable were routinely upgraded during Carter's amnesty program during the seventies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
50. "General fuck-up" describes Shrub to a T.
I've wondered how he got away with being AWOL for so long in 1972, and simply deciding not to show up for a required physical exam.

Anybody without connections would have been court-martialed and thrown in the brig.

Shrub had connections, so maybe he got the easy way out. Maybe they threw him out of the military as an "undesirable." They were probably glad to see the end of him. I imagine he was less than useless around TANG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. not fit to be president
that is for sure-undesirable they just plain don`t want you because of something you did they can`t hack-dishonorable-you disgraced the uniform,and/or committed a serious offense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. Please Lord, let this be true....
I'm looking at the copy of the document. If its for real, then its the end of the line for the sorry little mofo.

Oh, please...please...please....let this be true!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. yes where is a copy of what
is being discussed..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Here's the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Here
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-3_2000_Personn...

Page 24. The question seems to hinge on whether that's DD FORM 258AF or 256AF at the end of that top paragraph...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. Here is the important part of the document.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Bone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #27
62. DD FORM 258AB is sure what I see there
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 04:37 PM by T Bone
of course we have considered him an 'undesirable' long before this form surfaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. If you blow it up, it definitely looks like 258 rather than 268
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 11:56 PM by daleo
There is a very prominent right angle at the the top left corner, as would be expected from the character "5", rather than "6".

On edit - my bad, I thought the difference was about 5 or 6. I make it 258AF, blown up, although it is rather pixellated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Is there such a form
as 256AF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaukraut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. yep, there is
Here's the link to various forms;

http://www.cem.va.gov/dischdocs.htm

Still, even if shrub did get 'honorably' discharged, there is that question of his being AWOL, and it'll come out one way or another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lectrobyte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
80. the words say "honorably discharged" and it looks like 256AF to me... <nt>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tibbiit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. wingnuts will sell this way hehe
Undesirable really means it was Undesirable to TANG for Bush to leave the service. :)
tib
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
12. God will save him.....if only Bush can unner stan Godspeak
If true.....Bush is Toast.... Pubs lose Face Big Time....Whoever suggested the Shrub to the Pub Masters years ago, most likely Rove, will be in the pits forever slaving away at moving large rocks in the hot sun............o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zookeeper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. I want to celebrate, but...
I don't trust that the media would give any serious coverage to the story. After they completely ignored the Florida 2000 voter fraud (hundreds of innocent people listed as felons on voter purge lists), I don't think any of them feel obligated to report the truth. If they think George II is on is way out, THEN they may give it coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
21. In the Army, an Undesirable Discharge was called a DD212....
I guess it would be different for the Air Force ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. Hate to burst the bubble here
but this looks incorrect. The documents as posted by usatoday look like they reference DD FORM 256AF which is an honorable discharge.

Look at page 26 here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-2_2004_Personn...

page 24 which is referenced by corrente appears like it could be an 8 but page 26 is much clearer and is a 6, and once you see that it's pretty clear that the other one is most likely a smudged 6


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. The fire at Corrente is banked, after seeing that a while ago.
But there are still bubbles oozing from aWol's recs, more and more. Paul Lukasiak already has him nailed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. that's not a six on that document
that's an eight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. There's a 6 at the top left and it does not look the same as the 256??
It does not have the same loop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. good eye!
i also wonder what part is 'form' set and what part is typed.
should be a difference in the font.

:shrug:

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. True, but it looks more like an 8 than a 6, IMO...
Perhaps someone will get to the bottom of it. Very interesting. Dubya could settle it all tomorrow by making his final DD214 public...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #36
56. It's a different font, so the letters will appear different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
69. I'm with you.
Clearly looks like an eight to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #69
76. Me too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
52. I agree with you. I think they are both 6.
So he got an honorable discharge. It still doesn't explain why he was AWOL for so much of 1972 and early 1973, or why he just blew off a required physical exam and quit flying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
58. I think it looks like an 8...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iowa_democrat Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. Sorry to be dense
but I don't understand the combination of the words "honorably discharged " and the DD 258AF. Can some military folks help me? I understand that it is not as severe aa a "dishonorable" discharge, but why does it say "honorable" right above it? I hope it is what it appears to be. I'm just confused.

steve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. here's the regulation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. see also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GAspnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. you're good
nice catch, Cat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. thanks doll
:hi:

also dug this up:

I'm wondering if an "undesirable" discharge still meet the "honorable" criteria:

A military discharge is given when a member of the armed forces is released from their obligation to serve.

An honorable discharge can occur for several reasons:

* the contracted period of service is finished;
* an order of a superior or military court decides the term of service is over;
* the conflict is finished and the military unit is disbanding;
* being passed up twice in a row for promotion when eligible, though this may vary by branch of service;
* certain other circumstances, including (in some countries) homosexuality, though in the United States this was replaced by the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1993.

A medical discharge is given when the service member has a medical condition that makes them unfit for military service. This maybe an injury sustained in combat.

A less than honorable discharge refers to a discharge that occurs under other than honorable conditions. This can be due to generally improper conduct, conviction of a crime either in a military court martial or a civilian court, or some other inappropriate action on the part of a soldier or someone associated with that soldier.

The United States military subdivides less-than-honorable discharges into four categories, in increasing order of severity:

* general discharge;
* undesirable discharge;
* bad conduct discharge; and
* dishonorable discharge.

Undesirable discharges or worse disqualify the soldier from receiving veterans' benefits under most circumstances, and any less-than-honorable discharge - even a general discharge - usually renders the discharged soldier ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, because such a discharge is considered tantamount to having been "fired" from the most recently-held job.

In addition, those given dishonorable discharges permanently forfeit certain citizenship rights, including the right to vote or legally possess a firearm in certain states. According to the government, there is no way for one to lose citizenship as such by any means, aside from voluntarily, and there is no federal law barring discharged soldiers from voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterGamut Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #41
57. So what you're saying...
...is that Bush may have gotten an honorable discharge but still been considered undesirable for some reason. And one of those reasons could be that he was found to be gay.

Well, it fits with the "You've got a pretty face" story. Remember that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
28. This story is bogus
I know these blurry old documents can be like Rorschach blots, but when trying to decide whether a digit is a 6 or an 8 one ought to look at the nature of the rest of the document. There's no 'here' here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Citizen Daryl Donating Member (693 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I've done a lot of OCR verification of blurry documents.
It's definitely a 256.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I agree- I blew up the section and it looks like a 6, honorable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
35. Sorry, but there is nothing here as far as the discharge goes.
I'm afraid it's a 256 like an earlier poster said. If Bush had indeed received a 258, there would have to be some documentation for the reasons.

I received an honorable discharge on my DD214 in 1972. Someone I knew was not a good boy during his Army time. He received a dishonorable. There were several Article 15s and demotions in his file. The Army finally just booted him. In some cases they would give you a general discharge, which usually went to folks who just couldn't adapt to military life or were bordering on mental illness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
38. The document itself says "HONORABLE"
Having flown slightly off the handle at my first gander at this thing, I urge rational calm. The order SAYS "honorable discharge" just above where this number appears. Seems to me that probably settles the question whether its a "6" or an "8."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. This is confusing with so many threads!!
Check out the PDF RoadRunner cited... Shows there may have been such a thing as an "honorable" yet "undesirable" discharge when due to drug possession...

http://dont.stanford.edu/regulations/regulation27.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Oops, that was Fuzz!
Sorry, Fuzz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. who you calling 'Fuzz'
Firefly?

:hi:

dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gold Metal Flake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
39. Self delete.
Edited on Sat Jul-24-04 10:35 PM by Godless Gearhead
Nevermind what I posted. The DD 214 posted earlier (link to PDF) states honorable. I did not yet see that doc as I was posting.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
42. He could clear it up rather quickly...
All he would have to do is show a copy of his discharge. That would be the only form needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
44. Just examined the numbers...
... with a magnifier. Note that at the time I examined the numbers I hadn't remembered which was the honorable or "undesirable" form, so I was looking at this strictly as someone with training in graphic arts. What I read was a 258, not 256. If you look closely you can discern the bottom line (left) of the top circle curves inwards as with a hoop, ie, a number formed by two complete circles. This would not be present in the numeral six, which has an unbroken, egg-shaped longitudinal line forming its left curve. Also note that the upper circle of the eight is heavier on the right (where it would normally be broken on a number six) than the left and clearly delineated, whereas with a smear or bad key one would expect either some fuzziness or deformation of the line closing the six's gap, or some uneveness in tone. Neither is present.

Of course, I am just relating what I was able to examine of the document on my computer screen. To be honest, I was rather cynical about this debate (I suppose I don't allow myself to deal with such heady fantasies as having irrefutable proof that Dubya lied about his NG service -- my heart might not be able to withstand such pleasure!) so when I had satisfied myself that the number was indeed an eight rather than a six I went back to reread the original post, expecting that a "258" confirmed that he had received an honorable discharge, not an "undesirable" classification. Needless to say I was gobsmacked to find that my own observations actually support the contention that his was an "undesirable" discharge.

Certainly I could be very wrong, but for now please don't anyone spoil my heady little fantasy. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. I am SO not an expert on this but it looks like the only question
is where that form went to. If it has to be a "6" to match the word "honorable," we still know that the "honorable" discharge could be given when there had been drug use.

So the "honorable," at best, proves nothing about the flight physical, his being subsequently grounded, etc., contrary to Repug statements that it means something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. That's what it looks like to my eye also...
"If you look closely you can discern the bottom line (left) of the top circle curves inwards as with a hoop, ie, a number formed by two complete circles. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #44
54. The problem
is that you don't receive this type of discharge without documentation for the reason. I was in the Army from 1970 to 1972 and did nothing but work with orders, 10 hours or more a day. With every general or dishonorable discharge, there was plenty of documentation. Every Article 15, demotion, criminal charge, etc. was in the soldier's file.

I think this is nothing more than a spoiled brat with connections getting away with thumbing his nose at the AFNG. Daddy would not have let little brat bushit receive a less than honorable discharge, regardless of missed meetings or drug use. In our eyes it's not honorable, but in BushWorld the official documents are all that count.
He missed meetings, called Daddy, strings were pulled, an honorable discharge was finally given.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
liveoaktx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
53. Here's my blowup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-04 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. here's mine...definitely an 8 !
http://store1.yimg.com/I/bachelorette-dot-com_1798_1767...

was a 10 but i think some air leaked out...
dp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
67. Nevertheless, it's doesn't sound like something I'd want on my record
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 10:20 PM by Jack Rabbit
According to the linked PDF document, a DD Form 258AF indicates a less-than-honorable discharge:

(d) If (obsolete form) DD Form 258AF, Undesirable Discharge Certificate, has been issued, it may be replaced with DD Form 794AF, Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

Like most former service members, I have a DD 214 in my file with an honorable discharge.

In fairness to Bush, he may have received a less than honorable discharge in exchange for getting an early out to attend Harvard Business School. It doesn't necessarily mean they caught him snorting cocaine in his quarters or that anybody was just fed up with his absenteeism. Moreover, we know that Bush got an early out to attend Harvard. That is not in dispute.

What this would bring in dispute is that Bush received an honorable discharge, as he claims.

Well, I'm shocked, shocked, I say, to learn that Mr. Bush might possibly have lied to the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. Any news on this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
60. If true, we make hamburger, if not true we still can make hay...
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 03:57 PM by HereSince1628
The trick is to use Rovean logic or the NeoCon's approach to logic...

let me illustrate...

Occam's Razor says keep it simple, the simplest thing is that Bush did his service and the records have been messed up.

So, maybe if only one of many pages of records says something different we need to accept it as a mistake... or maybe not.

Absence of evidence of a crime isn't evidence of the absence of crime its only evidence that the evidence has been cleared away or altered..

And let me remind everyone that doubt is a useful tool in politics.

If you can make people wonder about the credibility of a candidate you have probably done damage to that candidate's campaign. George's campaign certainly is worthy of trying to damage.



So, nothing says that Occam's Razor is always correct in its first application...if we look for things that are simply to be expected under the truth we arrive at a probablistic version of Occam's Razor, shall we call it perhaps, Student's Doubt?

Is there any reason to doubt the veracity of GW's argument that he was honorably discharged? Well, AS THEY SAY IN TEXASS...
Duuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!



What are the chances that some serviceman is going to have a mistake on their records? I would say well within expectations but probably not very common because military records have important implications for veteran's benefits and such. When records get used the errors get caught...did GW never use and consequently NEVER REVIEW his records until now? I don't think so. He may not have needed vets benefits, but surely in his run for TX governor the records became important. I have no doubt that Bush's staffers examined these records in detail (granting nonetheless that a bunch of draftdoging chickenhawks would have little knowledge to catch every problem.

So now we apply NeoCon thinking...

1. If you had something to hide wouldn't you try to hide those records? GW's records certainly have been hard to find.

2. In a complex and poorly understood set of records wouldn't oversights be likely while destroying and altering records? For example. On one document someone might leave an 8 when a 6 was being inserted elsewhere.

3. Wouldn't you expect that politicals who avoided military service would overlook fine details in some military records?

4. Wouldn't you expect that months into a scandel someone would discover some piece of the record that hadn't been manipulated? Something like an "8" being left behind?

NeoCon Conclusions...

1. Perfect records are as much evidence of sophisticated mendacity as they are of accurate records.

2. Errors are not errors but evidence that the complete and correct record was manipulated.

Consequently, the main conclusion to be drawn from most of the record being in support of GW is that GW should be suspected of being "GUILTY AS HELL" (REALLY! I AM NOT KIDDING HERE.)

Hey, it worked against Saddam. If the Repubs respond to this sort of bullshit we should be willing to employ it.

The future of the Republic is at stake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
61. We know it was an 8 because that is why it was not found!
The payroll documents are likely filed according to the type of discharge, there has to be someone who can confirm this. The people who destroyed the microfilm assumed chimp was discharged honorably, so the real files remained unharmed. I suspect those who "found" the records in a different index also hoped that someone would figure this out, but it will remain our little secret.

Even if it were a 6, the original or a copy would exist somewhere, but it also seems to be lost.

This story has a lot of potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. "incorrect records accession numbers "
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 05:31 PM by spotbird
was the stated reason the records were supposedly lost in the first place. In other words, the records were filed according to group. If we can find the accession numbers and the filing code, we may have our answer.

The code is somewhere in here:

http://www.uscg.mil/CCS/CIT/CIM/DIRECTIVES/CIM%5cCIM_10...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kazak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #63
71. Juicy!
Anybody with some pull on to this yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. Not that I can tell. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pobeka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
64. Why are there 2 different fonts in this image?
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 09:42 PM by Pobeka
I claim total ignorance about this whole deal, but if you look at the image, the top portion is definitely a larger font.

The bottom portion is a smaller font, almost looks like Times-Roman to me. Was that font in the bottom portion available on typewriters in the DoD in 1974?

It doesn't make sense to me that you'd type the address in one font, on one typewriter, then slip the letter into a different typewriter to type the body of the message?

Edit:typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pobeka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Kicking up for someone who might have a clue n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. I'm guessing it was a military form w/ blank spaces
... a pre-printed form, as it were, with blank spaces for the pertinent information to be typed in as needed.

Now, if there are 2 different fonts on the typed info, that's something to be looked into.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pobeka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. The address is not pre-printed. It's different. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 04:37 AM
Response to Original message
72. Here is the definition
DD 258AF- used by losers prior to democratic campaign as support crumbles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 06:27 AM
Original message
Bush should be forced to produce his:
DD-214 with his entire service record revealed

DD-256 or DD-258 which are the framable discharge certificates

Since the AF 258 discharge falls between the General and the Bad Conduct discharges...it would be the same as the AF(TANG)firing him for very poor service.

Bush has to produce these two documents. Of the two, the DD-214 is the most important since his last duty station will be shown...and it was the disciplinary ANG unit in Colorado(i.e., his last duty station). The disciplinary unit was in place to take unsatisfactory officers and enlisted men and process them for Nam duty. The fact that the war was winding down saved Bush from becoming a Mexican citizen to avoid Nam.

The answer seems to be obvious...were Bush to have been Honorably Discharged, he would have produced both of these documents 4 years ago. A dental appointment as proof? No way. His finance records--as others have stated...someone has to be able to read the finance
codes to see from where he was discharged and the type of discharge received.

Given the choice, I would prefer Bush produce his DD-214...it tells all. Upon discharge, all military members are counseled to protect this document for life and never lose it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Bush should be forced to produce his:
DD-214 with his entire service record revealed

DD-256 or DD-258 which are the framable discharge certificates

Since the AF 258 discharge falls between the General and the Bad Conduct discharges...it would be the same as the AF(TANG)firing him for very poor service.

Bush has to produce these two documents. Of the two, the DD-214 is the most important since his last duty station will be shown...and it was the disciplinary ANG unit in Colorado(i.e., his last duty station). The disciplinary unit was in place to take unsatisfactory officers and enlisted men and process them for Nam duty. The fact that the war was winding down saved Bush from becoming a Mexican citizen to avoid Nam.

The answer seems to be obvious...were Bush to have been Honorably Discharged, he would have produced both of these documents 4 years ago. A dental appointment as proof? No way. His finance records--as others have stated...someone has to be able to read the finance
codes to see from where he was discharged and the type of discharge received.

Given the choice, I would prefer Bush produce his DD-214...it tells all. Upon discharge, all military members are counseled to protect this document for life and never lose it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Freedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
74. The font appears to be
a form of Century Schoolbook:


Thoughts?

(My first post :hi: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morning Dew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. Thanks for the comparisons!
It looks like a 6 to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. No, it's probably either a Courier or Bodoni face...
and it was probably typed on an IBM Selectric (the federal government being a big IBM customer). I'd say Courier, as that was a pretty standard typeface for the Selectrics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pobeka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Did selectrics have interchangable font heads in 1974?
Edited on Mon Jul-26-04 05:17 PM by Pobeka
My memory says I didn't see those interchangeable heads until the late 1970's.

Is my memory correct?

On edit: No, my memory is not correct. Selectrics were around in the 1960's.

But I find it strange that for this type of letter you'd stop after typing the date and address, and switch to a different "typeball" as they called them. Do any other folks with military documents from that era have evidence of switching fonts in the middle of a standard "form letter" as we'd call it today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
75. Didn't Bush also say he'd been to war (and raised twins)?
and, he said that raising twins was tougher than war?

I mean, how can we doubt our great Commander-in-Chief?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DubyaSux Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
77. It's an eight
It's defintely an "8".

The 2 and 5 next to it have a clear separation so the numbers don't blob into some sort of square. The 8 is clearly square and the bottom half is consistent in size with other characters of the same font. There is no logical way to conclude the characters surrounding the 8 (or 6 if you choose to beleive that) have clearly defined gaps, but somehow this "6" was different. There should be a gap at the upper right that should exist, but doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. Unfortunately, it is a six, not an eight.
Examination of the photostatic copies in the PDF on the USA Today site confirms it. However, anyone should be able to figure that out from the language used in the separation letter...one does not think they would use the words "honorably discharged" if they meant something else, and on one of the forms, in the box headed "Character of Service", the word "HONORABLE" is quite clearly legible.

Amazing how often the human mind tricks they eye into seeing what it wants to see rather than what's there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
81. Bush is not worthy of being President of the United States
If that's hatred, or "bashing", so be it. I would say it's a very objective truth. From his barely passing grades in school, to his less than stellar record in the services, to his inept public speaking, to his lack of intellectual curiosity of the world (never having travelled abroad until he was President!), his inablity to seperate church and state, his handling of the worst crisis this country has faced since Pearl Harbor, to his leading us to a war we are still fighting against an "enemy" that neither attacked us or has done anything to do with the justifications that were made to take us to war.

Get it media? Just because one member of the supreme court selected this man for President, and his father was President does not deem him worthy to be President. Oh, and those great Americans that voted for him and still support him? I don't think they are worthy of being Americans. Get it? I think that voting for someone that is clearly a danger to your fellow Americans and the world doesn't give you a pass. You are wrong. It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC