CBS Posts 4 TANG Memos - Military DU'ers please dissect!

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay4.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardmay19.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust1.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/BushGuardaugust18.pdf

[fearnobush]

1. The blacked out texted in may4.pdf says "5000 Longmont #8".

just an observation.

[RamboLiberal]

2. How about "backdating" ?

Q: Killian writes that he was backdating the Officer Efficiency Training report. Anything irregular about that?

DAN BARTLETTT: Well, again, these are cryptic lines of saying, backdate, won't rate these things. Again, what we're asked to do is to try to read the mind of somebody who is no longer with us. I think we ought to look at, and what the public can look at, is a full file, hundreds and hundreds of pages that demonstrate that President Bush fulfilled his duties.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[punpirate]

3. Reading between the lines...

... it means that as of August, Killian or his people still hadn't seen or heard of Bush being on duty at Ellington, even after May 1973, when the rating period was over and his OETR was due. They waited and waited so they could say something about Bush. Finally, because Denver was demanding an answer to their request for information on Bush, Killian signs an order saying Bush wasn't around from May 1972 through May 1973, and therefore couldn't be rated.

As for the rest of the documents, the first is a reminder to Bush, because he hadn't yet made an anniversary date flight physical. Bush ignores this reminder, and calls Killian trying to weasel out of the physical by saying he might go to non-flying status.

That's why Killian creates a second memo for the file a few days after it's apparent Bush won't make the appointment, based on Bush's phone call. That's the second memo.

The third memo is the written confirmation that's he's cut official orders to remove Bush from flying status. He's given Bush over three months leeway, and Bush still hasn't taken the physical. It's an explanation to his superior why the orders were issued. Basically, he's saying, "that's it, I've got to get these out, or Denver will have my ass."

The last memo for file, the CYA memo, is Killian saying he's getting political pressure from above to give Bush a satisfactory rating, even though he hasn't seen hide nor hair of Bush in over fifteen months. Killian is reluctantly saying that he will only do this much--say that Bush hasn't been observed and will backdate the order to make it seem that not seeing Bush was not unexpected--if he does any more, he's lying on official documents.

BTW, IAW is military shorthand for "in accordance with" and it always precedes an ANG regulation. In most of these memos, this is 35-13, which covers Bush's obligations to maintain his flying status.

Altogether, these memos suggest that the pay records suggesting Bush did a lot of make-up work are either fraudulent, or, as one analyst has suggested, the days in the record are just indications of scheduled days for which Bush received inactive reserve status credit since he didn't actually show up.

Cheers.

[RamboLiberal]

4. Thanks - What's OETR?

eom

[punpirate]

10. OETR is military shorthand for...

... Officer's Efficiency Training Report. It's the annual review of his performance by his immediate superiors in the ANG. It's sort of his job rating for the year.

On edit, I should add that the ANG mirrors the active-duty Air Force in many ways. In the active-duty military, an EER is an enlisted man's "Enlisted Efficiency Report," and an officer's is an OER.

The guard is a bit different--their time is supposed to be spent training for national security emergencies, but they get similar reports for their time training. That's why the guard refers to that annual review as an OETR.

[speedoo]

11. So much fuss over a physical.

Q: Wouldn't it have been easier for the coWard to simplay have one instead of all this playing around?

A: Normally yes. But if the coWard was on coke all the time, he's have to avoid a physical at all costs.

[punpirate]

15. Maybe, maybe not....

Coke is out of the system in 3-4 days. Tests then probably wouldn't have detected it in two or three days of non-use.

Now, what if Bush didn't want to fly because he'd nearly killed himself in April, 1972, and was too scared to fly?

[bklyncowgirl]

24. Coke would be out of his system but what about pot?

If Bush was toking weed it would have shown up in the tests much longer than cocaine.

[punpirate]

25. Yes, certainly....

... but, again, I simply suggest that many think that the root reason was drugs (it is, after all, the popular view of Bush at the time), and it may not have been. No one in the press has seriously examined the possibility, or sought documents that might explain, that Bush stopped flying in April, 1972, because he was absolutely petrified by the thought of climbing into the cockpit of a jet ever again.

There's not enough evidence to prove this, or disprove it, mostly because no one's sought out the records which would explain or disprove Bush's motives for failing to take his physical. Drugs, as a reason, are a popular assumption.

Cheers.

[speedoo]

29. Umm.. he was not petrified to get into a jet cockpit in May, 2003.

He was not the pilot, of course. Maybe that makes all the difference.

If there were some scary incident, are you suggesting the records of it were scrubbed? There would certainly be many records.

Is there something specific that makes you believe it was fear of flying not drugs, to explain his behavior?

[Frodo]

37. I'd say the opposite.

I'd think being the pilot is less scary than being a passenger.

I say that only from my personal automobile experience and one ride on the back of an F/A-18 (D of course).

[punpirate]

42. An Austin reporter...

... asked Bush a series of questions a while before he announced for the presidency about some of the rumors that had intermittently circulated around Houston about his past. He answered them all in quick fashion, and the reporter finished up with one long-standing rumor--that he had crashed a plane in the ANG because he was drunk. Bush didn't say, "Nope, not true." Didn't say, "yup, I crashed one, but not because I was drunk." He said, "where's the plane?"

And, there's some level of certainty that the records were scrubbed--there's an affidavit from Col. Bill Burkett, who was an ANG admin officer in the `90s, when Bush was governor of Texas, and several interviews with him where the substance of what he says about scrubbing doesn't change.

Up until now, the emphasis has been on his military records. Some of the most controversial stuff has come to light because the press has started to look at the records of others with regard to Bush. To date, no one's been looking at ANG inventory records, procurement records, operations logs, etc., for the time when Bush was flying out of Ellington, and there might well be something there that puts a context to his refusal to fly.

Given his total lack of honesty during his public life, I'd say it would be in character for Bush to walk away from his commitment to the guard. I'm simply offering a different possible reason for it.

Cheers.


edit for syntax

[diamond14]

48. RE: drug testing....in the 1970's....

I obtained my B.S. in Chemistry at the University of Michigan in 1971. Upon returning to my home-town of Detroit, I knew several chemists working in the 'methadone' drug-testing clinic....the technical discussion amongst my peers was the drug-testing, a relatively new area of Chemistry jobs....at that time, there were more than 10,000 REGISTERED 'junkies' in Detroit, each stealing more than $500 per day to fence for supporting their habit (to get maybe $50 or $75), and many of them Vietnam Veterans....crime was REAL high in Detroit, because OUR Soldiers did NOT receive any counseling or hospital drug-treatment or drug-treatment centers (Betty Ford Center, if you are wealthy like bush*)...and still don't...these costs of WAR are not even talked about....


I recall the MESS made of military drug tests, when so many of OUR soldiers returned from Vietnam...thousands and thousands of samples, some got MIXED up with others at laboratories all across America, or contaminated, or mis-labled when taken, some soldiers urinated in other's containers, water added, etc. ...today, you can't do that...specially designed bathrooms keep you from MIXING with water, and you are watched through a mirror, and nobody else can be in room when you "donate" your urine....illegal drugs were coming back from Vietnam in the CASKETS of OUR dead Soldiers....I knew many returning soldiers who were addicted, creating a crisis on our college campus, and in cities all across America...many DIED after returning from their drug abuse...

For Vietnam, the whole drug testing program was a MESS, and many soldiers had to fight the government to PROVE that they did NOT do drugs, many innocents were bashed by OUR own government. The primary problem was massive OVERLOAD of all chemistry testing facilities and NO Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)...

---------------------------------

It would be the PHYSICAL EXAM that would also determine drug use: an examination of the nasal septum, and a look at arms for needle marks....

with no QA/QC for the tests, and little studies completed on the metabolism of different additive drugs, and NO internet, chemical publications were difficult to find, and you had to go to the University to read such studies....there was just very little understanding of how long it takes for different illegal drugs to go through your body and get detected by a Chemist. That knowledge came later, after Vietnam was over, and the drug-testing laboratories had the time to work on some REAL studies....

I doubt the bush* or any of his friends even knew about the TIME that it takes for different drugs to go through your body....most drug addicts really didn't care about the tests, and they mostly did what bush* did, NOT SHOW UP for the test...it's a simpleton, drug-addict's solution....that's why there was such HIGH penalties for NOT SHOWING UP...


----------------------------------



the chemical methods were simple and crude compared to today's methods....the soldier urinated into a container. The Technician placed "solvent" into the urine, shaking the two together. The illegal drugs go into the solvent. The Chemist places a drop of urine onto a TLC (thin-layer chromatography plate - actually, a piece of glass coated with silica), the plate was placed into a small box with a little 'solvent' on the bottom, the sample rose up the plate with the solvent, and was compared to a series of 'standards' to determine what it was...if that simple test was POSITIVE, then another more expensive test was run...using an instrument called a Gas Chromatograph...

today's chemical analyses are MUCH MORE ADVANCED (although using essentially the same basic idea for separation)....

[merh]

38. Please elaborate. Whatcha mean nearly killed himself?

Did he almost crash his plane??? Inquirying minds want to know!

[punpirate]

43. The operative phrase is...

... "what if...?"

No one's been looking for any evidence relating to his flying outside of Bush's own records.

[merh]

47. Gotcha - I was having a slow day yesterday! eom

[Joanne98]

49. So Bush got paid for days he didn't show up? n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. Now the big question: Where were these documents all these years,

and why have they surfaced only now? Seriously, this is the question that I was thinking while watching 60 minutes.

On edit--never mind, I didn't understand that the White House had actually released these. If they hid them up till now, why release them now? Did they have some kind of lawsuit compelling this, with penalties if they were shown to be withholding documents like this?

[RamboLiberal]

6. Did they sneak out of Bartlett's file

After all he was the scrubber.

[punpirate]

12. Indeed...

... Dan Bartlett minimizes, in his answers to Dan Rather, his association with Texas politics, but he was, in fact, one of Bush's PR guys when Bush was governor of Texas.

There are suggestions that Bartlett was one of the people who contacted the Texas ANG to have Bush's records scrubbed when Bush was considering a run for the presidency in 1998.

If Rather had been cleverer, he would have quoted Bill Burkett in that regard, and put Bartlett on the defensive, but, he didn't.

Ed Murrow would have used Bartlett's position in the Governor's mansion to nail Bartlett to the cross.

Bartlett very likely helped in the order to destroy Bush's records. They knew, just on the basis of what is still available, that Bush's military records were a liability.

Bill Burkett has nothing to gain by stating what he has, and a lot to lose. Bush's records were purged, according to Burkett. Bartlett aided in that destruction to some level of responsibility.

[troublemaker]

7. In the unedited Bartlett interview CBS asks why

these copies were in Killian's file but magically missing from Bush's files. (And Bartlett's answers do not exude confidence)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_05.php#003452

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. I'll have to reread the transcript, but it just sounded like Bartlett Pear

just rapidly said some talking point and didn't really answer the question.

[HootieMcBoob]

36. looks like there were supposed to be copies in Bush's file too

but somebody "scrubbed" his file. Unfortunately for the chimp they forgot to pull the copies from Killian's file as well.

[punpirate]

18. Damage control....

Bush has consistently said he completed his obligations honorably (because he can point to an honorable discharge). But, the facts are weighing in, and his prior statements are shit compared to the documents. He didn't fulfill his obligations, he stopped flying long before his commitment was complete, and none of his previous explanations square with the remaining documentation.

They released `em because they had to--they were blindsided by CBS. No lawsuits pending, as of yet.

[punpirate]

9. I should add to the previous post...

... that one of the most damning documents thus far available has garnered very little attention by the news media. Bush has asserted, continually, that he was honorably discharged by the Texas ANG, despite the fact that he had completed (if one assumes he hasn't been seen since May 1972) only four years of a 6-1/2 year commitment.

Here's where time delays come into play. The military on paper doesn't move that quickly, but it does move, eventually. So, what happened is this: Bush has physically disappeared since April, 1972. For some reason unknown, he's decided not to fly any longer. Going to work in Alabama on Blount's campaign isn't his idea--it's his father's, to get him the hell out of Texas, where Dubya is making a fool of himself.

The purpose of the move is to get Dubya the hell out, but Bush doesn't go to drills there--he's officially disappeared. If it was just for Blount's campaign, Bush would've come back to Texas in November. But, he's in exile. He can't come back right away. Gets a toothache and cheapskate that he is, let's an Air Force dentist take care of the problem while he's in Alabama. So, he's still in Alabama in Jan., 1973, even though he doesn't need to be for the campaign, which ended over two months before.

After failing to report in Alabama, Bush starts making plans to attend Harvard. This may redeem him somewhat in his parents' eyes, so he heads back to Texas. But, not having flown in nine months, he doesn't see the need to go back. Indeed, his intention is not to go back (my own guess about this is that something happened on his Apr. 16, 1972 drill that scared the piss out of him and he wasn't about to get into a jet again).

At any rate, he doesn't attend. There are May, 1973. orders for him to appear for training duty (in Marty Heldt's copies of the files). He doesn't show up.

Meanwhile, he starts calling his commander, saying that he wants to go to Harvard. The first and obvious thing his commander does is remind of him of his commitment. Maybe his commander thinks it's a good thing to be rid of him, and eventually has Bush sign a document that he affirms that he'll find a unit in Massachusetts which will have him.

Between May and August, 1973, the order for clarification of Bush's status comes from Denver. Killian knows that he's going to catch hell from high-level Texas ANG people if he tells Denver that the son of the ambassador to the UN is goofing off. So, he buys time by sending a non-commital "not observed" rating to Denver. His memos indicate that he's gotten no reply from the 187th at Dannelly AFB in Alabama. That strongly suggests to Killian that Bush never showed. He doesn't know what the hell is going on with Lt. Bush.

Here's where the delay in timing comes in. That order goes out in early August, 1973 to Denver--they get a copy of everything. Weeks go by and Bush still doesn't show up. But Killian gets a handwritten note from Bush saying that he wants out to go to school. Killian knows that he should tell Bush no, it's his obligation to find a new unit. Maybe Killian gets a call from someone up high, or he thinks it's a good opportunity to simply cut Lt. George Bush loose. For whatever the reason, Killian signs an order to discharge Bush on October 1, 1973, long after Bush is already in Massachusetts, attending school.

That order for discharge is sent to Denver in October, 1973, as with every other piece of official paper generated by the Texas ANG. A copy of the order arrives, some clerk in Denver opens up the file to put in the discharge order and right on the top is the backdated order from Killian saying that Bush "has not been observed" in the OETR reporting period from May, 1972 through May, 1973.

Clerk gives it to superiors to handle. Superiors in Denver say, "wait a minute--Texas is giving this bozo an honorable discharge when they haven't seen him for a year-and-a-half--he wasn't even around to sign his own discharge papers. This stinks."

So, Denver issues an order, backdated to two weeks prior to Bush's discharge date, that he's officially transferred to inactive status as of September 15th, 1973. So, in effect, Denver rescinds the discharge order by Texas ANG. Bush could not be discharged from active reserve status when Denver has transferred him to inactive status two weeks prior. Texas ANG should have informed Bush's Houston-area draft board of his status. But, they'd filed discharge papers for Bush and did nothing.

Bush's discharge was, on its face, so that he could attend school. This was a violation of regulations at the time--one could apply for early discharge if one's school starting date was within six months of normal separation or discharge. Bush's actual discharge date was late Nov., 1974, so he was released for school attendance fourteen months before discharge.

He'd not been seen for more than a year, hadn't flown since April, 1972, had failed to take two consecutive flight physicals in May, 1972 and May, 1973, had failed to comply with a direct order in May, 1972 to take a flight physical and was still discharged honorably.

My guess is that he was discharged by his superior, LtCol Jerry Killian, because Killian was pressured to do so. The memos from his files strongly suggest political pressure.

But, however this was decided, Bush did not fulfill his obligations. The most important thing to press at this time is that Bush and his spokesmen have consistently lied about that fact. Bush did not serve as a pilot, as he guaranteed he would in his Nov., 1969 commitment, for the last thirty-one months of his Texas ANG commitment, from the end of April, 1972 through late November, 1974.

[speedoo]

13. Your analysis is fantastic.

I'm tempted to say "brilliant", but I only read it once and while I am confident that you are on target, I'd want to go through it a couple more times.

One thing, probably minor. shrub is on tape at the Republican convention in 1972, obviously with a very un-military haircut. Don't have the when or where, but his presence would tend to indicate that any separation from mommy and daddy was at least suspended for that event.

[Carla in Ca]

14. Hey, good point about the haircut

If true, it helps prove those missing months between May and November.

[punpirate]

16. According to the latest interview with Linda Allison...

... on Salon.com, he was persona non grata in Texas. Whether they hauled him up for a brief appearance at the convention is of no real consequence--they said, according to Linda Allison, that they didn't want him in Texas, that he was a political liability.

If anything, an appearance at the RNC convention would confirm he wasn't taking care of business in either Texas or Alabama at that time....

Cheers.

[democrat_patriot]

32. OMG. Excellent work.

Maybe you should call the Boston Globe reporter who spoke to Trof (DUer) today.

[aquart]

17. Could someone tell me if those letters are bitmapped?

Are the freeps right? What's up with that superscript "th"?

Word processing programs do that automatically. Recent ones. What else would have done it?

I looked at the type, and now I'm wondering when the US military first ordered dot matrix printers. Did they buy the early WANG computers? Were military contracts propping up the early computer industry?

[punpirate]

19. The orders were very likely done on IBM typewriters...

... which were just coming in around that time (the ones with the ball to change fonts).

Telex and teletype was still being used then, so there's no telling, except by careful examination of fonts, what machine produced the document.

More importantly, a seeming superscript in a document doesn't necessarily indicate a forgery--it can be someone leaning on the keys of the typewriter. It doesn't change the substance of the document.

Computers and dot matrix printers were not commonly in use in 1973.

The freepers can't admit that their fair-haired boy simply gamed the system and evaded 30 months of service. It would break their hearts to know that he was a rich kid with connections, given how frequently they refer to him as a man of the people.

[burrowowl]

20. Good analyses through thread

answer my e-mails please on political activism.

[punpirate]

21. PM please on this. n/t

[aquart]

22. What about that superscript th?

Word processors existed. The printers existed. I'm not making a case for them, I'm too tired. But the superscript is startling to anyone who has used an old IBM electric.

Are the letters proportional, btw?

I asked about the bitmap because I see dots when I look closely at the memos. That would not have been the case with an IBM typewriter. So I need it explained.

[punpirate]

23. I don't know for sure about the superscript, but I don't think....

... it means a thing. Look at the content.

As for dots, it's a scan of the original document. You're going to have pixel definition in any bitmap scan, and from the detritus on each document, they appear to be scans of items which have been photocopied.

If you would, simply isolate the area of concern, and show it here. I don't think it means a thing.

The freepers are desperately trying to find anything to suggest that the document is a forgery--it came from an FOIA request, independent of Barnes' interview comment--if it's forged, the government did it to help Bush.

Cheers.

[John BigBootay]

40. These documents don't look "real" to me--

On FR they've got several side-by-side comparisons and superimposed comparisons and the two documents-- the original and the mock-up done in MS Word are essentially identical.

If this is true- why would anyone make a forgery that was so obvious? Why not go out and get an old IBM Selectric from the Goodwill and make it look convincing?

Interesting story though...

[Protected]

46. So does anybody have examples of non-Bush

documents that look like these? The superscript th and the fact that the font isn't monospaced makes me very skeptical of these documents. I wonder why the White House hasn't questioned their authenticity, though.

[Pepperbelly]

26. turn the carriage a half turn and you've got superscript. nt

[punpirate]

27. Yup, that, too.... n/t

[Frodo]

33. Not in a smaller font size you don't

You have to replace the ball.

[Pepperbelly]

44. on the documents, was the superscript smaller or merely raised? nt

[Frodo]

34. None of the other documents (that were released) indicate this.

Why are all the official documents using the cheaper typewritters and this guy has the expensive machine for his personal "CYA" memos?

[punpirate]

45. Clerks do the usual shit work...

... and that includes typing up forms. Have a look at the number of typos and misspellings in the forms released to date.

Commanders, on the other hand, have secretaries who are provided with generally better office equipment.

If you're high on the totem pole, you get the best. It's that way in business, as well.

Cheers.

[TeeYiYi]

39. A history of IBM typewriters . . .

. . . with starts in 1930. These three are 1959, 1960 and 1971 respectively:



http://www.etypewriters.com/history.htm

TYY

[TeeYiYi]

41. To clarify . . .

. . . the IBM Selectric came out in 1961. These ads are from 1962:



TYY

[jpgray]

31. So the Rumsfeld Pentagon forged documents to hurt Bush?

Is that the theory that's going around?

[Frodo]

35. They weren't released by the Pentagon.

They have no attribution of source yet. Just that they were part of oe guy's "personal records". A man who died over 20 years ago.

[napi21]

50. Somewhere I heard these were released by the Lt. Col's widow.

I can't remember where I heard this, but it was the end of last week. I suspect it was on CNN because thats the chanel I usually have in background all the time.

[RamboLiberal]

28. Kick for the Day Crowd

:kick:

[Darby]

30. Funny how the SBVFL accused KERRY of "duking the system"

by...um....writing some reports.


Even if true, it simply cannot compare the DUKING the ANG system took from W.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

51. Weren't some of the Texas ANG records on microfiche?

Remember when we were told that any additional records were unavailable because the microfiche had become so degraded that it was now unreadable? That's when a different location was found to have duplicate records. Could some of these more recent records possibly be on microfiche? If what CBS has are photocopies on new paper, wouldn't the microfiche records provide a more accurate way of dating them?