Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UPI WRONG! Trainees are NOT qualified for ribbons their units are awarded!

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:12 AM
Original message
UPI WRONG! Trainees are NOT qualified for ribbons their units are awarded!
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 06:18 AM by Walt Starr
From the Air Force Personnel Center:

From: "AFPC/DPSTC Call Center" <AFPC.DPSTC@RANDOLPH.AF.MIL> Add to Address Book
To: "'waltstarr@xxxxxxxx.com'" <waltstarr@xxxxxxxx.com>
Subject: AFPC Contact Center Ticket # 040913-000049 (CIVILIAN CALL CENTER ISSUES) has been closed
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:20:16 -0500


Walter Starr, below is your initial request, and resolution. If the resolution is not sufficient please e-mail us at mailto:contact.center@randolph.af.mil or the POC below. Include your ticket number. You can also submit an update to your original request by logging into https://webcolab.afpc.randolph.af.mil/Scripts/rightnowdb.cfg/php.exe/enduser/home.php

Problem : Do trainees in Basic Training Squadrons receive the AFOUA if the Squadron receives the award?
Problem Details : If a person is a trainee in a Basic Military Training Squadron for six weeks, and that six weeks is covered in an award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award to that squadron, does the basic trainee also qualify to wear the award?

Resolution : Sir, they do not qualify for the wear of that award, it is for the permanent party members who are there for the time of the Award.

Resolution Details :
Contact Center Agent: : Mr George Henigman
Agents Email Address: : george.henigman@randolph.af.mil
Agents Phone Number: : Toll Free 1-800-616-3775; or DSN 665-5000

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merbex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sir, they do not qualify for the wear of that award - YES!!!!
Great job Walt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Walt,
you are a treasure.

Is there a spot you have the entire story of your research posted, so we can easily circulate it? We have quite a few vets in our Democratic Unity Group who will be interested in circulating this, not to mention the woman who started a Military Families for Peace group here.

And this will definitely go onto my summary of the current administration's relationship with veterans and military families, that I will be giving to my republican brother-in-law, whose father was a POW during WWII.

Thank you so much for your diligence. In fact, now I'm starting to picture you as looking just like Dookus' new dog (a darling bulldog, in case you haven't seen the pix).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Walt is Da Man.....
sending Tony Roma Ribs and fine wine...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. Here's a post that will link you to Walt's orginal two threads
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 08:41 AM by rocknation
link

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salvorhardin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. Good job!
UPI is, of course, owned by the Moonies. Why do people put any stock in what they say?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you for your hard work to get to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. If UPI was right, I'd have 2 more ribbons
And I don't. Fuckin media!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. How do you know he's not wrong?
So George Henigan thinks they can't wear it...

What if he is wrong...?

Does he cite any regulations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
8. "Basic Training Squadrons" - Vague....
Which "Basic Training Squadrons" - Air Force or TANG?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Read the original UPI story
The White House is claiming he earned teh award while in Basic Training with the 3724th Basic Military Training Squadron.

That claim has now been DEBUNKED!

I also notice you seem to always be a naysayer on anything damaging to the White House. Your posting history in this regards is an open book for all of DU to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Do you have any information about the origins of the pictures...
No - Walt - I just dont jump on the "atta boy Walt" bandwagon...

You have some serious flaws in your argument...

Do you have ANY INFORMATION about the pictures that you have used in your "story"???

I invite you to look at my posting history...I'm likely a bit more left than most....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. We know he is a second lieutenant in the picture
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 08:38 AM by Walt Starr
From the records.

We know he is wearing his wings in the picture.

Assuming the wings and the record are legitimate, the picture was taken somewhere between November 26, 1969 and November 7, 1970.

During this time, most of the pilots in the 111th FIS would have been wearing that award.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Was it an official photo...personal?
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 08:17 AM by hexola
I think you know nothing about the photos - just a big, big assumption...

"Assuming..."

"Somewhere between..."

"Most of..."

"would have..."


Not a very solid case...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. It's a part of the official record released by the White House.
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 08:26 AM by Walt Starr
Man, are you going to claim the picture hanging in George H.W. Bush's presidential library is a forgery or something?

This story has been fully documented here on DU.

Do a search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. No not a forgery - but was it an OFFICIAL TANG photo?
Why do you keep dancing around this issue Walt...???

Was it an official Photo? Does TANG take official photos?

Was it a personal photo for the Bush family mantle...????

And then you cite The White House as testimony to thier origins ???? WTF?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I answered your fucking question!
It was a part of the *OFFICIAL* records released by the Bush campaign team

Again, this is fully documented here in DU. Like I said, do a fucking search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. You won't answer the question bucause you can't...
you don't know anything about the picture...

Was it an official TANG photo?

Was it a personal photo?

Either could have been released by the Bush Campaing as part of the "official" record...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmerDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. your rants on this issue
are suspect. They make absolutely NO sense what so ever.:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. Damn, two minutes of searching to come up with the links
Fuck, why some peiople are so fucking lazy is beyond me.

I found the photogrpah here, at the presidential library site of George H. W. Bush:

bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/photos.php?file=HS502.jpg

Cut and paste the link to get the photograph. The Presidential Liobrary calls it, and I quote, "George W. Bush, Texas Air National Guard Portrait"

The same photo is included on Page 12 of the following packet of documents released by the White House earlier this year:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/11-2_2004_Personnel_File.pdf

It lists him as a second lieutenant. By observing the fact that he is wearing his wings in that photograph and assuming he did so legitimately, the photograph would not have been taken before November 26, 1973. He was promoted to First Lieutenant on November 7, 1970. That narrows the date, however, it does not matter when that photograph was taken during his period of service as his unit NEVER received the award while he was a member.

Like I said, it's fully documented hereon DU. Do a fucking search.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #27
35. Oh you mean the "Personel File"
Words mean things, Walt...

"Personel File" has a little more clout than "official record" which sounds like political BS...

So the USA Today link seems to be stuff from Bush's TANG "Personel File"...inclduing the photo with 2 LT in the corner...That seems to indicate that this picture is part of the offical record and is likely an official TANG photo...Why is that so hard for you to clarify?...you do this mountian of research - but then "shine on" anyone who dares ask for clarification...?WTF?

I would like to see some other photos of other TANG members of this period...they should be similar, right?

I really dont trust Bush or the Bush library as much as you seem too...hence my skepticism...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Hmmm, I thought I said that
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 09:10 AM by Walt Starr
"Official" seems like a pretty official word to me.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. Official is vague...
What does TANG call such records?...that is what you should call them.

If I wanted to get the TANG records for "Joe Nobody" - would I have to go to the White House?

White House = "Official"

USA Today = "Personel File"

TANG = "??????"

In general - what does the military call the information they keep on each soldier???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Doesn't really matter. "Offifical Record" pretty much covers it
Of course, maybe that photograph was forged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. What is a "personel" file? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. The "Official Record"
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Riiiight.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #37
43. I dont know - that's from USA Today...What's an "Official file"? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. I think the word you're looking for is "personnel," not "personel."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Indeed - unless we are talking about the CBS memos...
...which are from a "personal file" - whatever that is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julian English Donating Member (232 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #20
38. You are silly.
Very silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. It has accomplished one thing, though
This thread has remained kicked all morning.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Atta boy, Walt! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmerDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. pfff
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. heh
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
78. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KBlagburn Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
74. Official or Personal DOESNT matter !!!
He was in uniform and wearing an award he did not earn. Personal or Offical photo does not matter. IT IS STILL WRONG. By the way I have ALOT of my air force photos and I can tell you that photo is official. Yes the ANG and reserve take official photos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. THANK YOU! Hope that wasn't too hard...
It does matter though...

If it was a personal photo - I dont fault him that much...for all we know - he may have grabbed his roomates uniform - had the picuture taken for Bab's piano - and forgot about it...yeah it might bite him in the ass a bit - but not as big a deal...

If he duped the system...then he should face the music...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. IT IS A BIG FUCKING DEAL UNDER THE UCMJ!
He can be court martialed for wearing an award he did not earn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KBlagburn Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. WALT!!!
I wasnt saying anything against you. I was merely pointing out that is wrong either way. Trust me, as an Air Force veteran, it pisses me off to see ppl who did not earn awards, claim them for themselves. I have an AFOUA, and my unit earned it while I was part of the unit. Walt, I also find it curious why Bush wasnt wearing the basic training ribbon in that photo. All graduates of basic training are awarded this ribbon. Any thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. Yes, my response was to another poster
You may have not noticed that, or you maybe couldn't notice that!

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KBlagburn Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. SORRY WALT!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. New Headline: Bush photographed not wearing a medal he earned!!!
Any explanation, Walt...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. WTF bullshit are you spewing about now?
Seriously, there is no reason to even respond to you if you're going to continue blowing this sort of bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. See Post #87
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Ahhhhhh, so now you're saying Bush should have been wearing the
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 12:55 PM by Walt Starr
Basic Training Ribbon.

That would have been sort of difficult because of the following:

This ribbon was authorized by the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force on Oct. 12, 1980. It is awarded to U.S. Air Force service members on completion of initial accession training after Aug. 14, 1974. In Dec 1986, the criteria expanded and authorized the ribbon to anyone who was on active duty in Dec 1986, regardless of when they completed initial accession training. The ribbon was designed by the Institute of Heraldry. The ribbon has a wide center stripe of red, flanked on either side by a wide stripe of dark blue and a narrow yellow stripe edged by a narrow dark blue stripe. Authorized Device: Oak Leaf Cluster.

Nice to know you'll do anything you can to try and support Bush, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. You know it's too bad...
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 12:58 PM by hexola
I am a retired rock musician...have hair down to my ass...and if had some pot - I'd be smoking it...

I am not a Bush supporter...I will vote for Kerry...

I just dont buy this - yet - I see holes...fill them up...

Thanks for the above clarification - I was pretty sure you had covered that in another post...

And for the record - it was post 87 - not me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. The holes have all been filled up
As I have tolkd you many many times. do a search. It's all well documented on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. I think only donors have the Search feature...
So - sorry - I'll donate - I'm due...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Advanced Search is down right now
It's on the web, too. Plug Walt Starr into google and enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
76. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
AmerDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. What is your problem
The picture is part of the Bush Presidential Library. You are ranting on about official TANG photo ect. What you should be asking yourself is why would the Bush Library have ANY photo of shrub, be it taken by TANG or not when he DID'T deserve the award. What is so hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonbeam_Starlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
51. They take official photographs hexola
have you never been in the military or known anyone who has???? They take official photos like that ALL the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Of course they do
and any commander who looks at a dozen of the things could easily miss one guy wearing the award illegitimately while the other eleven are wearing it legitimately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. What is your proof that this is an official TANG photo?
Is there any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. It was released in the official record
Again, Mr. Broken record who tries to put dounbt on anything that makes Bush look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. I'm trying to make you look good Walt...
Dont you see how addressing my points would make your arguement more convincing...???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. No, you're making bogus claims that the photograph is a forgery!
I've got your number!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. Where do I claim forgery?
You don't have any proof about the orgins of this photo...other than the word of BUSHCO...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
79. Oh, like maybe when you photoshopped the picture
sorta like "superimposing" one electronic document over another...

Like I said, I've got your number.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. The picture is not "PhotoShopped..."
You mean this one...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. Yep, forgery through implication
same trick used by Freepers over the CBS Memos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. I have no doubt they do...but...
...does that automatically mean this is an official photo???

Yeah - it looks like one...but is it?

But if Bush did cut out early - maybe he skipped "picture day"

Are there any TANG photos of other gaurdsmen...presumably they would be similar, if not identical to the Bush photo in question...

NOWHERE have I tried to imply that TANG did not take official photos...I just have no proof that this in such a photo...

The source of the photo is the Bush Library - not TANG...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. The same photo was released in his official records
Man, I feel like a broken record with you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. Released from TANG or BUSHCO?
BushCo could have gotten that picture right off the website - just like you did...

Which was in the public eye first - the GHWB library? or the "official" photo from BushCO.

Look this picture is different

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Somehow, I knew you'd be claiming the photo was a forgery!
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 11:46 AM by Walt Starr
:eyes:

Thanks for showing your true colors, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. When you find some pictures of other TANG members...
That look like they were produced by the same session or camera...then get back to us...

Then you will have some solid evidence.

And dont twist my words - I'm not saying it's a forgery...It's a picture of a man in uniform...AND THATS ALL YOU KNOW.

Repeat - I do not claim forgery.

Until then - most of this doesnt rise above the level of Kitty Kelly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. IT IS SOLID EVIDENCE!
HE is in uniform wearing an award he did not earn.

Even if personal, IT DOESN'T MATTER. HE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED IN UNIFORM WEARING AN AWARD HE DID NOT EARN!

You bogus misdeirection notwithstanding!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #63
70. Wouldn't it be MORE SOLID...
if you knew when and where the photo was taken...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. No, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER!
He was photographed, in uniform, wearing a ribbon he did not earn.

Where and when the photograph was taken is immaterial to the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
bagnana Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #70
106. what the hell is wrong with you?
He was photographed wearing a medal he didn't earn, and released that photo to the press. In other words, he represented that he earned a medal that he did not earn. He either did it in a photograph taken by TANG or a photograph that he set up. But either way, he was photographed wearing a medal he didn't earn, and has since disseminated this false medal-wearing photo to the press, perpetuating the original lie. He is a liar and an awol coward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
108. All officers have an official photo but it doesn't look like that
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 02:51 PM by jmowreader
It is a 4x10 photo of the officer standing at attention in his dress uniform with all authorized awards and decorations.

On edit: There are official photos of officers that do look like that one of Bush, but they're of members of the unit chain of command. Bush, so far as we know, was not in a leadership billet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. Heh, maybe he was *pretending* to be in a leadership billet
just like he was *pretending* to have been in a unit during the time period covered by an AFOUA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Which carries on to today
when he *pretends* to be in the top leadership billet, even though even the Republicans know Dick Cheney's really president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gcomeau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. Besides this already being answered....
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 08:40 AM by gcomeau
...with a simple read through the case already presented... who the hell CARES if it was an official TANG photo or a personal one????

The case only requires three things.

1. Bush was photographed wearing the ribbon. So unless someone drugged him incoherent, stuck the ribbon on him without his knowledge, photographed him so they could stick him with it 30 years later in his presidential re-election campaign and then somehow got the photo into his official Guard records AND his father's presidential library in a vast illuminati-esque conspiracy Bush wore that ribbon himself.

2. No unit Bush EVER served with in a capacity which would have entitled him to wear that ribbon earned it while he was serving with them.

3. The ribbon is not authorized for temporary wear so if a unit earned it while he WASN'T serving with them he's not entitled to wear it.

All three of the above have been extensively established. Case closed. What's this serious flaw you apparently think exists but don't seem to be able to spell out or us?

-Grant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. The date of the photo...
who the hell CARES if it was an official TANG photo or a personal one????

It speaks to the date of the photo...if it's an official TANG photo...well then you probably have something...

If it's a non-military personal photo - them more info is needed to establish the date...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. It doesn't fucking matter WHEN the photo was taken
The facts are clear here. The units Bush was permanently assigned to earned the award for the period covering February 1, 1965 through March 31, 1966 and for the period covering October 1, 1973 through September 30, 1975.

One award was given two years prior to Bush enlisting, the other was given two years after he was discharged.

The White House is now claiming he got the award while in training. As observed by the intial post in this thread, trainees do NOT receive the award when the units they are attached to receive it because they are not permanent parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gcomeau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Bush was NEVER entitled to wear the ribbon. EVER.
Who cares WHEN he was photographed wearing it!?!?!?!?!?!

-Grant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KBlagburn Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
71. ACTIVE DUTY, ANG, AF RESERVE BASIC TRAINING IS THE SAME
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 12:39 PM by KBlagburn
All active duty, national guard and reserve personnel go through the same training together at Lackland AFB, TX. I had several ANG and Reservist in my Basic training sqadron. The point is not vague but valid. There is no difference in training. And the point is also correct in that the only awards/ribbons a basic trainee qualifies for is the basic training ribbon and/or honor graduate ribbon and if there is a ongoing war, as is the case now, the national defence service medal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #61
68. Can you document that....??
I complained that the pictures - blurry pictures, screen shots from one DU'er - werent a great source to start making all sorts of wild claims...

If you follow that thread - you will see that I was trying to imply that the scenes in the photos were depicting some wierd sex scene, not just torture....

Also there were a whole lot PORNO pics mixed in on various sites...those were "fake" - (well the sex was real - i suppose...)

You also might want to refresh your understading of the DU rules...

If you follow me around a bit - you'll find I am slow to jump on the bandwagon...sorry - that's my nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #61
82. Yes, I remember that too.
Nov 3rd will be fun.

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. Have you ever discoverd any information about the photos...
that you seem to be basing all of this on?

Were they official TANG photos?

Do other TANG members have similar photos?

Where did the photocopied version of the photo come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unfrigginreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Don't get your panties in such a wad
you can count on more right wing rags to pick up the UPI story even though it's been debunked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
10. Out - STAND - ing, Mr. Starr!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
13. Walt, are you planning on contacting UPI with this information?
Since Bob Fertik was contacted by UPI, your new stuff should be forwarded to him too.

And once again Walt, great job!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MallRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
21. Just to cross the T's and dot the I's... when did the 3724th earn AFOUA?
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 08:57 AM by MallRat
I can't even find a reference to a 3724th Basic Military Training Squadron on the internet.

Well... except for this one. Mind you, I'm pretty sure that this is referring to a very different 3724th. But given the subject of your investigation, I got a very good laugh out of it. :-)

http://www.usafmtia.org/24BMTS.html

And by the way, Walt: of all places, how the hell did UPI end up with this story? Why not AP, Reuters, or one of the major newspapers? UPI can't be trusted on something even remotely unflattering to Bush.

-MR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. I've got a request in
But mysteriously, the AFHSO is not answering requests at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MallRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. ROLFMAO!
:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fridays Child Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
85. A joint US-Saudi squadron with the same number? Oh, the irony!
Good grief!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unfrigginreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
30. The story has been scrubbed from the Moonie Times
I could never get the UPI link to work, so yesterday I found the UPI story posted at the Washington Times website. I just tried to find the story again and a search on AFOUA brought 0 results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #30
33. Here's a link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unfrigginreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #33
45. I still can't get that link to work
I did find this interesting article written by the same unbiased reporter that tried to take you to task. I don't want to call him a Bush shill or anything but...

-----

Facts About Reserve
Are AWOL From Media Coverage

Former Naval Reserve officer says many journalists
are making uninformed comments about military service.


By Gene J. Koprowski

(February 11, 2004) -- Even after the White House released some of President Bush's pay records from the early 1970s, portions of the record of his military service are apparently missing. This, some in the press have averred, is suspicious. Someone powerful must be covering up something nefarious here.

Well, as a former Naval Reserve officer, I have to smile. The reality is that the guard and reserves are very flexible when it comes to scheduling drills -- especially for commissioned officers with needed skills -- and that reserve soldiers and sailors routinely make up drill dates during a particular fiscal year.

http://www.duckdaotsu.org/mediafacts_awol.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
34. You've convinced a lot of people ...
Edited on Tue Sep-14-04 09:05 AM by Onlooker
You've convinced a lot of people that Bush is wrongly wearing a ribbon. Outstanding work.

Those who question your findings just don't get it. One can raise questions about anything. How do we know the picture is really of Bush? Maybe it's a look-alike? How do we know the records you came up with are real? Are we sure the font was in use at the time of those records? How do we know you're not a Rovian plant who is setting us up for a fall? But those questions are of course absurd.

There is a clear preponderance of evidence supporting your claims, backed by many other investigations that show Bush was a low-grade, unworthy National Guardsman. At this point it is up to the right-wing to find holes in your argument, and the more they do that, the longer the issue of Bush's honor and integrity will stay afloat.

Walt, you should consider writing LTTE of the Washington Times and any other newspapers that ran that story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
56. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #56
65. You have not followed this story. The Air Force itself debunked that claim
More than two weeks ago. The AFOUA is not eligible for temporary wear and never was according to the Air Force Personnel Center.

This is why the White House is now making the bogus claim about the basic training unit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #65
66. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #66
84. Try search function
It's all here. Walt has lain out a good case...

Good Job Walt!

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #56
88. Welcome to DU DEMSTROYER
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. DEMSTROYER is no longer with us
He sleeps with the Freepers:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
86. Your work on this is nothing short of admiralble
Keep up the good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
91. If I were Walt...
...I'd be tempted to put a certain poster on ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hexola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #91
101. Done! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
102. Walt, if he was discharged Oct. 1, 1973
Why does it have.....


2 Oct 73 - 21 Nov 74 HQ ARPC (ORS) Denver CO
on his dates of service. Wasn't he in Mass. then?

I think I missed something. Excellent work by the way. Atta boy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. Those are dates of Reserve status
It's a paper unit that used to be in Denver. He had been discharged from teh Texas Air National Guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. Thanks Walt,
Lots of time spent working on this. Appreciate your hard work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
104. But Walt, the 3550th StudSq received the AFOUA for 3 Mar 69-15 Feb 71..
Bush was in that unit for over a year, doesn't he qualify for that AFOUA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Good question, let's turn to the AFPC again
From: "AFPC/DPSTC Call Center" <AFPC.DPSTC@RANDOLPH.AF.MIL> Add to Address Book
To: "'waltstarr@yahoo.com'" <waltstarr@yahoo.com>
Subject: AFPC Contact Center Ticket # 040914-000019 (CIVILIAN CALL CENTER ISSUES) has been closed
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:05:14 -0500


Walter Starr, below is your initial request, and resolution. If the resolution is not sufficient please e-mail us at mailto:contact.center@randolph.af.mil or the POC below. Include your ticket number. You can also submit an update to your original request by logging into https://webcolab.afpc.randolph.af.mil/Scripts/rightnowdb.cfg/php.exe/enduser/home.php

Problem : Are personnel in pilot training eligible for the AFOUA?
Problem Details : If a person is in undergraduate pilot training and the student squadron is awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award for a period covered during their training, is the student pilot eligible to wear the AFOUA?

Resolution : Mr. Starr, you have to be actually assigned in Permanent party status, UPT and the student squardron are not permanent party.

Resolution Details :
Contact Center Agent: : Ms Terri Vineyard
Agents Email Address: : mailto:terri.vineyard@randolph.af.mil
Agents Phone Number: : Toll Free 1-800-616-3775; or DSN 665-5000

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
110. Holy Shit!
I just got home from phonebanking for tomorrow's Kerry rally, checked my posts, and found that RockNation posted the link I needed... THANKS! :hi:

But then I started to read the rest of this thread... what the hell is going on here???

Jeez, Walt, some of us DO appreciate the hard and intelligent work you have put into this issue. I don't understand why people insist on covering that asshole's butt day in and day out, despite the barrage of evidence that he is a lying, cheating, deserting son of a bitch!

WAIT, are you sure you didn't paint that picture of bush yourself? I once saw you with some poster paints on your desk.

Just like someone stole Killian's old typewriter, rummaged through his trash for his signatures, and created some memos that appear to discredit bush. :eyes:

Jeez, this is unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
112. It's almost as if UPI were a rightwing news service owned by
Reverend Moon. Wait, it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
113. Once Again, The Bush White House Dodges With a Flat Out Lie.
Good stuff, Walt.

They are simply bad liars now. Very bad liars.

Oh, what a tangled web they weave,
When they first practice to deceive.

Let's see how they respond to this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-04 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. The scandal-plagued president.
aWol has a fantasy/reality separation problem.

This scandal-plagued president lives in a personal and ideological fantasy world. It includes his outstanding and honorable military service in time of war, but that is really just playing "dress up" with flight suits and medals, and handlers who can dress up his records.

It also includes bold and imaginative foreign and national security policies in the face of lethal challenges to the nation, but that is really just making other people die for his personal gain, and bleed on our flag so that he can wave it around in a manner befitting an Emperor Napoleon, the Napoleon you find in ward six.

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 Tue Sep 29th 2020, 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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