PDA

View Full Version : Did Bush drop out of the National Guard to avoid drug testing?




zimv20
Feb 7, 2004, 07:32 PM
link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index.html)


Did Bush drop out of the National Guard to avoid drug testing?
The young pilot walked away from his commitment in 1972 -- the same year the U.S. military implemented random drug tests.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Feb. 6, 2004 One of the persistent riddles surrounding President Bush's disappearance from the Texas Air National Guard during 1972 and 1973 is the question of why he walked away. Bush was a fully trained pilot who had undergone a rigorous two-year flight training program that cost the Pentagon nearly $1 million. And he has told reporters how important it was to follow in his father's footsteps and to become a fighter pilot. Yet in April 1972, George W. Bush climbed out of a military cockpit for the last time. He still had two more years to serve, but Bush's own discharge papers suggest he may have walked away from the Guard for good.

It is, of course, possible that Bush had simply had enough of the Guard and, with the war in Vietnam beginning to wind down, decided that he would rather do other things. In 1972 he asked to be transferred to an Alabama unit so he could work on a Senate campaign for a friend of his father's. But some skeptics have speculated that Bush might have dropped out to avoid being tested for drugs. Which is where Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense. That initiative, in response to increased drug use among soldiers in Vietnam, instructed the military branches to "establish the requirement for a systematic drug abuse testing program of all military personnel on active duty, effective 1 July 1972."

It's true that in 1972 Bush was not on "active" duty: His Texas Guard unit was never mobilized. But according to Maj. Jeff Washburn, the chief of the National Guard's substance abuse program, a random drug-testing program was born out of that regulation and administered to guardsmen such as Bush. The random tests were unrelated to the scheduled annual physical exams, such as the one that Bush failed to take in 1972, a failure that resulted in his grounding.

The 1972 drug-testing program took months, and in some cases years, to implement at Guard units across the country. And the percentage of guardsmen tested then was much lower than today's 40 percent rate. But as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented.

During the 2000 campaign, when Bush's spokesman was asked about the possibility of Bush facing a drug test back in 1972, the spokesman told the Times of London that Bush "was not aware of any [military] changes that required a drug test." Still, at the time when Bush, perhaps for the first time in his life, faced the prospect of a random drug test, his military records show he virtually disappeared, failing for at least one year to report for Guard duty. White House officials insist that if Bush missed any weekend Guard drills in 1972, he made up for them during the summer of 1973. If this is true, he would have been vulnerable to random drug tests during his makeup days. But again, Bush's own discharge papers fail to conclusively back up his claim that he performed Guard service in 1973.

"Nobody ever saw him" serving in 1973, notes author James Moore, whose upcoming book, "Bush's War for Re-election," will detail Bush's military record. "Not a single soul has come forward to say, 'I remember the summer of '73 when I did Guard training with George Bush, the future president of the United States.'"

Moore notes that Bush's discharge papers make no reference to service in 1973. The last entry in Bush's papers are for April 1972. Also, if Bush had served in 1973, there would have to be an Officer Effectiveness Rating for that year in his military file. There is not. Nonetheless, in late 1973 Bush received an honorable discharge in order to attend Harvard Business School.

During the early stages of his 2000 campaign for president, Bush was dogged by questions of whether he ever used cocaine or any other illegal substance when he was younger. Bush refused to fully answer the question, but in 1999 he did issue a blanket denial insisting he had not used any illegal drugs during the previous 25 years, or since 1974. Bush refused to specify what "mistakes" he had made before 1974.

Perhaps realizing that explanation pointed reporters toward possible drug use during his time as a guardsman, Bush insisted he hadn't taken any drugs while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, between 1968 and 1974. "I never would have done anything to jeopardize myself. I got airborne and I got on the ground very successfully," he told reporters on Aug. 19, 1999. But today we know that for his last 18 months in the Guard, from April '72 to late '73, Bush didn't have to get airborne, because he simply quit flying. Moreover, if Bush in fact took no drugs at all after 1968, that would mean his drug use, if any, stopped at age 22 -- an unusual age to swear off recreational substances for someone with the partying reputation Bush had at that time.

Unanswered questions continue to swirl around Bush's Guard service in part because he refuses to release the full contents of his military records.



Sayhey
Feb 7, 2004, 07:51 PM
If Kerry or Clark are the Democratic nominee, Bush will have to answer this question. It is not going away this time.

zimv20
Feb 7, 2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
If Kerry or Clark are the Democratic nominee, Bush will have to answer this question. It is not going away this time.

it sure didn't stick the first time around. the boston globe ran an article, here, (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty?mode=PF) in may 2000. didn't raise much of a stink, iirc.

in part:

After George W. Bush became governor in 1995, the Houston Air National Guard unit he had served with during the Vietnam War years honored him for his work, noting that he flew an F-102 fighter-interceptor until his discharge in October 1973.

And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep," recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years," the governor wrote.

But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.

Bush, who declined to be interviewed on the issue, said through a spokesman that he has "some recollection" of attending drills that year, but maybe not consistently.

From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush never appeared for duty there.

After the election, Bush returned to Houston. But seven months later, in May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

zimv20
Feb 7, 2004, 08:03 PM
anybody here have access to lexus/nexus to confirm this? (http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/Bush/MediaIgnores.htm)


While there were only 49 media stories about Bush's military past during his presidential campaign, there were a whopping 13,641 media reports on Clinton's Vietnam-era draft dodging during his first presidential race, according to former Clinton aide Paul Begala.

Desertrat
Feb 7, 2004, 08:04 PM
I got no way of knowing, nor does anybody else who didn't run around with Dubya in those days. To speculate, though, is always fun.

I'd say the odds are against the drugs. A helluva lot more young folks didn't do drugs than did. From what I saw, the actual spreading of drug use in the more straight world happened later in the '70s. I was around the Austin music scene all through that period from 1964 on, and got to the Haight-Ashbury in '67 and '69. I'd venture that folks not in the Hippie or folk scene weren't all that involved in the late '60s and early '70s.

(Reminds me of the first Willie Nelson July 4th picnic. It was the first time the Rednecks and the Hippies all got stoned together. :D Jerry Jeff, Fromholz, Willie, Tex Ritter and Roy Acuff...Eeeeee-clectic!)

The National Guard was a hideout for many of the kids of the well to do or the well connected. Some of the guys took it seriously; many did not. I'd guess Dubya took it seriously for a while; careless attitudes get dead pretty quick, in fighter jets.

Hard to get real excited about it, though. I know I'm not the only guy who, as a late teenager/early twenties was the sort I wouldn't want my son to buddy around with. I grew out of it, just like most others do. I figure that once somebody is forty or fifty, the recent ten years of behavior is what's important. Besides, Dubya's already admitted he was a boozehound and went into the old "One day at a time" regimen. Alcoholism is not something that's "curable".

Speculating and hunting goblins is de rigeur in an election year...

'Rat

Sayhey
Feb 7, 2004, 08:26 PM
If Bush was one of those guys who was lucky during Vietnam and got into the Guard, then I would not have any problem with his record. I know a lot of folks who did their best to avoid going to Vietnam and I would be the last to throw stones at them. What ticks me off is the hypocrisy of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc. - all of who avoided being where the bullets were flying and now want to quickly send other people's sons into harm's way. A little humility, at least, is in order - not showing up on flight decks dressed as a fighter pilot and most definitely not calls for others to "bring it on" when it is other people's sons and daughters who are in the line of fire. His false macho image and lack of respect for those who took the risks he would not is galling.

The drug stuff is similar. I could give a damn if he was high in 1972 or any other time as long as he isn’t snorting white powder or drinking himself into a stupor in the White House - and he shows a little compassion towards others who are battling addiction. Both being something I’ve seen no evidence of.

zimv20
Feb 7, 2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat

I figure that once somebody is forty or fifty, the recent ten years of behavior is what's important.

in general, i agree. but bush is going to run on his military record -- at least as commander in chief -- and i think his entire military record becomes relevant.

to send kids to war when you yourself not only got out of a war, but shirked domestic duty... i think that says a lot about someone's character. as does owning up to one's mistakes.

Neserk
Feb 7, 2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
If Bush was one of those guys who was lucky during Vietnam and got into the Guard, then I would not have any problem with his record. I know a lot of folks who did their best to avoid going to Vietnam and I would be the last to throw stones at them. What ticks me off is the hypocrisy of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc. - all of who avoided being where the bullets were flying and now want to quickly send other people's sons into harm's way. A little humility, at least, is in order - not showing up on flight decks dressed as a fighter pilot and most definitely not calls for others to "bring it on" when it is other people's sons and daughters who are in the line of fire. His false macho image and lack of respect for those who took the risks he would not is galling.

The drug stuff is similar. I could give a damn if he was high in 1972 or any other time as long as he isn’t snorting white powder or drinking himself into a stupor in the White House - and he shows a little compassion towards others who are battling addiction. Both being something I’ve seen no evidence of.

Those would be my thought, precisely!

Neserk
Feb 7, 2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
. I figure that once somebody is forty or fifty, the recent ten years of behavior is what's important.

Except that best indicator of future behavior is past behavior and the drugs he took appear to have taken a toll on his brain.

Desertrat
Feb 8, 2004, 09:27 AM
And just what drugs do you know that he took, Neserk? You're stating a causal relationship hitherto unknown and unalleged.

'Rat

pseudobrit
Feb 8, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
You're stating a causal relationship hitherto unknown and unalleged.

You're wrong on this one. He was an alcoholic for at least 20 years.

Neserk
Feb 8, 2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
And just what drugs do you know that he took, Neserk? You're stating a causal relationship hitherto unknown and unalleged.

'Rat

Based on the brain damage? Cocaine.

zimv20
Feb 8, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
And just what drugs do you know that he took, Neserk? You're stating a causal relationship hitherto unknown and unalleged.


as mentioned, alcohol and cocaine. both were alleged during the 2000 campaign. the former was admitted to, the latter was badly dodged.

what each of us must decide is how relevent those (alleged or not) abuses are today. personally, i think he does have an addictive personality, and those drugs have been replaced w/ power. i wish he'd stayed a coke head; we'd all be better off.

IJ Reilly
Feb 8, 2004, 01:21 PM
If the Kerry nomination comes to pass, as seems likely now, we'll have the curious election face-off of an anti-war decorated veteran running against a pro-war draft avoider. Now, that could be interesting.

As for George Bush having a difficult time recalling whether or when he flew during the years in question, I personally find that response to be completely implausible. A pilot logs every minute he spends in front of the controls, so it's not something you forget easily. And if you did somehow manage to forget, pulling those log books off the shelf would be the perfect memory refresher. They'd also serve as proof of what he claims. Now, if I was forced to come up with a theory about what happened ...

pseudobrit
Feb 8, 2004, 03:08 PM
link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=1&u=/nm/20040208/us_nm/campaign_bush_guard_dc_2)

Bush attacked those who are questioning his service, implying that they were denigrating the importance of National Guard service.

Too bad the issue isn't whether the service is important, but whether he bothered to show up for it. Nice deflection, coward.

He said the records of his service should be out there unless they were "scrubbed." That means they, like his driving record in Texas that was erased just after he was elected governor, will never be seen again.

IJ Reilly
Feb 8, 2004, 04:06 PM
Ok then, Mr. President, show us your pilot log books for the time in question.

Neserk
Feb 8, 2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If the Kerry nomination comes to pass, as seems likely now, we'll have the curious election face-off of an anti-war decorated veteran running against a pro-war draft avoider. Now, that could be interesting.

As for George Bush having a difficult time recalling whether or when he flew during the years in question, I personally find that response to be completely implausible. A pilot logs every minute he spends in front of the controls, so it's not something you forget easily. And if you did somehow manage to forget, pulling those log books off the shelf would be the perfect memory refresher. They'd also serve as proof of what he claims. Now, if I was forced to come up with a theory about what happened ...

I was rather disappointed when the local NBC station brought up the issue then dismissed it because he had no AWOL on his record. ARe they really that dumb? It isn't enough to say he wasn't recorded as being AWOL they need to demonstrate that there is actual evidence that he was there. As I understand it no one remembers him being there. There is no written records of him being there.

zimv20
Feb 11, 2004, 12:29 AM
a few choice things from this yahoo article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040208/us_nm/campaign_bush_guard_dc_3)


attendance records of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron in Alabama do not show that Bush ever was there. "I never saw the man, I never met the man," Kenneth Lott, the squadron's personnel officer at the time, told Newsweek.


Bush acknowledged that he did not volunteer to go to Vietnam. "No, I didn't. You're right," he said.

Pressed on his feelings about that war, Bush said: "It was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions."


A new Time magazine poll says 60 percent think Kerry did his duty for the country during the Vietnam war. In contrast, 39 percent said Bush did his duty.

Sayhey
Feb 11, 2004, 12:52 AM
I don't know anything about this site, but it has a copy of some of Bush's records. There is a very interesting discussion about just how Bush finished out his tour of duty (shortend by 8 months so he could attend school.)

The answer, as you can see from the top line, is that it is an ARF document, as is this record from 1973-74. So what is ARF? I asked Bob Rogers, a retired Air National Guard pilot who's been following this for some time, and what follows is his interpretation of what happened.

ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October.

ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.

To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush's 1973-74 ARF record — but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972, as his Form 712 Master Personnel Record from the Texas Air National Guard clearly indicates


link (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html)

IJ Reilly
Feb 11, 2004, 01:26 AM
A good discussion on the entire National Guard issue on the NewsHour on Tuesday. Transcript here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june04/bush_2-10.html