Skip to comments.Mary Mapes knew Bush volunteered for Vietnam: CBS report
Posted on 08/27/2009 8:59:04 AM PDT by RobinMasters
This story by Bernard Goldberg certainly takes me back to the early days of my blogging career. Shortly after the 2004 Republican convention, Mary Mapes produced a segment for 60 Minutes II that alleged that George W. Bush had manipulated his enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam. The documents used by CBS, Mapes, and Dan Rather turned out to be clumsy hoaxes, which the blogosphere exposed through careful review of their substance and their form (the latter of which I played a small part in refuting, with my expertise in printing and fonts, among larger efforts from Power Line and LGF).
CBS did an internal investigation that discredited the memos and caused the network to fire Mapes. Buried in the report, however, is an admission that has not been noticed until now which is that Mapes knew the basis of her story was an outright lie from the beginning (emphases Goldbergs):
Until now, the controversy over the Rather/Mapes story has centered almost entirely on one issue: the legitimacy of the documents a very important issue, indeed. But it turns out that there was another very important issue, one that goes to the very heart of what the story was about and one that has gone virtually unnoticed. This is it: Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Whatever happened to the show 60 Minutes II?
But I’m sure compassionate George feels she is “a fine journalist, who is trying her best to do what is right for the country she loves”.
That little factoid didn't make it into her book, either. Odd.
Sounds like you are on board with Mapes fake attack since you just made one of your own.
This makes me sick. Of course I’m already sick from their manipulation and lies.
They ought to do a correction segment.
Thousands of servicemen stationed in the U.S. individually volunteered for duty in Vietnam, many were enlistees in the services, but also many draftees did the same.
Those facts were never reported by the media.
Nice to see Morrissey give the credit to himself, LGF and Powerline. Considering that it was debunked FIRST by a freeper.
wow, is that a sarcasm finger from a newbie?
Angry Evil Woman
Sounded like vintage, bipartisan W to me.
He fell all over himself praising the odious Kennedy yesterday.
Guess that is “class” to you.
So only those who join the military are patriots?
Oh give it a rest.
I have reported your comment as an abuse.
Put you money where your mouth is “Patriot”.
Why would I acquiesce to the compassionate conservatism mentality which gave us Obama.
Connect the dots.
What needs a rest is the the likes of you defending RINOS such as George Bush.
Yeah, I believe it.
What gave us Hussein, is hard core right wingers like yourself that stayed at home.
And I have reported you as a censor!
I think you are on the wrong thread.
LOL, and I bet you feel better now.
Never? Bush’s TANG unit had several airmen and airframes sent to Vietnam. I suggest you acquaint yourself with history. Many Air National Guardsmen served honorably in that ‘military action’/war.
You smell funny.
Do yourself a favor and take a “timeout”...
Second. Members of his TANG group DID volunteer and fly in Vietnam. It meant transitioning to an aircraft used in theater.
F 102s did see some service as CAP fighters erly in the war, flying out of DaNang.
Lastly, of the 525,000 US personnel in country at the time, fewer that 60,000 were engaged in ground combat, as the most maneuver battalions in country hovered around 60.
Bush could have found any number of ways to avoid being a grunt than choosing to fly a super sonic aircraft.
I don’t like the brand of “conservatism” that the RINOS have been dishing out, but I think that the point or one of the points of the article reinforces the extent that the MSM’s
complicity in manipulation and “lying by omission” to disrupt a presidency. She should have been fired. Rather too.
Your attitude needs a serious adjustment. The chip on your shoulder is way to heavy for such fact-challenged vitriol.
Welcome to FR. You may stick around a while, if you learn how to debate properly.
Don’t think so.
But don’t forget your teeth are in that glass on the nightstand.
Bill Burkett and the mythical Lucy Ramirez
Bill Burkett helped Democrat operatives manufacture the “documents”.
This is a copy of a letter from him to democrats.com explaining his involvement.
There are links to the documents that are still on that site.
They are exactly like the ones used by CBS, so there was no
“Lucy Rameriz” no fax machine or other things Rather used to further the story.
I downloaded the PDF files of the documents. If you want them, you can go to the links in the letter or I will send them to you.
Lukasiak Study Proves Bush Was Legally AWOL
Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret)
Air National Guard Commanding Officer
Re: “Deserter: The Story Of George W. Bush After He Quit The Texas Air National Guard” by Paul Lukasiak
I have reviewed the assumptions that Lukasiak had to use through the first 63 months of Bush’s career - before Bush just quit and was transferred to an obvious records hold - and believe that his conclusions are correct.
I am still reviewing to make sure that the discipline of use of regulations (Title 10 of US Code versus Title 32 of US Code) was fully in line in every detail. The point of this discipline and its absolute requirement is that sometimes Title 10 regulations apply for active duty only and there are separate regs for the same subject under Title 32. Title 32 regulations would have been applied to 1LT Bush at any point throughout his career except while he was on active duty for a period longer than 30 days - which in this case primarily speaks of his flight training school.
This is an easy mistake to make either with or without malice.
The analysis of months 63-72 is going to largely be speculative at best. But there are numerous excellent points made within his findings that indicate that without a doubt there was complicity from individuals and possibly commanders or staff at Camp Mabry to provide a cover; or more for 1LT Bush. I have noticed the rationale applied by Al Lloyd within his interviews has been that Bush just got tired of coming to drill and just quit. That may be true from the perspective of 1LT Bush. However, it does not explain the reasons for inactivity and failure to do what was right under the law and regulations by his superiors including the Adjutant General of Texas.
So let me answer the appropriate questions directly:
1. Lukasiak’s work properly applies the uniform regulations of the Department of the Air Force and the national Guard Bureau to establish and conduct a detailed analysis of the service records of 1LT Bush.
2. Lukasiak properly applies a progressive records review that is developed from a detailed review of 1LT Bush’s records. Within this foundation, he has properly developed a method to understand clearly the detailed methodology applied by the Texas Air National Guard within its proper recording, and found that for the first four years of a six year contract commitment, 1LT Bush performed to official standards; and that the Texas Air National Guard applied all normal standards to document satisfactory service.
3. Irregularities are first noticed within year five of 1LT Bush’s records and are correctly detailed within Lukasiak’s work. He correctly notes that during a five month period, directly correlating to a period in which the administrative file indicates that 1LT Bush had requested to first attend drill in Alabama [which was denied due to incompatible occupational code]; later to have requested a transfer to Alabama [which was never effected by records of the file]; and later completed no training at all. A later period of almost back-to-back drills as recorded both within drill performance certificates and payroll records were exactly calculated to meet the absolute minimum number of “retirement points” required rather than to meet the absolute minimum of training required for satisfactory drill participation. This certainly was not a coincidence, but rather indicates either a calculated effort on behalf of 1LT Bush or a scheme that included others. There are other questionable inconsistencies noted by Lukasiak.
After reviewing the work, I believe that the minimum and now fully documented findings are:
1. 1LT George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard and the Department of the Air Force fully concur through submitted documentation that:
a. 1LT Bush met all minimum standards of performance; including both inactive duty for training and active duty years 1-4 of his six year contract commitment.
b. 1LT Bush failed to meet the minimum satisfactory drill participation requirements of 48 single unit training assemblies (SUTA) inactive duty and 15 days of annual training per training year, with the year beginning in the month of the airman’s birth. 1LT Bush in fact, completely failed to train as ordered for a five consecutive month period in Year five of his contract commitment and therefore was 20 SUTA’s short of his minimum satisfactory training contract for said year. Claims by campaign officials have not been substantiated by 1LT Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Department of the Air Force or by official and complete records provided through a privacy release by the airman. Further there has been no record presented of any effort by the airman to have his records corrected with documentation provided by an alternate source such as tax returns or other documentation through the records correction process; notably the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).
c. 1LT Bush also failed to meet the minimum satisfactory training requirements of his contract during year six of his contract; without documentation of any sort, completely ceasing showing up for drills or active duty with the Texas Air National Guard as ordered. After month 62 of his 72 month contract, 1LT Bush was placed in a records hold awaiting discharge, a process not accorded to other soldiers or airmen under a time of War or pursuant to the regulations as cited within the study of Lukasiak.
Was 1LT George W. Bush AWOL? The use of terms such as Deserter or AWOL have often been used as the focus of debate rather than the actions and inactions of 1LT Bush, to the discredit of the actual events and their impact. Documentation has refuted all claims that 1LT Bush continued to meet either the published regulations requirements for satisfactory drill participation, or the orders of his commander LTC Jerry Killian who later within the Officer Evaluation process notes that 1LT Bush was not available or seen during that rating period - a period of twelve months. Failure to appear as ordered is certainly considered as Absent without Leave.
It would be interesting to see the actual morning reports for the unit which have been destroyed and see how the training NCOs carried Bush for pay. The only options are Absent, Absent excused, Absent Leave, Absent without leave, split training, or present. Since we have determined that he was not present for training or pay, we are all guessing about his status until we see that he had requested a transfer, then a split training certificate. This is purely speculation on my part, but I believe he may have initially been carried as Absent excused (which does not relieve him of his contract training responsibility) on the morning report while the unit was under the impression that he was trying to get a transfer.
I am sure that after that status changed through both inaction and confusion by the lieutenant, that the status was changed for a couple of months to split training authorized. But in both cases, and especially in split training status, an airman or lieutenant clearly understood that he was ordered to make contact with the receiving unit, conduct training as ordered and insure that such training was documented with a split training certificate. Further, whenever 1LT Bush reported in to the receiving unit, he would have been noted on the morning report as “split training” and the associated copy of the training certificate signed by the receiving unit commander would be forwarded for pay purposes.
Having been a commander, it seems totally impossible that if 1LT Bush met any of these requirements or showed any effort whatsoever, that LTC Jerry Killian would have made his now famous remarks on the Officer Efficiency Report. To answer the question unequivocally, was 1LT Bush AWOL? In exacting terms, the answer is yes. 1LT Bush was not present for duty as ordered, he was therefore absent without leave (AWOL).
I have found no documentation from LTC Killian’s hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to either cover for the failures of 1LT Bush, or to provide him pay or certification for training not completed. On the contrary, LTC Killians’ remarks are rare, indeed, especially considering that 1LT Bush was known clearly as a congressman’s son and had utilized his position as such, to gain a favor of his failure to train while in Alabama. I have to believe that earning that favor was completed by false pretenses also due to LTC Killian’s officer evaluation comment.
Documentation of complicitous activity may have surfaced within the flurry of drill training activity following the Alabama period. The exact and irrefutable evidence of such is not convincing, yet to me based upon a review of the same records, though there are serious changes within the methodology employed both at the unit and at State headquarters for 1LT Bush. It could be argued that this could have occurred by a wake up call at all levels sounded by LTC Killians comments and the justifications he would have been required at higher levels of command to make such comments.
This is my preliminary comments. I hope to have more detail within my verification of the files especially on all months past month 56.
He did volunteer, and no MSM outlet had the content of character to say so. The reason he was not sent to ‘Nam is that the aircraft he was trained to fly, a high speed interceptor, was not being used in that theatre.
But W flew F-106s.
I don’t think he is a VET. No Vet that I know would speak of those who were in service in the US, whether it be in the Pentagon or National Guard (whom the last time I checked was military).
“What gave us Hussein, is hard core right wingers like yourself that stayed at home.”
Not true, liberals like you that supported Rinos like McCain, Romney and the huckster gave us Hussein. You are a typical liberal, it’s bipartisan when conservatives cave and vote with libs. YOU choose to support a liberal candidate, you just got one that was more liberal than you expected. I for one, did not stay home, I voted for Sarah.
I’m not disputing that.
But I am disgusted by a former President that I worked hard to put in office, who refused and refuses still to defend himself.
His intractable passivity, in no small way, enabled and enables still, the journalistic misbehavior that is the very subject of this thread
That didn’t even make sense, you are definitely on the wrong thread.
And I will take a ASS CHEWING from you due to your sevice to our country. I CHOSE who I will take a dressing down from. I have EARNED that right.
I agree that he has behaved like he wanted the libs to like him. Just like my senator mccain.
What they fail to realize is, THE LIBS WILL NEVER LIKE THEM so they need to stop standing ACROSS THE AISLE AND STAY Principled. (there, i feel better now after yelling at my senator)
Wrong, Bush flew F-102s.
“What gave us Hussein, is hard core right wingers like yourself that stayed at home.”
So you have video of me sitting on my ass at home on election day, not to mention the campaign season?. I worked for the election of George Bush, and even bit my tongue and voted for the moderate Democrat John McCain.
Your reflexive use of the tired terminology “hard core right wingers” speaks volumes.
“FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush’s service centers on what his critics call “the period in question,” that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush’s fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.
Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training a full-time job at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training again, full time at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training full time at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.
Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent usually weekly flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey.”If you’re going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on,” recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. “He’d be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we’d switch.”
During that period Bush’s superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. “Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer,” wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was also “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”
All that flying involved quite a bit of work. “Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance,” says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush’s group in 1971 and 1972. “You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972.” While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn’t exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. “This was not an endeavor without risk,” Harmon notes.
THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.
The change was the result of Bush’s decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. “It was a common thing,” recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. “If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush’s unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn’t even tell me about it.”
The president’s critics have charged that he did not show up for service was “AWOL” in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.
What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. “He was not going to fly,” says Turnipseed. “We didn’t have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn’t have done it for some guy passing through.”
On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one’s responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush’s last year of service. Together, the record “clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both ‘72-’73 and ‘73-’74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner,” says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush’s superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush’s evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that “Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world.”
Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush’s superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” says Campenni. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ‘72 or ‘73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
Ain’t freedom of speech sweet!
Since your comment was removed by the Mods before I saw it, I have no idea what it was. Apparently they thought it was abusive enough to remove.
That in itself doesn’t automatically make what you said abusive, but they do have a pretty good track record.
If you want to “private reply” me with your comment, it would help me form a more informed opinion.
LOL, sailor, as did George W. Bush and every other Guardsman and Reservist and active duty vet except when they are being stupid.
Today your girlish outbursts make you deserving of a dressing down.
Requesting target vector for outbound missiles and sniff-test.
There were nearly 9,000 guardsmen (Army and Air) that served in Vietnam... Over 100 Guardsmen were KIA. And almost 6,000 Reservist were KIA.
Since you have very little on your profile page, I wonder what your MOS was... A little more information about you and your service might go a long way toward your credibility to make such statements as you have. I don't mind people knowing what I've done in the service... It's on my page.
Doesn’t this rise to the level of conspiracy to overthrow the government? Mapes should be looking at treason charges. Let Dingell and his buddies appoint a Special Prosecutor for that one!
Tick, tock, tick, tock..........
“What they fail to realize is, THE LIBS WILL NEVER LIKE THEM so they need to stop standing ACROSS THE AISLE AND STAY Principled. (there, i feel better now after yelling at my senator)”
Yell at him for me too.
Rush Limbaugh is a stalwart believer in the concept, that if a candidate runs on well-articulated bedrock conservative principles he/she will mop the floor on election day.
Why RINOs feel the need to be loved by supporters of the diseased Leftist ideology and their staunch allies in the LeftMedia, suggest that they are not faithful conservatives at their core.
It is time for us to raise the standard of what we will accept in our candidates.
After all, the Democrats won with a hardcore, race Marxist, the most liberal candidate in Presidential election history.
Time to go the mat with staunch conservatism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.