No, if the Unit has a unit citation, you wear it as long as you're in the unit. That's why they're called "unit citations": they don't go with the people, they go with the unit.
I'm not a typographical expert, but I typed a helluva lot of memos and documents on US Gov't issue typewriters in 1969-73. I don't remember any of them having a superscript key.
Have a look at the documents, and then ask yourself "where did Killian get a laser printer in 1972"?
Look, for example at the superscripted 'th' on "187th"
The problem being that Barnes' own bio mentioned the Geneva gig only for that period.
Maybe it's like you say. Who are you going to believe, CBS or Barnes?
If Barnes, then you should also believe Barnes' own statement:"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said.
Look at what it says: the second condition (which you noted) is that Bush has to affirm that acting "is consistent with... [taking] the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations...."
In other words, the conditions are (1) that it's necessary to hit Saddam for US security, and (2) that doing so won't interfere with other actions, including acting against whoever did 9/11. "Is consistent with" is "doesn't conflict with".
What it doesn't say is "hitting Saddam is necessary because...".
You may or may not think it correct to say that hitting Saddam didn't interfere, but the letter clearly names the 9/11 terrorists as being separate and distinct from Saddam.
The new information shows that Bush was missing from an active alert mission on Oct. 6, 1927.
Actually, 1927 was a little bfore he was born.
But yeah, he was missing from an activve alert mission in 1972. In October.
When was he in Alabama?
October 1972. (Also September and November.)
So what you've got is documentation that he wasn't in Texas in October 1972, and other documentation that he was in Alabama in October 1972.
A big part of the issue here is just plain dumb ignorance. Guardsmen don't necessarily have to be at every drill, and may miss it because of work, or travel, or having the 'flu that weekend. If you miss a drill weekend, you're not AWOL. ALL THAT HAPPENS is that if you don't make up the time by the end of the enlistment year, you don't get credit for it.
Bush did make it up, and was honorably discharged. If he hadn't have made it up, he'd have received a "general" discharge.
now, try thinking about the level of evidence you guys are demanding: it's not enough to have documentation, AND personal recollections, AND consistent records between Alabama and Texas -- because (according to another one of you ninnies) you can believe Bush would be willing to take money for drilling even though he didn't attend.
On that basis, you can't prove that Kerry was ever in Viet Nam, either: after all, all those records and personal recollections of him could be mistaken. Plus, Kerry's records of his time in service, his biography, and his records of his sSilver Star are contradictory (three citations, each differing in wording, under three different signatures.)
Notice I'm not saying Kerry wasn't in VN, by the way. I'm just pointing out that you're setting a standard of proof so stringent that you're merely guaranteeing, vacuously, that Bush could never meet it.
Then you're a fool and ignorant to boot. Look, he was in Alabama for three months. He wasn't a member of the Alabama Guard, he was being allowed to drill with them as a courtesy. He would have shown up for between two and six days, and he would have been told to sit somewhere and stay out of the way. he couldn't fly, and he wasn't in the chain of command. If he's been an enlisted man they'd have him sweeping floors or something, but you don't do that with officers.
And it's 35 years ago.
So what you're insisting on is that there be a "significant number", which is more than the one whose office he sat in, to remember J Random Texas Officer being there 35 years ago.
Not to put too fine a point on it, given that there is documentation that he was there, this level of "proof" is nuts.
Oh, just saw something else: the DoD managed to dig up another piece of paper (from 30+ years ago) -- a pay stub from the time he was supposed to have been in Alabama.
This is, no doubt, one of those pieces of "new" information.
(Before it even comes up, let's put a stake through one more point: no, you're not AWOL of you miss drill. That's not how the Guard and Reserves work, because everyone knows it's a part-time job. You have to get enough drills to make up your year's time, and no one disputes that the records show Bush did so.)
So now we've got dental records, pay stubs, and personal recollections. Does that satisfy you?
No, didn't think so. Military records should be completely and absolutely correct -- if you're Bush -- but little errors like a combat V unauthhorized by statute and never awarded are just typos in Kerry's.
The notion that Bush necessarily had any obigations in Alabama is a basic mistake. As long as you persist in making that basic mistake, you're going to be confused.
Now, with that said, there are a few little points tat ought to be noted:
John Calhoun remembers Bush in Alabama, and Bush's dental records from Alabama have been found and discussed in the Washington post.
But.. I thought "no one remembers Bush in Alabama"?
Oh, wait, the guy who does remember Bush is "unreliable".
But what about his dental records?
The usual comeback is that this proves Bush went to the dentist but not that he was on base.
Except that the dentist was on base.
And how is it that Ben Barnes' story -- "I helped Bush into the Guard as Lt Gov... six months before I was elected" -- is any more believable now than it was in 1999? It's not like someone has discovered new records saying Barnes really wasn't in Geneva and was LTGOV after all.
As usual, the real answer is read both sides and then think for yourself.
Given the war we're currently engaged in and who we're fighting- the guy who actually knows how to commit war crimes without being tried by the international tribunal is WAY preferable to the guy who had a few to many and was arrested for cocaine possession in Texas.
So your proof that he "propagated a lie" is that he quoted the Congressional resolution, in a quotation that actually explicitly draws a distinction between bin Laden etc and Saddam?
how do you distinguish between that argument and "making it up out of whole cloth"?
Do you seriously think that a guy in Geneva has that much pull? Or that one of the three R congressmen in Texas -- at that point completely dominated by the D's for like 100 years -- had all that much pull?
Or that the LA Times story that investigated and discounted barnes in 1999?
Loo, all I said was "read the opposing material too". But, yes, I do think that if a guy
- claims he did something as Lt Gov six months before he was actually in the office,
- is a major Kerry backer,
- is a crook whose political career was ruined by scandal (propelled by Republican investigations), - has been refuted by a major liberal paper,
- is repeating allegations that he's been shopping for six years,
- and has been quoted in so many words saying that no Bush actually asked for help, then yes, I think his reliability as a source at this point is a little questionable.
Slashdot Mirror
No, if the Unit has a unit citation, you wear it as long as you're in the unit. That's why they're called "unit citations": they don't go with the people, they go with the unit.
Got a citation for that? It's not the way I've seen it.
Thanks, I was trying to figure out where I could find that. I was typing this kind of crap at the time....
There are a lot of contemporaneous docs from Bush's unit available, have a look: http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs. htm
Look especially at the 30 Apr 72 FITREP in the "performance grades" documents.
You had to change the typeball.
You're thinking of the IBM Executive Proportional. Gov't issue was IBM C -- no fancy typefaces or anything.
I know. I typed a helluva lot of memos on them in 69-73.
No, that's a unit citation. If you're in a unit that got it, you wear it.
Have you ever actually seen a typewriter?
On an IBM Executive Proportional, you had to change the type ball to make a superscript.
The fonts weren't that heavy, either -- the carbon film didn't allow.
There are now two side-by-side comparisons available on the web:
Spacetown.
LGF
Look at them yourselves.
I'm not a typographical expert, but I typed a helluva lot of memos and documents on US Gov't issue typewriters in 1969-73. I don't remember any of them having a superscript key.
You might also want to look at some of the other documents from Bush's records. Look, eg, at the 30 Apr 72 FITREP in the "Performance grades" PDF.
As I said, read all the documents and make your own decisions.
CBS says it's so, and Barnes' bio says something else.
I've published all the links, including the link to the Wash Post story where Barnes denies everything.
Read them. Think for yourself.
And learn to type a link for crying out loud. <a href="URL">link</a>. It's not that hard.
The problem being that Barnes' own bio mentioned the Geneva gig only for that period.
Maybe it's like you say. Who are you going to believe, CBS or Barnes?
If Barnes, then you should also believe Barnes' own statement:"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said.
Barnes has to be lying in one of his statements. So, do you believe the one in 1999, or the one now, when Barnes is a major contributor and vice chair of Kerry's campaign in Texas?
As I keep saying, read all the sources and then think for yourself.
He was a member of President Johnson's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. representative to the NATO Conference in 1967, and United Nations Representative to Geneva, Switzerland, in 1968.
He was Speaker of the House... just not in 1968.
Oh, and for God's sake learn to make a link. You use an "anchor" tag. It's not hard.
Ben Barnes help out Bush six months before he was elected as Lt. Gov because he was THE SPEAKER OF THE TEXAS HOUSE at the time.
No, he was a UN representative:
He was a member of President Johnson's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. representative to the NATO Conference in 1967, and United Nations Representative to Geneva, Switzerland, in 1968.
Barnes was speaker of the house, but in the 90's. I'm pretty sure that didn't help Bush in 1968 either.
And he was still a representative to the UN in Geneva at the time. I doubt you remember it, but being in Europe in 1972 was being really far away.
There's also the little detail that Barnes made a sworn statement that he wasn't contacted by the Bush family.
Read all the documents. Think for yourself.
"weak". A "week" is seven days.
I'm not clear you're qualified to judge my sentence.
More: Chicago Sun Times
American Times
Read them.
Make your own decision.
Think for yourself.
Look at what it says: the second condition (which you noted) is that Bush has to affirm that acting "is consistent with ... [taking] the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations...."
...".
In other words, the conditions are (1) that it's necessary to hit Saddam for US security, and (2) that doing so won't interfere with other actions, including acting against whoever did 9/11. "Is consistent with" is "doesn't conflict with".
What it doesn't say is "hitting Saddam is necessary because
You may or may not think it correct to say that hitting Saddam didn't interfere, but the letter clearly names the 9/11 terrorists as being separate and distinct from Saddam.
The new information shows that Bush was missing from an active alert mission on Oct. 6, 1927.
Actually, 1927 was a little bfore he was born.
But yeah, he was missing from an activve alert mission in 1972. In October.
When was he in Alabama?
October 1972. (Also September and November.)
So what you've got is documentation that he wasn't in Texas in October 1972, and other documentation that he was in Alabama in October 1972.
A big part of the issue here is just plain dumb ignorance. Guardsmen don't necessarily have to be at every drill, and may miss it because of work, or travel, or having the 'flu that weekend. If you miss a drill weekend, you're not AWOL. ALL THAT HAPPENS is that if you don't make up the time by the end of the enlistment year, you don't get credit for it.
Bush did make it up, and was honorably discharged. If he hadn't have made it up, he'd have received a "general" discharge.
now, try thinking about the level of evidence you guys are demanding: it's not enough to have documentation, AND personal recollections, AND consistent records between Alabama and Texas -- because (according to another one of you ninnies) you can believe Bush would be willing to take money for drilling even though he didn't attend.
On that basis, you can't prove that Kerry was ever in Viet Nam, either: after all, all those records and personal recollections of him could be mistaken. Plus, Kerry's records of his time in service, his biography, and his records of his sSilver Star are contradictory (three citations, each differing in wording, under three different signatures.)
Notice I'm not saying Kerry wasn't in VN, by the way. I'm just pointing out that you're setting a standard of proof so stringent that you're merely guaranteeing, vacuously, that Bush could never meet it.
Then you're a fool and ignorant to boot. Look, he was in Alabama for three months. He wasn't a member of the Alabama Guard, he was being allowed to drill with them as a courtesy. He would have shown up for between two and six days, and he would have been told to sit somewhere and stay out of the way. he couldn't fly, and he wasn't in the chain of command. If he's been an enlisted man they'd have him sweeping floors or something, but you don't do that with officers.
And it's 35 years ago.
So what you're insisting on is that there be a "significant number", which is more than the one whose office he sat in, to remember J Random Texas Officer being there 35 years ago.
Not to put too fine a point on it, given that there is documentation that he was there, this level of "proof" is nuts.
Oh, just saw something else: the DoD managed to dig up another piece of paper (from 30+ years ago) -- a pay stub from the time he was supposed to have been in Alabama.
This is, no doubt, one of those pieces of "new" information.
It shows that Bush drilled outside of Texas at least once in the interval in question.
(Before it even comes up, let's put a stake through one more point: no, you're not AWOL of you miss drill. That's not how the Guard and Reserves work, because everyone knows it's a part-time job. You have to get enough drills to make up your year's time, and no one disputes that the records show Bush did so.)
So now we've got dental records, pay stubs, and personal recollections. Does that satisfy you?
No, didn't think so. Military records should be completely and absolutely correct -- if you're Bush -- but little errors like a combat V unauthhorized by statute and never awarded are just typos in Kerry's.
The notion that Bush necessarily had any obigations in Alabama is a basic mistake. As long as you persist in making that basic mistake, you're going to be confused.
.. I thought "no one remembers Bush in Alabama"?
... six months before I was elected" -- is any more believable now than it was in 1999? It's not like someone has discovered new records saying Barnes really wasn't in Geneva and was LTGOV after all.
Now, with that said, there are a few little points tat ought to be noted:
John Calhoun remembers Bush in Alabama, and Bush's dental records from Alabama have been found and discussed in the Washington post.
But
Oh, wait, the guy who does remember Bush is "unreliable".
But what about his dental records?
The usual comeback is that this proves Bush went to the dentist but not that he was on base.
Except that the dentist was on base.
And how is it that Ben Barnes' story -- "I helped Bush into the Guard as Lt Gov
As usual, the real answer is read both sides and then think for yourself.
Given the war we're currently engaged in and who we're fighting- the guy who actually knows how to commit war crimes without being tried by the international tribunal is WAY preferable to the guy who had a few to many and was arrested for cocaine possession in Texas.
You know, he may have a point.
So your proof that he "propagated a lie" is that he quoted the Congressional resolution, in a quotation that actually explicitly draws a distinction between bin Laden etc and Saddam?
how do you distinguish between that argument and "making it up out of whole cloth"?
Do you seriously think that a guy in Geneva has that much pull? Or that one of the three R congressmen in Texas -- at that point completely dominated by the D's for like 100 years -- had all that much pull?
Or that the LA Times story that investigated and discounted barnes in 1999?
Loo, all I said was "read the opposing material too". But, yes, I do think that if a guy
- claims he did something as Lt Gov six months before he was actually in the office,
- is a major Kerry backer,
- is a crook whose political career was ruined by scandal (propelled by Republican investigations),
- has been refuted by a major liberal paper,
- is repeating allegations that he's been shopping for six years,
- and has been quoted in so many words saying that no Bush actually asked for help, then yes, I think his reliability as a source at this point is a little questionable.