Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Document shows Bush didn't sign his discharge

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
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:32 AM
Original message
Document shows Bush didn't sign his discharge
Edited on Wed Mar-17-04 11:36 AM by zulchzulu
If you look at the document, you see that Bush's signature is missing. This was the document that had been requested as far back as 1994. Bush finally had it released and you can see why he didn't want it released earlier.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Curious how certain fields are blacked out on this document
Edited on Wed Mar-17-04 11:44 AM by AntiCoup2k
Marital status, dependents, date of birth, height and weight. :wtf:

This is hardly classified information here. The only reason I could see for blacking those fields out would be if the info contained in them did not match the facts about George Bush Jr.

Or in other words, the discharge record above is that of a Lt George Bush, but NOT the one who is the current illegal occupant of the White House.

Could they really be that stupid to try and pull off something like that??

EDIT: Also, it's kinda weird that no mention is made of the time Junior supposedly spent in the Alabama ANG. If I'm reading the document correctly, the implication is that he transferred from Texas to Colorado, and was discharged from there. Wouldn't the accurate record be that he went from Texas, to Alabama, to Colorado?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I wondered about that before
I have seen other documents where those same mundane details are blocked out...was he married to another woman with other mutants back then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. As you beat me by 7 full minutes I will defer to your post!!
Great points all. I was thinking the Height and Weight redacting were for vanity reasons, bush* always tries to be the BMOC and if "his" records had 5'9" and 145 lbs, that would be too lightweight to fit with his current media-supported cowboy image!

It makes plenty of sense that this could be a different g bush* and the facts don't jive, except if they went as far to forge this document one would think they would do a better job than that. I mean look at those Niger documents that were obvious fakes, oh yeah bad example.

Another good point about ANG. The records out on the net have one showing his request for transfer was denied(even though he was already there), but I think it was finally "approved", so you would think there should be something about ANG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Redaction's a funny thing
What gets taken out depends a lot on the mandate of the issuing agency. For example, when I've received aircraft crash reports, much information that is totally irrelevant to national security is blacked out; specifically, witness statements and remarks by the contractors that built the plane.

The reason is that these statements and remarks are taken by the Air Force with the specific promise that they will be used strictly in capacities that will help prevent future accidents; this helps in that people feel more free to talk about what they really saw, or really think. Since I've got nothing to do with preventing future accidents, when I get the report, their stuff is redacted.

There may be a similarly mundane parallel here. No idea. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. SUSPICIONS CONFIRMED
I've NEVER believed he was 5-10! I've always said he's lucky if he's 5 foot nine!

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erpowers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
3. What Does This Mean
I am not trying to criticize you, but I do not understand what this means and how it can affect the presidental election. If you would please explain what Bush's not signing this document means. I don't understand its importance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stuart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. If you look closely at the signature box
It states that:

HE IS NOT PRESENT TO SIGN THE DAMN THING!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah, nothing to see here, move along folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why is there a black mark in the "No. Dependents" box?
I understand the redacting of personal info, and security clarences and such, but in 1973 bush* had no kids, or did he?

The twins are what, 21, so that puts their birth in 1982 or 83.

I see that they also blacked out the Single AND Married box, that makes sense since if you just marked out the one, the other would be easy to figure. But since he had no kids, leaving it unmarked would not reveal anything, or would it?

Was bush* married with children and Poppy made that disappear too?

Or was he thinking he might have a "dependent" when he knocked up his underaged girlfriend before she agreed to an illegal abortion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'm not sure anybody signs these things...
I got one in the mail 6 years after I got drafted, and I thought that's the way it's usually done.

Born in New Haven, Harvard B School, the Alabama election firm... not much question of identity here, so that's tinfoil.

Blacking out some of that stuff is interesting, though. Why would he want dependants and marital status blacked out?

Start the rumors-- his Cajun commonlaw wife and kid are buried in the Bayous somewhere. :evilgrin:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishnfla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. Other DU vets have posted that's not uncommon
to have not signed this form
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuLu550 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. seems to me the most relevant information on this
is that out of a six year obligation, he served five years and 28 days but was paid for and credited with five years FOUR MONTHS and 28 days....
and that he has no military qualification...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caduceus Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. Help please with the fields on the document...
The document states that he enlisted on Sept. 4, 1968, and was discharged on Oct. 1, 1973. That's 5 years and 28 days as it states in the Length in Service field. So, why was he paid for time after his discharge, and why does it show 5 years 4 months and 5 days for his Total Service for Pay Periods? Since he enlisted for 6 years, how was he able to get out 11 months early, or was he AWOL for 11 months?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Probably no big deal...
since pay doesn't always match actual service time. There's untaken leave (HA!), bonuses, training, etc, that gets calculated the military way.

How he got out 11 months early? Family juice and a few phone calls. Looks like they didn't really care much if he stayed around anyway. Cost more to keep him on the rolls than he was worth, and they could open a slot for someone who cared.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. Couldn't even show up for an act of extreme patrician favoritism
Lazyissimo. What's the matter? That eight-ball the night before left him so twitchy that he couldn't even drive?

What a baby. This guy probably can't even tie his shoes. I'll bet he's never operated a washing machine or a dishwasher in his life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. Interesting - Box 13 - Race
under white - NA ????

Not applicable???

Could this tie into why the DOB is blacked out too?

Bush is multi-racial, and was conceived before his father returned home?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. NA is because...
he's not a member of the human race?

Actually, note the date on the bottom of the form. The Pentagon uses forms for years before updating them, and by the 70's, it was no longer required to list one's race. It may even have been illegal to note it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
17. My husband said he never signed his either
He said it was common practice to get the papers in the mail after the fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
18. Does that mean that he can
be sent to Iraq and forced to complete his Guard duty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-17-04 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. This is more than VERY common.. just FYI...
Often they are incomplete etc.. people just wanting to get the fk home..

This is how it work... sorry but file this under.. doesnt mean squat.
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 Apr 30th 2024, 03:57 PM
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