Where did the forgeries come from?


In August Bill Burkett took it upon himself to review a work by Paul Lukasiak, "Deserter: The Story Of George W. Bush After He Quit The Texas Air National Guard."

Lukasiak is a Philadelphia caterer who claims to have some connection with the University Of Pennsylvania. He has made it his life's work to prove that Bush was a deserter from the Texas Air National Guard. (Interestingly, Lukasiak is a radical gay activist, as are so many of the people who have advanced this preposterous canard over the years. He claims some connection to the 'Center for the Study of Youth Policy' whatever that is.)  

Burkett's 'review' was published on the Bush—hating site Democrats.com. (Which is run by the Bush—hating radical gay activist Bob Fertik.)  

Lukasiak Study Proves Bush Was Legally AWOL
Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret)
Air [sic] National Guard Commanding Officer
Re:  by Paul Lukasiak

Lukasiak's 'study' is a laughably Byzantine exegesis of President Bush's National Guard records. It employs many images of purported NG documents to make its point. But the point seems to be to bury the reader with so many minutiae that you will miss the obvious fact that Bush fulfilled his National Guard requirements.

Burkett is a self—proclaimed "military process expert" (aka 'paper work'). Consequently his ponderous 'review' of Lukasiak's 'study' is quite self—important and equally laughable. Beginning with:

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.

And wrapping up with:

This is my preliminary comments. I hope to have more detail within my verification of the files especially on all months past month 56.

In between I believe we are witnesses to the point in time when Burkett went beyond being a source of innocent merriment. For Burkett portentously intones:

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 ap—pear as ordered is certainly considered as Absent without Leave.

Having been a commander, it seems totally impossible that if 1LT Bush met any of these re—quirements 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 unequivo—cally, 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 will leave aside the hilarious fact that 'process expert' Burkett doesn't understand the meaning of 'not observed' in Bush's Efficiency Reports. I will ignore that Burkett uses terms such as 'AWOL' which are completely foreign to the National Guard concept——according to such experts as Gen. William Turnipseed.

Instead I will note the introduction into the discussion of the term 'ordered.' For Bush was not ordered to report to Alabama. He was not ordered to drill there—again according to Gen. Turnipseed, who was in charge of the unit Bush reported to in Montgomery. However, it seems important to Burkett to establish the fantasy that Bush refused direct orders somewhere in his National Guard service.

Burkett goes on:

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 congress—man'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.

Burkett's 'review' is dated August 13, 2004. We know that very soon after this he was in touch with CBS News (and radical feminist Mary Mapes) and top aides in the Kerry campaign to tell them about the Killian memos he had.

Burkett is now claiming to have had the Killian memos since March 3, 2004. But that is clearly a lie unless Burkett was lying in his comments above when he said he had 'found no documentation...'

If we believe Burkett's claims above, then sometime between August 13th and whenever he got in touch with the media and the Kerry camp, these documents magically came into his possession.

The simplest explanation would be that Burkett created them. There is no proof, of course, so it is just my guess at this stage in time.

Burkett might have been 'inspired' by Lukasiak's posting of the memos and other period documents to try his own hand at creating documents that would fill the void that he, the news media and Kerry camp so desperately wanted filled.

Could  Burkett have slipped over from being a fantasist about reality to actively trying to change reality? If this happened, it was probably sometime immediately after August 13, 2004.


If you haven't clicked on the article that Burkett was reviewing, this is how Lukasiak, the caterer's screed begins:


An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of that era lead to a single conclusion:  George W. Bush was considered a deserter by the United States Air Force.

After Bush quit TXANG, he still had nine months of his six—year military commitment left to serve... Regardless of what actions ARPC contemplated when reviewing Bush's records, all options required that Bush be certified as physically fit to serve, or as unfit to serve.   ARPC thus had to order Bush to get a physical examination, for which Bush did not show up.  ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL and a 'non—locatee' (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his local draft board.  Once the Houston draft board got wind of the situation, strings were pulled; and documents were generated which directly contradict Air Force policy, and which were inconsistent with the rest of the records released by the White House.

Don't worry that none of this  seems to make a lick of sense. It doesn't. We are dealing with people who are unbalanced on this subject (and undoubtedly much else).

The point is that Burkett read this and was (perhaps) inspired to gin up a few memos that would prove these very points:

—— That Bush was ordered to take a physical examination. (The actual term is "medical examination", but physical is what the forged memos use just like this article),

—— And that when  Bush  didn't obey this order "strings were pulled" to cover that up. (Or to "sugar coat" as the forgeries put it).

If we then skip down in Lukasiak's unlearned "study", we find the creamy nougat center of his assertion:


All members of the Air Force whose jobs required 'flight status' were required to get a physical examination each year within three months prior to their birthday...

The absolute requirement for a physical examination and annual certification of physical fitness is one of the 'choke points' in Bush's military records.  All possible outcomes required that ARPC determine Bush's physical qualifications.  In order to achieve that, ARPC would have first 'instructed', then 'ordered' Bush to get a physical examination.  We know, from Bush's records, that no such examination was ever accomplished.  Thus we know that Bush failed to obey a direct order to appear for active duty.


In truth Bush would have never been "ordered" to get his routine annual "medical." Lukasiak is laughably wrong about that.

But the memos that Burkett suddenly came up with after reading this ignorant assertion, just happened to mimic this same idiotic claim.

And, as we've noted in an earlier article, whoever forged the memos even got the deadline wrong for the "medical exam. 

Burkett probably misinterpreted Lukasiak's mention of the "three months prior"  to mean that the deadline was three months before the birthday.

Consequently we have the forged memo citing a deadline of May——which is three months prior to Bush's birthday in July.

In fact, Bush could get his medical exam anytime during the three months prior to his birthday, and in fact even until the end of his birthday month.

Steve Gilbert  9 22 04