Please send the link for this article to everyone you know that is interested in the presidential race.  In theory, that should be everyone you know.  If you know anyone that is not interested in the presidential race, please try to persuade them to become interested.  And, if they are adamantly and purposefully disinterested in how America operates, then please try to persuade that person to move to another country — France, for example.

What you are about to read is a MensNewsDaily.com exclusive.

Before getting into the “meat” of the story, I need to inform readers that some of the information in this article is based on my own personal observations.  And, there is a potential financial interest in the “fallout” of this story.  (My discharge from the military — while under the command of the subject of this article — was patently illegal.  By my calculations, Uncle Sam owes me over a quarter-million dollars in back promotions and back pay.)  But, I believe that the information in this article is so important that it needs to come out, regardless of my personal involvement.  And, no other publication has done all of the research that I’ve done.

I’ve tried to make this clear by implication in the past, but I will now spell out my political position plainly:  I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  When I lived in Upstate NY, I was an executive with the Conservative Party of New York State.  (That party was formed in 1961, because the founders believed that Nelson Rockefeller had taken the NY Republican Party too far to the Left.)  Now that I live in Tennessee — which is not nearly as kind to “minor parties” as New York — I am simply an “independent voter”.  The reason this point is important to the story is that I am not a party loyalist for anyone.  (In fact, I carried petitions for a Bush opponent — Alan Keyes — in the presidential primary of 2000.)  Nobody commissioned me to “do a hack job” on behalf of President Bush.  (And, if anyone had asked me to, I would have impolitely declined.)

With that background, the following needs to be said.

In an article dated 12 February 2004, the Boston Globe reported that, “Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe.”  One of the people interviewed for that article was Paul A. Weaver, Jr., who retired as a two-star general and Director of the Air National Guard.  In the interview, General Weaver stated, “There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals.”  The essence of the article was that then-Lieutenant George W. Bush may have shirked his obligations as a pilot in the Air National Guard back in 1972, by becoming disqualified for flying status.

It is no secret that the Boston Globe has been openly hostile to now-President Bush, and openly favorable to far-Left opponent Senator John Kerry.  The essence of this article, however, is that the Boston Globe should have done a credibility check on their source before involving him in something as high-stakes as the presidential campaign.  If that newspaper wants to use a retired general to bash the current President of the United States, then it would be a good idea to use a general that does not have so many holes in stories that he has told previously.  (And, ironically, some of the holes involve the general’s own flying status.)

By the admission of the current leadership of the US military’s Anthrax Vaccination Program (AVP), bad reactions to the anthrax vaccine range between five and thirty-five percent.  But, in his sworn Congressional hearing testimony, Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr., significantly under-reported the numbers of people leaving the Air National Guard because of vaccine fears.  Specifically, he said that only “one” had left.  Committee chairman Dan Burton (R-IN) accused General Weaver of flat-out lying, and said that he should be court-martialed for giving misleading testimony.  Burton said that the number of pilots leaving the service because of vaccine fears was enough to effect military readiness.

General Weaver claimed that only one Guardsman had left the service because of fear of the vaccine.  But, in one lawsuit alone, six John Doe plaintiffs had sued the military over the vaccine.  And, various organizations claim that the number of people that have faced courts-martial and/or involuntary discharge ranges from dozens to hundreds.  If volunteer, civilian organizations can come up with these numbers, then certainly a two-star general — who got paid a hefty salary, and had a staff to research such matters — should’ve been able to get the numbers correct in sworn testimony.  And, by any possible count, the tally should have been more than “one”.

Ironically, in defending himself against the charge that he had lied to the committee, General Weaver stated that, “... Guard service is voluntary.”  If that is the case, then why has Weaver now come forward to bad-mouth President Bush’s service record?  And, if Guard service is strictly voluntary, then why is the Boston Globe trying so hard to make it look as though Bush was AWOL thirty years ago?  So, was Weaver lying about Guard service being voluntary when he wrote to Congressman Burton?  Or, is Weaver lying now about President Bush?  (Or, both?)

But, that is not the only problem with Weaver’s credibility.

General Weaver specifically attacked the flying status of George W. Bush.  In the published interview, Weaver stated, “I would not have let him near the airplane,” back in 1972.  His reasoning was a concern about proficiency, based upon the fact that young Lt. Bush had not flown his assigned F-102 jet fighter for several months.  At that time, Bush had transferred from the Texas ANG to the Alabama ANG, in order to help work on the political campaign of a family friend.  The lieutenant’s father, George H. W. Bush, was then a Congressman from the Houston area.  After the 1972 election, the elder George Bush became the Director of Central Intelligence under President Richard Nixon.  The elder Bush had political clout for quite some time prior to that appointment, and would clearly have been in a position to persuade his son’s commanders to allow him to leave Guard service early. (The elder George Bush was elected Vice-President in 1980, and President in 1988.)  Political influence upon Guard and Reserve units — whether right or wrong — had been around long before 1972, and certainly continues today.

To mitigate in favor of General Weaver’s comment, if I had been the base commander in 1972 — and given that  a) the young pilot had not practiced his flying skills for several months,  b) he had missed his required medical examination,  c) his father was an influential congressman,  d) he was working on the Senate campaign of one of the wealthiest men in the state; and,  e) the fact that the young “W” was a hard drinker (by his own later admission) — I would not have let him near a jet fighter, either.  But....

Weaver’s own flying status has a questionable history.  In the Autumn of 1989, Weaver was severely injured in an off-duty accident.  I was under Weaver’s command at that time.  We were both on active duty in the Air National Guard, and stationed at Stewart ANG Base on the outskirts of Newburgh, New York.  Weaver was the base commander, and I was a Staff Sergeant in the Security Police unit.  I personally observed Weaver hobbling around the base on crutches, and wearing a large cast that covered much of his midsection and part of his leg.  In September of 1989, I had returned from six weeks in the orthopedic ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  I was sent there because of worsening symptoms in the aftermath of a high-speed parachute malfunction.  In fact, after seeing then-Colonel Weaver hobbling around, and meeting with him in his office about some routine paperwork (overdue meal charges from Walter Reed), I sent him a get-well card.  I explained that I could empathize with the pain of a broken pelvis, because I had suffered a broken lumbar vertebra.

A broken pelvis takes a long time to heal, especially for a man that was already in his mid-forties at the time of the injury.  Potentially, every step can aggravate the injury.  Routine activities, such as walking and driving, become major chores.  Some might argue that driving a car in that condition is unsafe.  Certainly, flying one of the world’s largest airplanes (the C-5 Galaxy) is not something that should be done until one is totally healed from such an injury.  The C-5, like most other aircraft, has rudder pedals that steer the aircraft — both in the air and on the ground.  The rudder pedals also operate the wheels’ hydraulic brakes.  If a pilot experiences pain and/or stiffness that prevents pushing down on the pedals, then the aircraft (which weighs well over a half-million pounds) could roll off the end of a runway, or damage property on the airfield, or even run over people assigned to service the aircraft.  That is why such injuries require that a pilot be removed from flying status.

But, in December of 1989, then-Colonel Weaver flew a C-5 mission to Panama.  The mission occurred less than 48 hours after the fighting of Operation Just Cause had ended, but before the declaration of a “hostile fire zone” was lifted.  The airlift mission, which lasted about four days, started in December of 1989, but ended in January of 1990.  Thus, conveniently, the mission took place in two different months, and in two different years.  The Federal government has a Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, and so do many individual states.  So, because the mission flew into a combat zone (although the combat was finished), any military member aboard the aircraft would have qualified for the exclusion.  Among the people aboard the C-5 that Weaver flew were the base legal officer and the base flight surgeon.  Ironically, by my calculations, it appears that Weaver’s time away from the C-5 cockpit was about the same number of months as young George Bush’s time away from the F-102 cockpit.  So, why did Weaver allow himself near the cockpit of that airplane?

The legal officer would have known about the tax exclusion, but was not an aircrew member, nor was he a member of any “combat arm” (as I was).  Thus, he had no valid military reason to be aboard an airlift mission into a combat zone.  The flight surgeon is a doctor, but is also a pilot.  He is required to keep up his flying status, like any other pilot, by means of a certain number of training flight hours.  Normally, flight surgeons do not go on missions into combat zones, because the base would be left without the doctor’s valuable skills if anything happened.  It takes a lot of time and money to replace a flight surgeon.  Thus, it seems extremely odd that both the flight surgeon and the legal officer were aboard a flight into a combat zone.  And, given that the flight surgeon was aboard, should he not have prevented Weaver from flying while he was still in recovery from a broken pelvis?  Or, did the flight surgeon actually fly the C-5, and the crew simply “fudged” the paperwork showing Weaver’s presence as the aircraft commander?  (If the latter were true, then Weaver would be guilty of tax fraud, as well as fraudulently obtaining any military credit for his presence in a combat zone, because he was not actually flying or commanding the aircraft.  If enemy forces had shot the plane down, how would Weaver have escaped capture with his profound limp?)  Because of my own personal fight against my illegal discharge (more about that in another article), I had obtained the passenger manifests of that flight many years ago.  I personally saw the names of the legal officer and the flight surgeon on the paperwork.  I obtained that paperwork from the headquarters of the NY Air National Guard, under the state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

The reason that I sought out those passenger manifests — several years ago — was because of things that were going on at Stewart ANG Base while I was stationed there, and Weaver was in command.  I was discharged on 30 November 1991, while Weaver was still a colonel.  Thus, I had no way to know in advance that Weaver would put on two stars, become the Director of the Air National Guard, go on network television as a “news analyst”, and later criticize the military record of the President of the United States.  What I did know in advance was that Weaver would someday fall under public scrutiny in a big way.  I knew that because of Weaver’s attention-hogging style.  His signature phrase was that he was always “on the edge of greatness”.  Now that Weaver’s own record and credibility have become newsworthy issues, my prior knowledge of that flight into Panama has become a lens for examination of Weaver.

And, Weaver was on another airlift mission, into another combat zone, during another war, when another questionable incident took place.  Somehow, in his unique style, Weaver took what should have been a court-martial offense and parlayed the event into an opportunity to get free publicity throughout the military community.  It was widely rumored among Weaver’s close associates that he was planning to run for office someday.  So, the free exposure that he obtained would have been valuable if he had later actually launched a campaign.  The items that you are about to read should explain why he has not done so.

On an airlift mission during Operation Desert Storm, an event purportedly took place involving then-Colonel Paul Weaver and his aircrew.  The event, if it had been true, would have jeopardized his aircrew, his assigned passengers, and — possibly — the entire base during a time of war.  Furthermore, the event, if true, would have been a direct violation of standing military orders.  Disobeying lawful orders in a combat zone, especially if the disobedient act endangers friendly forces, can be punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  This is especially egregious if the acts of the offender inspire other people to join in the disobedience.  To do so is called “sedition”, which is punishable by death during time of war.  (Refer to Articles 92 and 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)  Instead, Weaver tried to get a medal.

Here is what purportedly happened.

While on an airlift mission to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm, an aircrew under the command of Weaver was preparing to return to the United States.  The US State Department ordered the evacuation of the family members of Americans in the area, due to the possibility of attack by Iraq.  Weaver and his crew were assigned to fly approximately fifty children Stateside.  (So far, this actually sounds plausible.)

While the aircraft was preparing to take off, Weaver and crew were alerted to the possibility of an incoming missile.  The massive C-5 aircraft was (purportedly) left there on the runway, while the crew (purportedly) evacuated the children.  As the story was told (first in the base’s Stewart Flyer newsletter, then in a NY statewide Guard newsletter, then repeated in other military newsletters, and finally published in the Desert Storm commemorative edition of Airman magazine — the official news magazine of the United States Air Force), the aircrew members even carried some children.  First, they (purportedly) carried them down the shaky two-story ladder from the C-5 passenger deck to the cargo deck, then down another two-story ladder to the ground, and then nearly a mile from the aircraft to the operations building.  (Where was the bus that normally carries people to an from such a large aircraft?)  The published reports even said that Weaver and other crewmembers sometimes carried a child under each arm.  Remember, these are mostly men in their forties; and, Weaver had previously broken his pelvis — after falling from a ladder.

As unlikely as it seems, the story says that this unloading/reloading actually happened three times before the plane was finally able to take off.  But, it’s what happened while they were waiting for the all-clear that purportedly made Weaver a “hero”.  Grab a shovel, because it’s gonna get deep.

After having purportedly evacuated the aircraft — and returned to it — twice already (that’s a total of running at least two miles while carrying children), Weaver and crew were sitting calmly in a waiting room at the operations building.  (Remember, they are purportedly sitting calmly while the base is under a chemical alert for an incoming missile attack.)  The children are scared and frustrated by the alerts; they want to take off and go home.  Some of the children start crying.  That’s when Weaver — purportedly — performed his “heroic” act:  he removed his gas mask, and then his crewmembers did likewise.

Hello!!  Can you see some problems with this story?!

A missile attack alert is a very serious event.  (I know; I’ve trained for them, and I’ve trained others for them.)  Preparing for the attack requires certain things to take place with precision, according to long-standing procedures and repeated training.  These procedures, and their associated training, are standard among all branches of the military.  (Can you imagine the chaos if they were not?)  They require rigorous discipline; and, disobeying those procedures — especially in a combat zone — is considered a serious violation.  According to official policy, when the alert is sounded, it is considered a direct order of the base commander.  Remember, at that time, Weaver was a base commander himself.  Thus, there is no way that he would not have known the rules.

Rather than dispatch anyone to see if there was a supply of extra gas masks, Weaver removed his own mask, and inspired those under his command to do likewise.  Their purported motivation was that, if the children were going to die, then they would die with them.  Under normal circumstances, this would be considered sedition.  But, the story goes even further with regard to its lack of credibility.

As both a base commander and an aircraft commander, Weaver would know that leaving a giant C-5 parked in a take-off position at the end of the runway would have presented a danger to the rest of the base.  Not only is the sitting target full of tens of thousands of gallons of fuel; but, it could have also prevented the take-off of fighters to defend the base.  Even if the fighters did get around the C-5 to take off (while in Korea, I saw an F-4 taxi on frozen ground to get around an obstacle), the presence of the plane would be a serious danger to any planes trying to land.  (The tail of the C-5 is six stories above the ground, and the wingspan is large enough for the entire first flight of the Kitty Hawk.)  Thus, if Weaver’s story had been true, then he would have potentially blocked any reinforcements from arriving if the base had been attacked.  But, a larger question of credibility still looms over this story.

If the story about Weaver and his aircrew were true, then who would fly any survivors home?  Pilots must be “type-qualified” in their aircraft.  Thus, a fighter pilot or a helicopter pilot is not likely to get into a C-5 at the last minute and fly it away from the base.  According to the story, Weaver’s crew was apparently the only one available.  So, if his “touching” suicide maneuver had actually gone according to plan, then who would have flown any survivors out of the area?  (As a precaution, all personnel must prepare for a chemical attack.  But, not all incoming missiles have chemical warheads.  In fact, of all the missiles fired at American and Israeli targets during Desert Storm, none were reported to have actually contained a chemical or biological warfare agent.)  In a worst-case scenario, perhaps all the children would have died.  But, medical evacuation might have been needed for surviving military personnel.  If the aircrew had just killed themselves, out of “compassion”, whom would those survivors depend upon?

Believe it or not, the story actually continues to get worse.  (And, I’m intentionally leaving out some details, just in case anyone challenges my analysis.)

Because of a change in assignment, I happened to be in the Air Base Operability (ABO) office at Stewart one morning, just as this story was beginning to “grow legs”.  The ABO office is the one that handles training and equipment for responses to disasters — including chemical attacks.  A newly-promoted major, from the aircraft maintenance squadron, was calling to speak with the ABO Officer.  (This particular ABO Officer had just been recognized as ABO Officer of the Year for the entire Air National Guard.  Thus, his peers had recognized his expertise in chemical-warfare defense.)  I got the officer on the phone.  The office suite was not very large, and we were the only two people there.  I did not intentionally listen in on the conversation, but I could not help overhearing it.  What transpired amazed me, but it made sense in retrospect.

The new major wanted to know how to nominate someone for a Bronze Star.  The ABO Officer asked why a maintenance officer would call ABO to get an answer for a personnel question.  The maintenance officer explained that the incident involved a chemical warfare incident.  The ABO Officer asked for details.  (I did not hear the caller’s details at the time of the phone call, but the story appeared in the base newsletter a few weeks later.  Once the story was published, I realized that this is what the phone call had been about.)  The ABO Officer told the caller, in a firm tone, that if the story is true, then the person involved should receive punishment via court-martial for disobeying a lawful order — and that nomination for a medal was out of the question.

The situation above reminds me a lot of the “heroic actions” of John Kerry in Vietnam.  Because he disobeyed the standard strategy for Swift Boat operations — thus endangering his crew, killing friendly soldiers, and likely violating the International Law of Armed Conflict — hot-dogging junior officer John Kerry was “awarded” the Silver Star.  Was the person that submitted the nomination for Kerry’s medal under Kerry’s command, as the new major was under Weaver’s command?  Did Kerry order his own nomination, just as Weaver apparently had?

Rather than bury the bogus story, Weaver promoted it “on every high hill, ... under every green tree” (Ezekiel 6:13, NKJV.  While looking it up, deeper readers may want to compare my plight with chapter three of Ezekiel.).  As stated earlier, it was published (at taxpayer expense) for hundreds of thousands of Air Force and Air National Guard personnel to read.  It became the lead story in the “Desert Storm Commemorative Edition” of Airman magazine (Aug 1991, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp. 8-9, with photos — issues prior to 1995 are not available online).  After  Democrat Bill Clinton became president, “heroic” Weaver was promoted twice, and became Director of the Air National Guard.  (Now, “coincidentally”, Weaver makes comments to support the weak accusations of another Democratic presidential candidate.)  Upon his retirement, Weaver became a network TV “news analyst”.  Weaver had managed to get the kind of publicity that political candidates must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for.  He was poised for “greatness” — except, of course, for the fact that the story was a phony.

To my knowledge, Weaver’s television career lasted only one day (just about a year ago).  That was because I sent a private e-mail to the Fox News Channel with some of the details that you are now reading publicly.  I never saw him on television again — not even the next time that the same segment aired later that day.  At least someone over at Fox had more guts than the editors of the various military publications.

Weaver had another career set up after his military retirement, though.  He became a lobbyist.  Federal law requires that government officials (including senior military officers) wait at least two years after their retirement before becoming lobbyists.  (The law was tightened in 1995, to prevent “revolving door” lobbying.)  But, within months of his retirement, Paul A. Weaver, Jr. had formed his own lobbying company (PAW & Associates).  His biography page specifically states that his company was formed upon retirement — not two years later, as the law requires.  Some readers might disagree with my interpretation of Weaver’s status, and claim that the one-year restriction of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) applies to his case.  Either way, Weaver’s lobbying activities were illegal, and he reasonably should have known that they were illegal.

At the time that I originally researched this material in March of 2003, Weaver had already been lobbying for several months.  (At that time, another publication did not consider this information to be newsworthy.)  Considering that he retired in February of 2002, there is no way that his lobbying activities have been in compliance with the law.  Specifically, there were lobbying documents filed to show that Weaver lobbied for Booz-Allen Hamilton ($40,000), DFI International ($140,000), BAE Systems ($20,000), Boeing ($40,000), and General Dynamics Decision Systems (amount of that lobbying fee was unspecified on Federal documents).  These documents show that Weaver made in excess of $240,000 as a lobbyist in 2002 alone, on top of his military retirement pay as a two-star general.

Even there, the questions continue.  Weaver is listed as a board member for DFI International.  Lobbyists are generally outside consultants, brought in to provide expert knowledge and/or legislative contacts that a company does not have in-house.  How is it that Weaver became a registered lobbyist for a company, if he is on the board of that same company?  (On a small scale, it would be like an employee of a fast-food restaurant opening his own trash-removal company, and then billing the restaurant for taking out the trash while he was “on the clock”.)

Considering that the formation of his lobbying company was illegal in the first place, Weaver has demonstrated an amazing amount of “weasel factor” by billing his own employer for lobbying services.  (I was not able to discover how much salary, if any, Weaver is being paid by DFI International for being a member of the company’s board.)  I don’t know if lobbying for one’s own company is illegal, but it certainly does appear to be a waste of money.  (The law recognizes “inside” and “outside” lobbyists.  But, Weaver appears to be an “inside” board member bilking his own company for “outside” fees.)  Given that all of the companies Weaver lobbies for are defense contractors, the money being wasted ultimately belongs to the taxpayer.

According to a GAO Report on DOD Contract Management, the companies that Weaver lobbies for were over-paid a total of $55-million in fiscal year 2000 alone.  The subtitle of the report is, “Overpayments continue, and Management and Accounting Issues Remain”.  The contents of the report, which was sent to the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, are enough to overwhelm even the steeliest readers.  The report concludes that large companies operate with near-total impunity, partly because they hire newly-retired senior officers (commonly called “graybeards”) to lobby on their behalf.  The Committee on Government Reform was chaired by Congressman Dan Burton — the same representative that said Weaver should be court-martialed for lying to his committee.  So far, Weaver’s activities have not spurred a probe, nor has Weaver been court-martialed.

Instead, he has become a “witness” against the re-election efforts of President Bush.  The over-riding question of this article is:  can this witness be trusted?  And, if not, then can voters trust the continued attacks by John Kerry on the service record of President George W. Bush?

--------------------------------------------------

NOTES:

1.  Ample opportunity was given for General Weaver to have input to this story.  I sent a list of questions to the e-mail address listed on his Federal lobbying reports.  When no reply was received after several days, I called the company where he sits on the board of directors.  The person that answered the phone did not know who Paul Weaver was.  When I explained that the Web site says he is on their board of directors, the person put me through to the voice mail of the secretary to the president of the company.  (But, the voice mail program cut me off.)  Then, I called the phone number listed on Weaver’s lobbying report.  He apparently works out of his home in northern Virginia.  The recording on the answering machine specified that it was the number for “PAW & Associates”.  Therefore, since the phone number on the Federal documents was correct, I must assume that the e-mail address was also correct.  (I never received any “error message” to indicate any problem with e-mail delivery.)  Despite all these efforts, there was no reply to my inquiry.

2.    After he was accused of lying at a Congressional hearing, G. Gordon Liddy went to prison for five years.  After General Weaver was accused of lying at a Congressional hearing, he got a two-star retirement.

3.  Because the passenger manifests were obtained years prior to the publication of this article, there is no way for Weaver — or any accomplice — to now alter them.

Tom Kovach

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM!

---

To learn more about Tom Kovach, click here.