[CTRL] UPDATE-DID BUSH COMMIT PERJURY AFTER GETTING HIS DWI CONVICTION?

[William Shannon]

DID BUSH COMMIT PERJURY AFTER GETTING HIS DWI CONVICTION?
(revised with update)

We know by his own admission that until 1986, GW Bush was a heavy drinker. 
We also know that in 1976 he was convicted of DUI (driving under the
influence) in Kennebunkport, Maine, and that thereafter, Bush sought to
maintain this conviction as a secret.

The Daily Brew has learned from reliable sources that after that conviction,
Bush regularly operated his family's King Air (about a 4 million dollar twin
turboprop), as a civilian. However, to maintain his FAA license, Bush, like
all licensed pilots, would have had to fill out a questionnaire as part of
the airman's medical certificate given by an Aviation Medical Examiner at
least every 2 years. The Daily Brew understands that persons filling out that
questionnaire during the period from 1976-1986 were REQUIRED by federal law
to disclose information related to alcohol dependency. 

Any false or misleading statements on that form are federal offenses.

So the $64 question is:  Did Bush commit perjury in filling out the
questionnaire for his airman's medical certificate?


Update on the Bush DUI/FAA License story:

Brew, I have been a licensed pilot since 1979 and a commercial pilot since
1984 and have held a current airman's medical certificate continuously.  I
also hold an FAR Part 135 Air Carrier Letter of Authorization to Act as Pilot
in Command of aircraft for hire in air taxi or scheduled air carrier
service.  I was the company check pilot for a small cargo air carrier based
at Willow Run (Detroit's cargo airport) prior to attending medical school.  I
am also a board certified medical specialist.  I am still an active pilot and
routinely fly 300 plus hours per year and maintain a Class II medical
(commercial pilot level).  As an FAA aviation safety counselor with the
Detroit Flight Standards District Office, I keep current on regulations, and
changes as they occur.  I have occasion to speak with the Federal Air Surgeon
as part of my personal interest and professional duties.

Prior to 1989, there were no regulations regarding reporting of motor vehicle
offenses to the FAA for any reason.  14 CFR 61.15 (c), (d) and (e) were added
in 1989 and were the subject of substantial controversy.  Bob Carr, (then
D-Mich 14th Congressional District), was chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee.  He and I had several
lengthy conversation on this matter and we shared the concerns that the FAA
was beginning to pry into non-aviation related aspects of airman's lives. 
There were several incidents which gave support for creating the revision to
the FAR:  1.)  A transportation related train wreck in Maryland, in which the
engineers were intoxicated, 2.)  The infamous Northwest Airlines pilot
incident in South Dakota.  At that time, the FAA issued a NPRM to include
non-aviation based alcohol offenses in its six month (Class I - airline
transport pilot), one year (Class II - commercial pilot), and then two year
(Class III - private pilot, which is presently a three year certificate since
1998), that NPRM adding parts (c), (d) and (e) to FAR 61.15.  The reference
for this information is personal communication with Congressman Carr, The
Professional Manual of Flight (1979, 1980 and 1895 editions), Cessna Aircraft
Publishing Company, FAR/AIM 1977, 1981, 1986, 1988 and 1995 editions, as
published by the Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc.  7005 132nd place SE,
Renton, WA.  Documents I should have pitched long ago, but are still
cluttering up my bookshelves.

The original NPRM is readily available in the Federal Register, but
unfortunately, I don't have access to archived FR prior to 1991 at our
library, and if I did, it would take a long time to find the NPRM.

Also, FYI, the FAA began compulsory drug testing for commercial pilots and
volunteer pilots who fly for charities at that time, which has demonstrated
that pilots, although they may screw up on the ground, with a few notable
exceptions as above, take their flying extremely seriously, having a positive
drug test rate of less than 0.005% which also includes
pre-employment screens, not only of pilots, but mechanics and cabin
crew members.  Also, for pilots who have been involved in multiple DUI/OUI
situations, a waiver of the 1 year requirement is possible, following a
successful completion of an approved rehab program.  This is an area in which
I am not familiar with, since I don't deal with these issues. Hope this
enlightens you.

Walt

Walt:

Your reply still leaves unresolved the central issue.  During 1976-1986, did
the questionnaire given as a part of the airman's medical certificate ask
about alcohol use, alcohol related offenses, or alcohol dependancy?  If so,
what would have been the consequences of answering in the affirmative (which
Bush would have had to do) or lying?

I published your reply because although the inferences raised by your
recitation of the law are different than information I had previously been
given, you sound like you know what you are talking about.  At the same time,
you have not answered the revised questions I pose above.  While I do not
support GW Bush or his political agenda, I do want to be accurate in my
criticisms of him.

So let's review the undisputed facts:

By his own admission, Bush drank heavily until his 40th birthday, which was
July 6, 1986.  How heavily we cannot say precisely, but we do know it was
enough that his wife Laura told him she would leave him if he continued.  At
the time that Bush quit drinking, he had two four year old daughters, and his
father was the Vice President of the United States.  He had been caught
driving a car drunk at least once, and he operated aircraft regularly.

While I have the utmost sympathy for those with chemical dependency problems,
I cannot pretend that Bush's conduct for the first 40 years of his life was
anything other than reckless.  Nor can I pretend that he didn't put his own
indulgence in alcohol ahead of his wife and young children for an extended
period of time.  Nor can I pretend that he lacked the resources to get help
for his apparent problem.

Perhaps as much as 95% of the American public lacks the resources to indulge
in these type of behaviors without catastrophic effects to their marriages,
careers, and children.  By the age of 40, the vast majority of Americans have
been compelled to work, either in school on the job or both, for better than
half their lives.  Thus, it is simply impossible for me to waive off the
majority of Bush's adult life as a "youthful indiscretion" nor is it possible
for me to fathom how anyone with Bush's life experience could possibly be
prepared to understand or sympathize with the problems faced by the citizens
he now seeks to lead.

While I am willing to forgive Bush for his past conduct, I am not willing to
pretend that it didn't shape his world view, a view with which I find myself
entirely at odds.  For starters, while I am willing to forgive Bush for the
reckless behaviors in his past, driven as they were by his chemical
dependency, I find it telling that Bush is completely unwilling to forgive or
offer help for these same behaviors in others.  As governor of Texas, Bush
consistently fought for ever harsher punishments for those guilty of many of
his own transgressions, and he has given no indication whatsoever that he
will not continue to do so as President.

His party also conducted an eight year, $100 Million inquiry into the
activities of departing President Clinton that began based on now disprove
allegations of crimes that supposedly occurred years before he assumed the
Presidency.  This investigation ended in a partisan Impeachment proceeding
which was based primarily on a charge that President Clinton committed
perjury.

Given the Republican Party's conduct over the past eight years, I don't think
they are in any position to complain about inquiries into Bush's past
activities, including his candor, or lack thereof, in filling out the
questionnaire given with his airman's medical certificate.

Perhaps Bush is not guilty of perjury.  Perhaps he is.  Likely we will never
know.

But either way, he is undoubtedly guilty of hypocrisy.


http://www.thedailybrew.com/