bush rules!

[Be Kind]

Go to Original
www.truthout.org www.rememberjohn.com
Bush's Missing Year
By Eric Boehlert
Salon.com

Thursday 05 February 2004

In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard service and
later lied about it. With the media finally paying attention, will he
now come clean?
In 1972, George W. Bush simply walked away from his pilot duties
in the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required weekend drill
sessions for many months, probably for more than a year, and did not
take a mandatory annual physical exam, which resulted in his being
grounded. Nonetheless, Bush, the son of a well-connected Texas
congressman, received an honorable discharge.

If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a year, military
attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to active duty or,
more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a
less-than-honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty would be
especially swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman were a fully
trained pilot, as Bush was.

Bush's National Guard record, long ignored by the media, has
surfaced with a vengeance. If the topic continues to rage, and if the
media presses him, Bush may finally be forced to release his full
military records, which could reveal the truth. By refusing to make
all those records public, Bush has until now broken with a
long-standing tradition of U.S. presidential candidates.

Democrats have seized on the story of Bush's "missing year,"
which was first raised in a 2000 Boston Globe article. This week
Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry called on Bush to give a
fuller explanation of his service record. That brought an outraged
response from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot, who denounced
Kerry's request as a "slanderous attack" and "character
assassination." White House spokesman Scott McClellan also tried to
slam the door on the subject, declaiming that Democratic questions
about Bush's military service "have no place in politics and everyone
should condemn them."

In a sign that the Bush team is taking the issue seriously, on
Wednesday Bush's campaign spokesman questioned the integrity of the
retired Guard commander who claims Bush failed to show for duty in
1972, citing the commander's recent donation to a Democratic candidate
for president.

Republicans clearly want to quarantine the issue of Bush's
service and have it labeled as outside the bounds of acceptable public
discourse. With good reason: If the story takes root it could do real
damage to Bush's reelection run, which is anchored on his image as a
trusted leader in America's war on terrorism. Trying to make the
subject go away could prove difficult, though. "It's a booby trap
that's out there ticking for Bush," warns retired U.S. Army Col. David
Hackworth. "His opponents are going to keep turning this screw until
something gives."

Right now, the network news is covering the political jousting.
It remains unclear, however, whether mainstream journalists will take
the time to examine Bush's military record and ask the president why,
after receiving pilot training that cost 1970s taxpayers nearly $1
million, he took it upon himself to decide he was finished with his
military requirements nearly two years before his six-year obligation
was up.

Bush's infrequent responses to questions on the issue have been
by turns false, misleading and contradictory. His memory has also
proved to be highly unreliable: During 2000, Bush variously could not
remember which weekends he served during the year in question, where
he served, under whose command, or what his duties were.

The story emerged in 2000 when the Boston Globe's Walter
Robinson, after combing through 160 pages of military documents and
interviewing Bush's former commanders, reported that Bush's flying
career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972
when he asked for, and was inexplicably granted, a transfer to a
paper-pushing Guard unit in Alabama. During this time Bush worked on
the Senate campaign of a friend of his father's. With his six-year
Guard commitment, Bush was obligated to serve through 1973. But
according to his own discharge papers, there is no record that he did
any training after May 1972. Indeed, there is no record that Bush
performed any Guard service in Alabama at all. In 2000, a group of
veterans offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who could confirm Bush's
Alabama Guard service. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Guardsmen who were
in Bush's unit, not a single person came forward.

In 1973 Bush returned to his Houston Guard unit, but in May of
that year his commanders could not complete his annual officer
effectiveness rating report because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Based on
those records, as well as interviews with Texas Air National
guardsmen, the Globe raised serious questions as to whether Bush ever
reported for duty at all during 1973.

Throughout the 2000 campaign Bush aides never forcefully
questioned the Globe's account. Instead, they searched for military
documents that would support Bush's claim that he did indeed attend
drill duties during the year in question. His aides eventually
uncovered one piece of paper that seemed to bolster their case that he
had attended a drill in late 1972, but the document was torn and did
not have Bush's full name on it.

Today, the White House says that although Bush did miss some
weekend drills, he eventually made them up, and more importantly he
received an honorable discharge. Bush supporters routinely cite the
president's honorable discharge as the ultimate proof that there was
nothing unbecoming about his military service.

But experts say that citation does not wipe away the questions.
"An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record," says
Grant Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired
Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who served as a judge advocate, or JAG
officer. "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills
and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the
extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over
these types of issues. Lattin notes that the Guard "is obviously very
political, even more so than other military institutions, and is
subject to political influence."

For failing to attend required monthly drill sessions and
refusing to take a physical, 1st Lt. Bush just as easily could have
been moved to active duty, given a less-than-honorable discharge, or
had his flying rights permanently revoked, says Eugene Fidell, a
leading Washington expert on military law. "For a fully trained pilot,
he was assigned to a nothing job [in Alabama], and the available
records indicate he never performed that job."

In the Guard today, as a general rule, "if someone doesn't show
up for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be
separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable discharge"
most likely noting "unsatisfactory participation," says D.C. military
lawyer David Sheldon, who served in the Navy and represented officers
before the Court of Military Appeals.

Meanwhile, recent questions have surfaced not only about Bush's
military service, but his official records. "I think some documents
were taken out" of his military file, the Boston Globe's Robinson
tells Salon. "And there's at least one document that appears to have
been inserted into his record in early 2000." That document -- the
aforementioned torn page that did not have Bush's full name on it --
plays a central role in the story.

"His records have clearly been cleaned up," says author James
Moore, whose upcoming book, "Bush's War for Re-election," will examine
the issue of Bush's military service in great detail. Moore says as
far back as 1994, when Bush first ran for governor of Texas, his
political aides "began contacting commanders and roommates and people
who would spin and cover up his Guard record. And when my book comes
out, people will be on the record testifying to that fact: witnesses
who helped clean up Bush's military file."

If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard
service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release
the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard could
make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and total
retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light on
where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between 1972
and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through Freedom of
Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or private
cannot be released without Bush's permission.)

Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of
presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's
father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill
Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft
status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with
"Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve
Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and
Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according to a
Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.

Calls to the White House seeking comment on if and when the
president's full military records will be released were not returned.

The spark that reignited this issue came when ABC News anchor
Peter Jennings, co-moderating a Democratic debate on Jan. 22, asked
retired Gen. Wesley Clark why he did not repudiate comments made by
his supporter, filmmaker Michael Moore, who publicly labeled Bush a
"deserter." Jennings editorialized, "Now that's a reckless charge not
supported by the facts."

Republican pundits agreed. Bill Bennett, a director of Empower
America, told Fox News that Clark's "failure to distance himself,
repudiate, absolutely condemn Michael Moore's description of the
president as a deserter was a terrible thing."

Most informed observers agree that Moore's choice of words was
sloppy and inaccurate. "Deserter" is a criminal term: It refers to a
military personnel who abandons his post with no intention of ever
returning. But Democrats have taken hold of the broader issue of
whether Bush was AWOL. Their willingness to bring up a previously
off-limits subject reflects their sense that Bush's aura of
invincibility has worn off and the confidence imparted by Kerry's
resurgent campaign. Democrats feel Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran,
has the personal history to question Bush's service.

But the issue is also ripe because of Bush's own reelection
strategy. By donning a fighter flight suit and landing on the USS
Abraham Lincoln fora photo-op in May 2003, he has tried to paint
himself as a seasoned military leader in the United States' war on
terrorism. With newfound aggressiveness, Democrats are trying to
puncture that aura by hammering away on the fact that Bush's own
military record fails to back it up.

That's what Democratic National Committee chairman Terry
McAuliffe did this Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," when he referred
to Bush as "a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." That
brought a quick rebuttal from South Carolina's Republican Gov. Mark
Sanford, who told CNN it was wrong for Democrats to be "taking shots
at [Bush] for being a guardsman."

In similar fashion, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., claimed Tuesday
night that by bringing up Bush's National Guard service, the Democrats
are impugning the patriotism of guardsmen, implying that their
contributions are less worthy than those who serve in the military. As
those disingenuous comments suggest, Republicans are trying to change
the subject, falsely framing the debate as a repeat of the National
Guard controversy that dogged Vice President Dan Quayle during the
1988 presidential campaign.

It's easy to see why they're pursuing this strategy. If the story
were simply about how Bush used his family connections to land a slot
in the Texas Air National Guard (and all indications are he did just
that ), it wouldn't matter much. But the real story is not how Bush
got into the Guard. It's how he got out.

Until the last two days the mainstream media has routinely
ignored or downplayed the issue. Slate columnist Michael Kinsley took
euphemism to new heights when he wrote in a Dec. 5 column that Bush
was "lackadaisical" about fulfilling his Guard requirement. On Jan.
17, the Associated Press, recapping the "deserter" controversy, did
Bush a favor, erroneously reporting that his absent-without-leave time
lasted just three months in 1972, instead of the 12-18 months actually
in question. And on Feb. 1, ABC News, suggesting Democrats might turn
off voters by attacking Bush's military service, reported Bush simply
"missed some weekends of training." None of those descriptions come
anywhere near describing the established facts at the center of the
controversy.

Perhaps that's not surprising. The press, apparently deeming the
National Guard story unworthy, paid more attention to the debate over
Moore's "deserter" comment than they did to the actual story of Bush's
unexplained absence when it came out during the 2000 campaign.

While co-moderating the Democratic debate, ABC News' Jennings was
sure he knew the facts about Bush's military record. But as the Daily
Howler noted, a search of the LexisNexis electronic database indicates
that ABC's "World News Tonight," hosted by Jennings, never once during
the 2000 campaign ran a report about the questions surrounding Bush's
military record. Asked if ignoring the story was a mistake, and
whether ABC News planned to pursue it in 2004, a network spokeswoman
told Salon, "We continue to examine the records of all the candidates
running for president, including President Bush. If and when we have a
story about one of the candidates, we'll report it to our audience."

ABC was not alone in turning away from the story in 2000. CBS
News did the same thing, and so did NBC News. But it was the New York
Times, and the way the paper of record avoided the issue of Bush's
no-show military service, that stands out as the most unusual. To this
day, the Times has never reported that in 1972 the Texas Air National
Guard grounded Bush for failing to take a required physical exam. Nor
has the paper ever reported that neither Bush nor his aides can point
to a single person who saw Bush, the hard-to-miss son of a congressman
and U.S. ambassador, perform any active duty requirements during the
final 18 months of his service. Instead, the Times served up stories
that failed to delve deep into the issue.

The Boston Globe story broke on May 23, 2000. The next day Bush
answered reporters' questions on the campaign trail, defending his
military record. His comments were covered by the Times Union (of
Albany, N.Y.), the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and
the Houston Chronicle, among others, which all considered the story
newsworthy. Not the Times: The paper ignored the fact Bush was forced
to respond to allegations that he'd been AWOL during his Guard
service.

Throughout the 2000 campaign, the Times' Nicholas Kristof wrote a
series of biographical dispatches about Bush's personal history. On
July 11, he wrote about Bush's post-college years, including his
National Guard service, but no mention was made of the controversy
surrounding Bush's missing year.

The Times finally addressed the issue on July 22, two months
after the Globe exposé was published. The Times article, written by Jo
Thomas, focused on Bush's post-Yale years in the late '60s and early
'70s. In a section on the National Guard controversy, the Times
reported that Bush's commanding officer had told the Boston Globe that
Bush had never showed up, quoted Bush as insisting that he had, and
noted that "Emily Marks, who worked in the Blount campaign and dated
Mr. Bush, said she recalls that he returned to Montgomery after the
election to serve with the Air National Guard." But then the Times
went on to write, "National Guard records provided by the Guard and by
the Bush campaign indicate he did serve on Nov. 29, 1972, after the
election. These records also show a gap in service from that time to
the previous May. Mr. Bush says he made up for the lost time in
subsequent months, and guard records show he received credit for
having performed all the required service."

On Oct. 31, the Boston Globe published another damning story,
suggesting Bush failed to serve -- in fact, did not even show up for
duty-- during the final 18 months of his commitment. The Times' Thomas
quickly wrote, "A review of records by The New York Times indicated
that some of those concerns [about Bush's absence] may be unfounded."
Contradicting the Globe's account of Bush war service, the paper
reported that Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett "pointed to a document in
Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty
ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he
moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."

The document cited by the Times is apparently the mysterious torn
paper that appeared in Bush's records in 2000. That document, a
"Statement of Points Earned," tracks when guardsmen have served, and
whether they have fulfilled their annual duty. It contains references
to "29" and "14" and other numbers whose meaning is not clear. The
Times did not inform its readers that the document is badly torn,
undated, and unsigned; does not have Bush's name on it (just a wayward
"W"); and has a redacted Social Security number.

"The Times got spun by Dan Bartlett," Robinson at the Globe told
Salon. He and others note that if the documents provided by the Bush
campaign proved he did Guard duty upon returning to Houston in January
and April of 1973, then why, on Bush's annual effectiveness report
signed by two superiors, did it say, "Lt. Bush has not been observed
at this unit during the period of the report," which covered the dates
between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973?

"I had a lot of arguments with Dan Bartlett and never got spun by
him," says Thomas, now an assistant chancellor for public affairs at
the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. "But if he gave me
some documents that proved his point, I'm not going to ignore them."
She added, "The Times carried no brief for or against Bush."

Nonetheless, the author James Moore says it was those two Times
stories, which seemed to back up Bush's sketchy account of his Guard
service, that effectively stopped other reporters from pursuing the
story.

Here are the known facts of that story: Following his graduation
from Yale University in 1968, with the Vietnam War raging, Bush
vaulted to the top of a 500-person waiting list to land a coveted spot
in the Texas Air National Guard. Then, despite having no aviation or
ROTC experience, he was approved for an automatic commission as a
second lieutenant and assignment to flight school.

By every indication, Bush's service between 1970 and 1972 as a
fully trained pilot in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron near
Houston was commendable. But then came the spring of 1972 -- and Bush
simply vanished.

Contrary to the official campaign biography that appeared on the
Bush Web site during 2000, which stated he flew fighter planes until
his discharge in late 1973, Bush flew for the last time ever in April
1972. In May, he moved to Alabama to help out in the Senate campaign
of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. Bush asked to be
transferred to an Alabama Air National Guard unit where he could do
"equivalent training." Bush asked to be transferred to a postal unit
for paper-pushing duties -- and remarkably, his Houston commanders
signed off on the request. But officials at the Air Reserve Personnel
Center in Denver eventually overruled the request, pointing out the
obvious: Doing paperwork in a postal unit did not qualify as
"equivalent training" for a fully trained pilot.

The situation remained unresolved for months. During that time,
Bush was still obligated to attend drill sessions with his regular
unit near Houston. Guard records indicate he did not.

In September 1972, Bush won approval to do temporary training at
the 187th Squadron in Montgomery. But the unit's commander, retired
Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, told the Boston Globe he was "dead
certain" Bush never showed. "Had he reported in, I would have had some
recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training
there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have
remembered."

On Wednesday, Bush-Cheney '04 spokesman Terry Holt told Salon
that Turnipseed recently donated $500 to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.
Holt questioned whether the motives behind Turnipseed's comments
regarding Bush's service were "pure," or whether he's part of a
"political attack." Turnipseed could not be reached for comment.

In any case, as already noted, there is no official National
Guard record of Bush's ever serving in Alabama, and not a single
guardsman who served at that time has ever come forward and
corroborated that Bush was there.

Meanwhile, in July of that summer, Bush's "failure to accomplish"
his mandatory annual physical (that is, to take it) forced the Guard
to ground him.

Following Blount's election loss in November, Bush returned to
Houston. But he did not return to his Guard duties, at least according
to his commanding officers. In May 1973, his two superior officers at
Ellington Air Force Base noted on Bush's evaluation that he had not
been seen during the previous year. In the comments section, Lt. Col.
William Harris Jr. wrote that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May 1972,
and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with
the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." The problem is,
Bush never reported for duty there, or anywhere else in Alabama.
According to his discharge papers, Bush took the whole year off
instead.

Bush was finally recorded as having crammed in 36 active-duty
credits during May, June and July 1973, thereby meeting his minimal
requirement. But as the Boston Globe pointed out, nobody connected
with the Texas unit recalls seeing Bush during his cram sessions,
leading to suspicions that Bush was given credits for active duty he
did not perform.

The suspicion stems in part from the incorrect, and inconsistent,
answers that Bush and his spokesmen have given to the question of why,
after going through extraordinarily rigorous flight training, he
simply walked away from flying. The day the Globe story appeared on
May 23, 2000, Bush explained to reporters that when he returned to
Houston in 1973, his old fighter plane was being phased out. "There
was a conscious decision not to retrain me in an airplane," he said,
suggesting it was the Texas Air National Guard's decision to end his
flying career. That's not true. The plane to which Bush was referring,
the F-102, was phased out during the 1970s, but it was still being
used in 1973. Bush did not tell reporters about his failed physical
exam and how that resulted in his being grounded.

That misleading answer about Bush's Guard service was just one of
many the candidate and his aides gave during the campaign. For
instance, a campaign official told Cox News reporters in July 1999
that Bush's transfer to the Alabama Guard unit was for the same flying
job he held in Texas. That's false. There was no flying involved at
either Alabama unit (not that Bush ever reported to them, according to
Guard records), and without passing a physical, Bush couldn't fly
anyway.

Also in July 1999, Bush's then-spokeswoman Karen Hughes told the
Associated Press it was accurate for Bush to suggest, as he'd done in
a previous campaign, that he served "in the U.S. Air Force," when in
fact he served in the Air National Guard.

Asked in 2000 why Bush failed to take his physical in July 1972,
the campaign gave two different explanations. The first was that Bush
was (supposedly) serving in Alabama and his personal physician was in
Texas, so he couldn't get a physical. That's false. By military
regulations, Bush could not have received a military physical from his
personal physician, only from an Air Force flight surgeon, and there
were several assigned to nearby Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery,
Ala. The other explanation was that because Bush was no longer flying,
he didn't need to take a physical. But that simply highlights the
extraordinary nature of Bush's service and the peculiar notion that he
took it upon himself to decide that a) he was no longer a pilot and b)
he didn't have to take a physical.

Early in September 1973, Bush submitted a request to effectively
end any requirements to attend monthly drills. Despite Bush's record,
the request was approved. He was given an honorable discharge, and
that fall he enrolled in Harvard Business School.

One of the obvious questions raised by Bush's missing year is why
he was never brought up on any disciplinary charges under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and why he was given an honorable
discharge. (It's unlikely Bush could have run for president if he'd
been tainted with anything less than an honorable discharge from the
military.)

But the issue is not that black and white. "An honorable
discharge usually means the person has not committed any misconduct,"
says retired JAG officer Lattin. "He may have failed to honor his
obligation, but he hasn't committed a criminal act. And that's an
important distinction."

It's important, because based on Lattin's interpretation of the
military law, a guardsman on non-active duty who fails to show up for
his monthly drill sessions, as Bush did, is not subject to the UCMJ.
The UCMJ, Lattin says, applies only to active-duty servicemen. And
while guardsmen who report for weekend duty are covered for those 48
hours by the UCMJ's unique codes (regarding desertion, being AWOL,
etc.), a non-active guardsman who refuses to report for duty in the
first place cannot be covered by the UCMJ. Instead, an
absent-without-leave guardsman is subject to the state's military
codes of justice, which mirror the UCMJ.

But even then, says Lattin, cases of guardsmen who fail to attend
drill sessions are rarely dealt with under the military's criminal
code, but rather administratively, which is less burdensome.
Administrative options include transferring the solider to active
duty, or separating him from his unit while beginning dismissal
procedures that would likely -- although not always -- result in a
less than, or other than, honorable discharge. Also in Bush's case, he
could have been permanently stripped of his flight privileges.

So why was no administrative action taken against Bush during his
missing year or more? "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a
reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal
official," says Fidell, the military law expert. "Observers of the
Guard at that time have said it did seem to be an entity in which
connections might be helpful."

Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political
in the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very
day. One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not.
If George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward
not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."

Lattin stresses that the Bush episode, and the Guard's failure to
take any administrative actions against him, have to be viewed in
context of the early '70s. With the Vietnam War beginning to wind down
and the U.S. military battling endemic low morale, the Pentagon showed
little interest in chasing after absent-without-leave guardsmen. "It
was too hard and there were too many of them," says Lattin. "There was
a 'who cares' attitude. Commanders didn't want to deal with them. And
they knew they'd stir up a hornet's nest, especially if one of the
[missing guardsmen] was named George Bush."


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

Go to Original

One-year Gap in Bush's National Guard Duty
By Walter V. Robinson
The Boston Globe

Tuesday 23 May 2000

No record of airman at drills from 1972-73
AUSTIN, Texas - After George W. Bush became governor in 1995, the
Houston Air National Guard unit he had served with during the Vietnam
War years honored him for his work, noting that he flew an F-102
fighter-interceptor until his discharge in October 1973.

And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep,"
recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June
1970. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,"
the governor wrote.

But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military
records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military
service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of
that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is
no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of
part-time guardsmen.

Bush, who declined to be interviewed on the issue, said through a
spokesman that he has "some recollection" of attending drills that
year, but maybe not consistently.

From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US
Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National
Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that
he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded
the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush
never appeared for duty there.

After the election, Bush returned to Houston. But seven months
later, in May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force
Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from
May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

Bush, they mistakenly concluded, had been training with the
Alabama unit for the previous 12 months. Both men have since died. But
Ellington's top personnel officer at the time, retired Colonel Rufus
G. Martin, said he had believed that First Lieutenant Bush completed
his final year of service in Alabama.

A Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said after talking with the
governor that Bush recalls performing some duty in Alabama and
"recalls coming back to Houston and doing [Guard] duty, though he does
not recall if it was on a consistent basis."

Noting that Bush, by that point, was no longer flying, Bartlett
added, "It's possible his presence and role became secondary."

Last night, Mindy Tucker, another Bush campaign aide, asserted
that the governor "fulfilled all of his requirements in the Guard." If
he missed any drills, she said, he made them up later on.

Under Air National Guard rules at the time, guardsmen who missed
duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted
into the Army as draftees.

If Bush's interest in Guard duty waned, as spokesman Bartlett
hinted, the records and former Guard officials suggest that Bush's
unit was lackadaisical in holding him to his commitment. Many states,
Texas among them, had a record during the Vietnam War of providing a
haven in the Guard for the sons of the well-connected, and a tendency
to excuse shirking by those with political connections.

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in
April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
"weekend warriors."

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush
spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months
in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
release from service.

Still, the puzzling gap in Bush's military service is likely to
heighten speculation about the conspicuous underachievement that
marked the period between his 1968 graduation from Yale University and
his 1973 entry into Harvard Business School. It is speculation that
Bush has helped to fuel: For example, he refused for months last year
to say whether he had ever used illegal drugs. Subsequently, however,
Bush amended his stance, saying that he had not done so since 1974.

The period in 1972 and 1973 when Bush sidestepped his military
obligation coincides with a well-publicized incident during the 1972
Christmas holidays: Bush had a confrontation with his father after he
took his younger brother, Marvin, out drinking and returned to the
family's Washington home after knocking over some garbage cans on the
ride home.

In his autobiography, Bush says that his decision to go to
business school the following September was "a turning point for me."

Assessing Bush's military service three decades later is no easy
task: Some of his superiors are no longer alive. Others declined to
comment, or, understandably, cannot recall details about Bush's
comings and goings. And as Bush has risen in public life over the last
several years, Texas military officials have put many of his records
off-limits and heavily redacted many other pages, ostensibly because
of privacy rules.

But 160 pages of his records, assembled by the Globe from a
variety of sources and supplemented by interviews with former Guard
officials, paint a picture of an Air Guardsman who enjoyed favored
treatment on several occasions.

The ease of Bush's entry into the Air Guard was widely reported
last year. At a time when such billets were coveted and his father was
a Houston congressman, Bush vaulted to the top of a waiting list of
500. Bush and his father have denied that he received any preferential
treatment. But last year, Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas
House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he
called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of
Bush's father asked him to do so.

Before he went to basic training, Bush was approved for an
automatic commission as a second lieutenant and assignment to flight
school despite a score of just 25 percent on a pilot aptitude test.
Such commissions were not uncommon, although most often they went to
prospective pilots who had college ROTC courses or prior Air Force
experience. Bush had neither.

In interviews last week, Guard officials from that era said Bush
leapfrogged over other applicants because few applicants were willing
to commit to the 18 months of flight training or the inherent dangers
of flying.

As a pilot, the future governor appeared to do well. After eight
weeks of basic training in the summer of 1968 - and a two-month break
to work on a Senate race in Florida - Bush attended 55 weeks of flight
school at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, from November 1968 to
November 1969, followed by five months of full-time training on the
F-102 back at Ellington.

Retired Colonel Maurice H. Udell, Bush's instructor in the F-102,
said he was impressed with Bush's talent and his attitude. "He had his
boots shined, his uniform pressed, his hair cut and he said, 'Yes,
sir' and 'No, sir,' the instructor recalled.

Said Udell, "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I
knew. And in the thinking department, he was in the top 1 percent. He
was very capable and tough as a boot."

But 22 months after finishing his training, and with two years
left on his six-year commitment, Bush gave up flying - for good, it
would turn out. He sought permission to do "equivalent training" at a
Guard unit in Alabama, where he planned to work for several months on
the Republican Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's
father. The proposed move took Bush off flight status, since no
Alabama Guard unit had the F-102 he was trained to fly.

At that point, starting in May 1972, First Lieutenant Bush began
to disappear from the Guard's radar screen.

When the Globe first raised questions about this period earlier
this month, Bartlett, Bush's spokesman, referred a reporter to Albert
Lloyd Jr., a retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel
director from 1969 to 1995.

Lloyd, who a year ago helped the Bush campaign make sense of the
governor's military records, said Bush's aides were concerned about
the gap in his records back then.

On May 24, 1972, after he moved to Alabama, Bush made a formal
request to do his equivalent training at the 9921st Air Reserve
Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Two days later, that
unit's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Reese H. Bricken, agreed to have
Bush join his unit temporarily.

In Houston, Bush's superiors approved. But a higher headquarters
disapproved, noting that Bricken's unit did not have regular drills.

"We met just one weeknight a month. We were only a postal unit.
We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing," Bricken
said in an interview.

Last week, Lloyd said he is mystified why Bush's superiors at the
time approved duty at such a unit.

Inexplicably, months went by with no resolution to Bush's status
- and no Guard duty. Bush's evident disconnection from his Guard
duties was underscored in August, when he was removed from flight
status for failing to take his annual flight physical.

Finally, on Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty
for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group
in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report
to Turnipseed, the unit's commander.

In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative
officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush
ever reporting.

"Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,"
Turnipseed said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there.
If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

Lloyd, the retired Texas Air Guard official, said he does not
know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. "If he did, his drill
attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there
would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he
fulfilled the requirements in Alabama," he said.

Indeed, Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station
for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no
record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any
service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd said, "there should
have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973."

Said Lloyd, "It appeared he had a bad year. He might have lost
interest, since he knew he was getting out."

In an effort last year to solve the puzzle, Lloyd said he scoured
Guard records, where he found two "special orders" commanding Bush to
appear for active duty on nine days in May 1973. That is the same
month that Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant
Colonel Jerry B. Killian effectively declared Bush missing from duty.

In Bush's annual efficiency report, dated May 2, 1973, the two
supervising pilots did not rate Bush for the prior year, writing, "Lt.
Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A
civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery,
Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing
equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp,
Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

Asked about that declaration, campaign spokesman Bartlett said
Bush told him that since he was no longer flying, he was doing "odds
and ends" under different supervisors whose names he could not recall.

But retired colonel Martin, the unit's former administrative
officer, said he too thought Bush had been in Alabama for that entire
year. Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned
to duty at Ellington. And Bush, in his autobiography, identifies the
late colonel Killian as a friend, making it even more likely that
Killian knew where Bush was.

Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he
went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972,
there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a
flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit's
records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102
in 1973.

During his search, Lloyd said, the only other paperwork he
discovered was a single torn page bearing Bush's social security
number and numbers awarding some points for Guard duty. But the
partial page is undated. If it represents the year in question, it
leaves unexplained why Bush's two superior officers would have
declared him absent for the full year.

There is no doubt that Bush was in Houston in late 1972 and early
1973. During that period, according to Bush's autobiography, he held a
civilian job working for an inner-city, antipoverty program in the
city.

Lloyd, who has studied the records extensively, said he is an
admirer of the governor and believes "the governor honestly served his
country and fulfilled his commitment."

But Lloyd said it is possible that since Bush had his sights set
on discharge and the unit was beginning to replace the F-102s, Bush's
superiors told him he was not "in the flow chart. Maybe George Bush
took that as a signal and said, 'Hell, I'm not going to bother going
to drills.'

"Well, then it comes rating time, and someone says, 'Oh...he
hasn't fulfilled his obligation.' I'll bet someone called him up and
said, 'George, you're in a pickle. Get your ass down here and perform
some duty.' And he did," Lloyd said.

That would explain, Lloyd said, the records showing Bush cramming
so many drills into May, June, and July 1973. During those three
months, Bush spent 36 days on duty.

Bush's last day in uniform before he moved to Cambridge was July
30, 1973. His official release from active duty was dated Oct. 1,
1973, eight months before his six-year commitment was scheduled to
end.

Officially, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains
unaccounted for. In November 1973, responding to a request from the
headquarters of the Air National Guard for Bush's annual evaluation
for that year, Martin, the Ellington administrative officer, wrote,
"Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."

-------

BUSH'S MILITARY SERVICE

During his first four years in the Texas Air National Guard,
according to his military records, Bush had a busy schedule of
full-time training and drills:

May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th
Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is
selected to attend pilot training.

July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush
should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing
airman's basic training.

July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic
training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.

Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes
an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida.

Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from
flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.

December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an
F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base.

July 1970 to April 16, 1972: Bush, as a certified fighter pilot,
attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.

During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign
he appeared for duty.

May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US
Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama.
But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.

Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at
the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows
no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never
showed up.

November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but
apparently not to his Air Force unit.

May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit
in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not
been at the unit in that period.

May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him
to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.

July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.

Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business
School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard --
eight months before his six-year term expires.
www.truthout.org rememberjohn.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Be Kind" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Go to Original
> www.truthout.org www.rememberjohn.com
> Bush's Missing Year
> By Eric Boehlert
> Salon.com
>
> Thursday 05 February 2004
>
> In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard service and
> later lied about it. With the media finally paying attention, will he
> now come clean?
> In 1972, George W. Bush simply walked away from his pilot duties
> in the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required weekend drill
> sessions for many months, probably for more than a year, and did not
> take a mandatory annual physical exam, which resulted in his being
> grounded. Nonetheless, Bush, the son of a well-connected Texas
> congressman, received an honorable discharge.
>
> If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a year, military
> attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to active duty or,
> more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a
> less-than-honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty would be
> especially swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman were a fully
> trained pilot, as Bush was.
>
> Bush's National Guard record, long ignored by the media, has
> surfaced with a vengeance. If the topic continues to rage, and if the
> media presses him, Bush may finally be forced to release his full
> military records, which could reveal the truth. By refusing to make
> all those records public, Bush has until now broken with a
> long-standing tradition of U.S. presidential candidates.
>
> Democrats have seized on the story of Bush's "missing year,"
> which was first raised in a 2000 Boston Globe article. This week
> Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry called on Bush to give a
> fuller explanation of his service record. That brought an outraged
> response from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot, who denounced
> Kerry's request as a "slanderous attack" and "character
> assassination." White House spokesman Scott McClellan also tried to
> slam the door on the subject, declaiming that Democratic questions
> about Bush's military service "have no place in politics and everyone
> should condemn them."
>
> In a sign that the Bush team is taking the issue seriously, on
> Wednesday Bush's campaign spokesman questioned the integrity of the
> retired Guard commander who claims Bush failed to show for duty in
> 1972, citing the commander's recent donation to a Democratic candidate
> for president.
>
> Republicans clearly want to quarantine the issue of Bush's
> service and have it labeled as outside the bounds of acceptable public
> discourse. With good reason: If the story takes root it could do real
> damage to Bush's reelection run, which is anchored on his image as a
> trusted leader in America's war on terrorism. Trying to make the
> subject go away could prove difficult, though. "It's a booby trap
> that's out there ticking for Bush," warns retired U.S. Army Col. David
> Hackworth. "His opponents are going to keep turning this screw until
> something gives."
>
> Right now, the network news is covering the political jousting.
> It remains unclear, however, whether mainstream journalists will take
> the time to examine Bush's military record and ask the president why,
> after receiving pilot training that cost 1970s taxpayers nearly $1
> million, he took it upon himself to decide he was finished with his
> military requirements nearly two years before his six-year obligation
> was up.
>
> Bush's infrequent responses to questions on the issue have been
> by turns false, misleading and contradictory. His memory has also
> proved to be highly unreliable: During 2000, Bush variously could not
> remember which weekends he served during the year in question, where
> he served, under whose command, or what his duties were.
>
> The story emerged in 2000 when the Boston Globe's Walter
> Robinson, after combing through 160 pages of military documents and
> interviewing Bush's former commanders, reported that Bush's flying
> career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972
> when he asked for, and was inexplicably granted, a transfer to a
> paper-pushing Guard unit in Alabama. During this time Bush worked on
> the Senate campaign of a friend of his father's. With his six-year
> Guard commitment, Bush was obligated to serve through 1973. But
> according to his own discharge papers, there is no record that he did
> any training after May 1972. Indeed, there is no record that Bush
> performed any Guard service in Alabama at all. In 2000, a group of
> veterans offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who could confirm Bush's
> Alabama Guard service. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Guardsmen who were
> in Bush's unit, not a single person came forward.
>
> In 1973 Bush returned to his Houston Guard unit, but in May of
> that year his commanders could not complete his annual officer
> effectiveness rating report because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
> been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Based on
> those records, as well as interviews with Texas Air National
> guardsmen, the Globe raised serious questions as to whether Bush ever
> reported for duty at all during 1973.
>
> Throughout the 2000 campaign Bush aides never forcefully
> questioned the Globe's account. Instead, they searched for military
> documents that would support Bush's claim that he did indeed attend
> drill duties during the year in question. His aides eventually
> uncovered one piece of paper that seemed to bolster their case that he
> had attended a drill in late 1972, but the document was torn and did
> not have Bush's full name on it.
>
> Today, the White House says that although Bush did miss some
> weekend drills, he eventually made them up, and more importantly he
> received an honorable discharge. Bush supporters routinely cite the
> president's honorable discharge as the ultimate proof that there was
> nothing unbecoming about his military service.
>
> But experts say that citation does not wipe away the questions.
> "An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record," says
> Grant Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired
> Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who served as a judge advocate, or JAG
> officer. "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills
> and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the
> extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over
> these types of issues. Lattin notes that the Guard "is obviously very
> political, even more so than other military institutions, and is
> subject to political influence."
>
> For failing to attend required monthly drill sessions and
> refusing to take a physical, 1st Lt. Bush just as easily could have
> been moved to active duty, given a less-than-honorable discharge, or
> had his flying rights permanently revoked, says Eugene Fidell, a
> leading Washington expert on military law. "For a fully trained pilot,
> he was assigned to a nothing job [in Alabama], and the available
> records indicate he never performed that job."
>
> In the Guard today, as a general rule, "if someone doesn't show
> up for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be
> separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable discharge"
> most likely noting "unsatisfactory participation," says D.C. military
> lawyer David Sheldon, who served in the Navy and represented officers
> before the Court of Military Appeals.
>
> Meanwhile, recent questions have surfaced not only about Bush's
> military service, but his official records. "I think some documents
> were taken out" of his military file, the Boston Globe's Robinson
> tells Salon. "And there's at least one document that appears to have
> been inserted into his record in early 2000." That document -- the
> aforementioned torn page that did not have Bush's full name on it --
> plays a central role in the story.
>
> "His records have clearly been cleaned up," says author James
> Moore, whose upcoming book, "Bush's War for Re-election," will examine
> the issue of Bush's military service in great detail. Moore says as
> far back as 1994, when Bush first ran for governor of Texas, his
> political aides "began contacting commanders and roommates and people
> who would spin and cover up his Guard record. And when my book comes
> out, people will be on the record testifying to that fact: witnesses
> who helped clean up Bush's military file."
>
> If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard
> service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release
> the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard could
> make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and total
> retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light on
> where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between 1972
> and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through Freedom of
> Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or private
> cannot be released without Bush's permission.)
>
> Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of
> presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's
> father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill
> Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft
> status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with
> "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve
> Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
> Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and
> Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according to a
> Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.
>
> Calls to the White House seeking comment on if and when the
> president's full military records will be released were not returned.
>
> The spark that reignited this issue came when ABC News anchor
> Peter Jennings, co-moderating a Democratic debate on Jan. 22, asked
> retired Gen. Wesley Clark why he did not repudiate comments made by
> his supporter, filmmaker Michael Moore, who publicly labeled Bush a
> "deserter." Jennings editorialized, "Now that's a reckless charge not
> supported by the facts."
>
> Republican pundits agreed. Bill Bennett, a director of Empower
> America, told Fox News that Clark's "failure to distance himself,
> repudiate, absolutely condemn Michael Moore's description of the
> president as a deserter was a terrible thing."
>
> Most informed observers agree that Moore's choice of words was
> sloppy and inaccurate. "Deserter" is a criminal term: It refers to a
> military personnel who abandons his post with no intention of ever
> returning. But Democrats have taken hold of the broader issue of
> whether Bush was AWOL. Their willingness to bring up a previously
> off-limits subject reflects their sense that Bush's aura of
> invincibility has worn off and the confidence imparted by Kerry's
> resurgent campaign. Democrats feel Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran,
> has the personal history to question Bush's service.
>
> But the issue is also ripe because of Bush's own reelection
> strategy. By donning a fighter flight suit and landing on the USS
> Abraham Lincoln fora photo-op in May 2003, he has tried to paint
> himself as a seasoned military leader in the United States' war on
> terrorism. With newfound aggressiveness, Democrats are trying to
> puncture that aura by hammering away on the fact that Bush's own
> military record fails to back it up.
>
> That's what Democratic National Committee chairman Terry
> McAuliffe did this Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," when he referred
> to Bush as "a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." That
> brought a quick rebuttal from South Carolina's Republican Gov. Mark
> Sanford, who told CNN it was wrong for Democrats to be "taking shots
> at [Bush] for being a guardsman."
>
> In similar fashion, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., claimed Tuesday
> night that by bringing up Bush's National Guard service, the Democrats
> are impugning the patriotism of guardsmen, implying that their
> contributions are less worthy than those who serve in the military. As
> those disingenuous comments suggest, Republicans are trying to change
> the subject, falsely framing the debate as a repeat of the National
> Guard controversy that dogged Vice President Dan Quayle during the
> 1988 presidential campaign.
>
> It's easy to see why they're pursuing this strategy. If the story
> were simply about how Bush used his family connections to land a slot
> in the Texas Air National Guard (and all indications are he did just
> that ), it wouldn't matter much. But the real story is not how Bush
> got into the Guard. It's how he got out.
>
> Until the last two days the mainstream media has routinely
> ignored or downplayed the issue. Slate columnist Michael Kinsley took
> euphemism to new heights when he wrote in a Dec. 5 column that Bush
> was "lackadaisical" about fulfilling his Guard requirement. On Jan.
> 17, the Associated Press, recapping the "deserter" controversy, did
> Bush a favor, erroneously reporting that his absent-without-leave time
> lasted just three months in 1972, instead of the 12-18 months actually
> in question. And on Feb. 1, ABC News, suggesting Democrats might turn
> off voters by attacking Bush's military service, reported Bush simply
> "missed some weekends of training." None of those descriptions come
> anywhere near describing the established facts at the center of the
> controversy.
>
> Perhaps that's not surprising. The press, apparently deeming the
> National Guard story unworthy, paid more attention to the debate over
> Moore's "deserter" comment than they did to the actual story of Bush's
> unexplained absence when it came out during the 2000 campaign.
>
> While co-moderating the Democratic debate, ABC News' Jennings was
> sure he knew the facts about Bush's military record. But as the Daily
> Howler noted, a search of the LexisNexis electronic database indicates
> that ABC's "World News Tonight," hosted by Jennings, never once during
> the 2000 campaign ran a report about the questions surrounding Bush's
> military record. Asked if ignoring the story was a mistake, and
> whether ABC News planned to pursue it in 2004, a network spokeswoman
> told Salon, "We continue to examine the records of all the candidates
> running for president, including President Bush. If and when we have a
> story about one of the candidates, we'll report it to our audience."
>
> ABC was not alone in turning away from the story in 2000. CBS
> News did the same thing, and so did NBC News. But it was the New York
> Times, and the way the paper of record avoided the issue of Bush's
> no-show military service, that stands out as the most unusual. To this
> day, the Times has never reported that in 1972 the Texas Air National
> Guard grounded Bush for failing to take a required physical exam. Nor
> has the paper ever reported that neither Bush nor his aides can point
> to a single person who saw Bush, the hard-to-miss son of a congressman
> and U.S. ambassador, perform any active duty requirements during the
> final 18 months of his service. Instead, the Times served up stories
> that failed to delve deep into the issue.
>
> The Boston Globe story broke on May 23, 2000. The next day Bush
> answered reporters' questions on the campaign trail, defending his
> military record. His comments were covered by the Times Union (of
> Albany, N.Y.), the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and
> the Houston Chronicle, among others, which all considered the story
> newsworthy. Not the Times: The paper ignored the fact Bush was forced
> to respond to allegations that he'd been AWOL during his Guard
> service.
>
> Throughout the 2000 campaign, the Times' Nicholas Kristof wrote a
> series of biographical dispatches about Bush's personal history. On
> July 11, he wrote about Bush's post-college years, including his
> National Guard service, but no mention was made of the controversy
> surrounding Bush's missing year.
>
> The Times finally addressed the issue on July 22, two months
> after the Globe exposé was published. The Times article, written by Jo
> Thomas, focused on Bush's post-Yale years in the late '60s and early
> '70s. In a section on the National Guard controversy, the Times
> reported that Bush's commanding officer had told the Boston Globe that
> Bush had never showed up, quoted Bush as insisting that he had, and
> noted that "Emily Marks, who worked in the Blount campaign and dated
> Mr. Bush, said she recalls that he returned to Montgomery after the
> election to serve with the Air National Guard." But then the Times
> went on to write, "National Guard records provided by the Guard and by
> the Bush campaign indicate he did serve on Nov. 29, 1972, after the
> election. These records also show a gap in service from that time to
> the previous May. Mr. Bush says he made up for the lost time in
> subsequent months, and guard records show he received credit for
> having performed all the required service."
>
> On Oct. 31, the Boston Globe published another damning story,
> suggesting Bush failed to serve -- in fact, did not even show up for
> duty-- during the final 18 months of his commitment. The Times' Thomas
> quickly wrote, "A review of records by The New York Times indicated
> that some of those concerns [about Bush's absence] may be unfounded."
> Contradicting the Globe's account of Bush war service, the paper
> reported that Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett "pointed to a document in
> Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty
> ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he
> moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."
>
> The document cited by the Times is apparently the mysterious torn
> paper that appeared in Bush's records in 2000. That document, a
> "Statement of Points Earned," tracks when guardsmen have served, and
> whether they have fulfilled their annual duty. It contains references
> to "29" and "14" and other numbers whose meaning is not clear. The
> Times did not inform its readers that the document is badly torn,
> undated, and unsigned; does not have Bush's name on it (just a wayward
> "W"); and has a redacted Social Security number.
>
> "The Times got spun by Dan Bartlett," Robinson at the Globe told
> Salon. He and others note that if the documents provided by the Bush
> campaign proved he did Guard duty upon returning to Houston in January
> and April of 1973, then why, on Bush's annual effectiveness report
> signed by two superiors, did it say, "Lt. Bush has not been observed
> at this unit during the period of the report," which covered the dates
> between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973?
>
> "I had a lot of arguments with Dan Bartlett and never got spun by
> him," says Thomas, now an assistant chancellor for public affairs at
> the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. "But if he gave me
> some documents that proved his point, I'm not going to ignore them."
> She added, "The Times carried no brief for or against Bush."
>
> Nonetheless, the author James Moore says it was those two Times
> stories, which seemed to back up Bush's sketchy account of his Guard
> service, that effectively stopped other reporters from pursuing the
> story.
>
> Here are the known facts of that story: Following his graduation
> from Yale University in 1968, with the Vietnam War raging, Bush
> vaulted to the top of a 500-person waiting list to land a coveted spot
> in the Texas Air National Guard. Then, despite having no aviation or
> ROTC experience, he was approved for an automatic commission as a
> second lieutenant and assignment to flight school.
>
> By every indication, Bush's service between 1970 and 1972 as a
> fully trained pilot in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron near
> Houston was commendable. But then came the spring of 1972 -- and Bush
> simply vanished.
>
> Contrary to the official campaign biography that appeared on the
> Bush Web site during 2000, which stated he flew fighter planes until
> his discharge in late 1973, Bush flew for the last time ever in April
> 1972. In May, he moved to Alabama to help out in the Senate campaign
> of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. Bush asked to be
> transferred to an Alabama Air National Guard unit where he could do
> "equivalent training." Bush asked to be transferred to a postal unit
> for paper-pushing duties -- and remarkably, his Houston commanders
> signed off on the request. But officials at the Air Reserve Personnel
> Center in Denver eventually overruled the request, pointing out the
> obvious: Doing paperwork in a postal unit did not qualify as
> "equivalent training" for a fully trained pilot.
>
> The situation remained unresolved for months. During that time,
> Bush was still obligated to attend drill sessions with his regular
> unit near Houston. Guard records indicate he did not.
>
> In September 1972, Bush won approval to do temporary training at
> the 187th Squadron in Montgomery. But the unit's commander, retired
> Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, told the Boston Globe he was "dead
> certain" Bush never showed. "Had he reported in, I would have had some
> recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training
> there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have
> remembered."
>
> On Wednesday, Bush-Cheney '04 spokesman Terry Holt told Salon
> that Turnipseed recently donated $500 to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.
> Holt questioned whether the motives behind Turnipseed's comments
> regarding Bush's service were "pure," or whether he's part of a
> "political attack." Turnipseed could not be reached for comment.
>
> In any case, as already noted, there is no official National
> Guard record of Bush's ever serving in Alabama, and not a single
> guardsman who served at that time has ever come forward and
> corroborated that Bush was there.
>
> Meanwhile, in July of that summer, Bush's "failure to accomplish"
> his mandatory annual physical (that is, to take it) forced the Guard
> to ground him.
>
> Following Blount's election loss in November, Bush returned to
> Houston. But he did not return to his Guard duties, at least according
> to his commanding officers. In May 1973, his two superior officers at
> Ellington Air Force Base noted on Bush's evaluation that he had not
> been seen during the previous year. In the comments section, Lt. Col.
> William Harris Jr. wrote that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May 1972,
> and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with
> the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." The problem is,
> Bush never reported for duty there, or anywhere else in Alabama.
> According to his discharge papers, Bush took the whole year off
> instead.
>
> Bush was finally recorded as having crammed in 36 active-duty
> credits during May, June and July 1973, thereby meeting his minimal
> requirement. But as the Boston Globe pointed out, nobody connected
> with the Texas unit recalls seeing Bush during his cram sessions,
> leading to suspicions that Bush was given credits for active duty he
> did not perform.
>
> The suspicion stems in part from the incorrect, and inconsistent,
> answers that Bush and his spokesmen have given to the question of why,
> after going through extraordinarily rigorous flight training, he
> simply walked away from flying. The day the Globe story appeared on
> May 23, 2000, Bush explained to reporters that when he returned to
> Houston in 1973, his old fighter plane was being phased out. "There
> was a conscious decision not to retrain me in an airplane," he said,
> suggesting it was the Texas Air National Guard's decision to end his
> flying career. That's not true. The plane to which Bush was referring,
> the F-102, was phased out during the 1970s, but it was still being
> used in 1973. Bush did not tell reporters about his failed physical
> exam and how that resulted in his being grounded.
>
> That misleading answer about Bush's Guard service was just one of
> many the candidate and his aides gave during the campaign. For
> instance, a campaign official told Cox News reporters in July 1999
> that Bush's transfer to the Alabama Guard unit was for the same flying
> job he held in Texas. That's false. There was no flying involved at
> either Alabama unit (not that Bush ever reported to them, according to
> Guard records), and without passing a physical, Bush couldn't fly
> anyway.
>
> Also in July 1999, Bush's then-spokeswoman Karen Hughes told the
> Associated Press it was accurate for Bush to suggest, as he'd done in
> a previous campaign, that he served "in the U.S. Air Force," when in
> fact he served in the Air National Guard.
>
> Asked in 2000 why Bush failed to take his physical in July 1972,
> the campaign gave two different explanations. The first was that Bush
> was (supposedly) serving in Alabama and his personal physician was in
> Texas, so he couldn't get a physical. That's false. By military
> regulations, Bush could not have received a military physical from his
> personal physician, only from an Air Force flight surgeon, and there
> were several assigned to nearby Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery,
> Ala. The other explanation was that because Bush was no longer flying,
> he didn't need to take a physical. But that simply highlights the
> extraordinary nature of Bush's service and the peculiar notion that he
> took it upon himself to decide that a) he was no longer a pilot and b)
> he didn't have to take a physical.
>
> Early in September 1973, Bush submitted a request to effectively
> end any requirements to attend monthly drills. Despite Bush's record,
> the request was approved. He was given an honorable discharge, and
> that fall he enrolled in Harvard Business School.
>
> One of the obvious questions raised by Bush's missing year is why
> he was never brought up on any disciplinary charges under the Uniform
> Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and why he was given an honorable
> discharge. (It's unlikely Bush could have run for president if he'd
> been tainted with anything less than an honorable discharge from the
> military.)
>
> But the issue is not that black and white. "An honorable
> discharge usually means the person has not committed any misconduct,"
> says retired JAG officer Lattin. "He may have failed to honor his
> obligation, but he hasn't committed a criminal act. And that's an
> important distinction."
>
> It's important, because based on Lattin's interpretation of the
> military law, a guardsman on non-active duty who fails to show up for
> his monthly drill sessions, as Bush did, is not subject to the UCMJ.
> The UCMJ, Lattin says, applies only to active-duty servicemen. And
> while guardsmen who report for weekend duty are covered for those 48
> hours by the UCMJ's unique codes (regarding desertion, being AWOL,
> etc.), a non-active guardsman who refuses to report for duty in the
> first place cannot be covered by the UCMJ. Instead, an
> absent-without-leave guardsman is subject to the state's military
> codes of justice, which mirror the UCMJ.
>
> But even then, says Lattin, cases of guardsmen who fail to attend
> drill sessions are rarely dealt with under the military's criminal
> code, but rather administratively, which is less burdensome.
> Administrative options include transferring the solider to active
> duty, or separating him from his unit while beginning dismissal
> procedures that would likely -- although not always -- result in a
> less than, or other than, honorable discharge. Also in Bush's case, he
> could have been permanently stripped of his flight privileges.
>
> So why was no administrative action taken against Bush during his
> missing year or more? "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a
> reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal
> official," says Fidell, the military law expert. "Observers of the
> Guard at that time have said it did seem to be an entity in which
> connections might be helpful."
>
> Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political
> in the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very
> day. One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not.
> If George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward
> not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."
>
> Lattin stresses that the Bush episode, and the Guard's failure to
> take any administrative actions against him, have to be viewed in
> context of the early '70s. With the Vietnam War beginning to wind down
> and the U.S. military battling endemic low morale, the Pentagon showed
> little interest in chasing after absent-without-leave guardsmen. "It
> was too hard and there were too many of them," says Lattin. "There was
> a 'who cares' attitude. Commanders didn't want to deal with them. And
> they knew they'd stir up a hornet's nest, especially if one of the
> [missing guardsmen] was named George Bush."
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Go to Original
>
> One-year Gap in Bush's National Guard Duty
> By Walter V. Robinson
> The Boston Globe
>
> Tuesday 23 May 2000
>
> No record of airman at drills from 1972-73
> AUSTIN, Texas - After George W. Bush became governor in 1995, the
> Houston Air National Guard unit he had served with during the Vietnam
> War years honored him for his work, noting that he flew an F-102
> fighter-interceptor until his discharge in October 1973.
>
> And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep,"
> recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June
> 1970. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,"
> the governor wrote.
>
> But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military
> records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military
> service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of
> that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is
> no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of
> part-time guardsmen.
>
> Bush, who declined to be interviewed on the issue, said through a
> spokesman that he has "some recollection" of attending drills that
> year, but maybe not consistently.
>
> From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US
> Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National
> Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that
> he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded
> the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush
> never appeared for duty there.
>
> After the election, Bush returned to Houston. But seven months
> later, in May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force
> Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from
> May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
> been observed at this unit during the period of this report."
>
> Bush, they mistakenly concluded, had been training with the
> Alabama unit for the previous 12 months. Both men have since died. But
> Ellington's top personnel officer at the time, retired Colonel Rufus
> G. Martin, said he had believed that First Lieutenant Bush completed
> his final year of service in Alabama.
>
> A Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said after talking with the
> governor that Bush recalls performing some duty in Alabama and
> "recalls coming back to Houston and doing [Guard] duty, though he does
> not recall if it was on a consistent basis."
>
> Noting that Bush, by that point, was no longer flying, Bartlett
> added, "It's possible his presence and role became secondary."
>
> Last night, Mindy Tucker, another Bush campaign aide, asserted
> that the governor "fulfilled all of his requirements in the Guard." If
> he missed any drills, she said, he made them up later on.
>
> Under Air National Guard rules at the time, guardsmen who missed
> duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted
> into the Army as draftees.
>
> If Bush's interest in Guard duty waned, as spokesman Bartlett
> hinted, the records and former Guard officials suggest that Bush's
> unit was lackadaisical in holding him to his commitment. Many states,
> Texas among them, had a record during the Vietnam War of providing a
> haven in the Guard for the sons of the well-connected, and a tendency
> to excuse shirking by those with political connections.
>
> Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in
> April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
> Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
> of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
> hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
> "weekend warriors."
>
> Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush
> spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months
> in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
> enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
> logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
> release from service.
>
> Still, the puzzling gap in Bush's military service is likely to
> heighten speculation about the conspicuous underachievement that
> marked the period between his 1968 graduation from Yale University and
> his 1973 entry into Harvard Business School. It is speculation that
> Bush has helped to fuel: For example, he refused for months last year
> to say whether he had ever used illegal drugs. Subsequently, however,
> Bush amended his stance, saying that he had not done so since 1974.
>
> The period in 1972 and 1973 when Bush sidestepped his military
> obligation coincides with a well-publicized incident during the 1972
> Christmas holidays: Bush had a confrontation with his father after he
> took his younger brother, Marvin, out drinking and returned to the
> family's Washington home after knocking over some garbage cans on the
> ride home.
>
> In his autobiography, Bush says that his decision to go to
> business school the following September was "a turning point for me."
>
> Assessing Bush's military service three decades later is no easy
> task: Some of his superiors are no longer alive. Others declined to
> comment, or, understandably, cannot recall details about Bush's
> comings and goings. And as Bush has risen in public life over the last
> several years, Texas military officials have put many of his records
> off-limits and heavily redacted many other pages, ostensibly because
> of privacy rules.
>
> But 160 pages of his records, assembled by the Globe from a
> variety of sources and supplemented by interviews with former Guard
> officials, paint a picture of an Air Guardsman who enjoyed favored
> treatment on several occasions.
>
> The ease of Bush's entry into the Air Guard was widely reported
> last year. At a time when such billets were coveted and his father was
> a Houston congressman, Bush vaulted to the top of a waiting list of
> 500. Bush and his father have denied that he received any preferential
> treatment. But last year, Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas
> House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he
> called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of
> Bush's father asked him to do so.
>
> Before he went to basic training, Bush was approved for an
> automatic commission as a second lieutenant and assignment to flight
> school despite a score of just 25 percent on a pilot aptitude test.
> Such commissions were not uncommon, although most often they went to
> prospective pilots who had college ROTC courses or prior Air Force
> experience. Bush had neither.
>
> In interviews last week, Guard officials from that era said Bush
> leapfrogged over other applicants because few applicants were willing
> to commit to the 18 months of flight training or the inherent dangers
> of flying.
>
> As a pilot, the future governor appeared to do well. After eight
> weeks of basic training in the summer of 1968 - and a two-month break
> to work on a Senate race in Florida - Bush attended 55 weeks of flight
> school at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, from November 1968 to
> November 1969, followed by five months of full-time training on the
> F-102 back at Ellington.
>
> Retired Colonel Maurice H. Udell, Bush's instructor in the F-102,
> said he was impressed with Bush's talent and his attitude. "He had his
> boots shined, his uniform pressed, his hair cut and he said, 'Yes,
> sir' and 'No, sir,' the instructor recalled.
>
> Said Udell, "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I
> knew. And in the thinking department, he was in the top 1 percent. He
> was very capable and tough as a boot."
>
> But 22 months after finishing his training, and with two years
> left on his six-year commitment, Bush gave up flying - for good, it
> would turn out. He sought permission to do "equivalent training" at a
> Guard unit in Alabama, where he planned to work for several months on
> the Republican Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's
> father. The proposed move took Bush off flight status, since no
> Alabama Guard unit had the F-102 he was trained to fly.
>
> At that point, starting in May 1972, First Lieutenant Bush began
> to disappear from the Guard's radar screen.
>
> When the Globe first raised questions about this period earlier
> this month, Bartlett, Bush's spokesman, referred a reporter to Albert
> Lloyd Jr., a retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel
> director from 1969 to 1995.
>
> Lloyd, who a year ago helped the Bush campaign make sense of the
> governor's military records, said Bush's aides were concerned about
> the gap in his records back then.
>
> On May 24, 1972, after he moved to Alabama, Bush made a formal
> request to do his equivalent training at the 9921st Air Reserve
> Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Two days later, that
> unit's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Reese H. Bricken, agreed to have
> Bush join his unit temporarily.
>
> In Houston, Bush's superiors approved. But a higher headquarters
> disapproved, noting that Bricken's unit did not have regular drills.
>
> "We met just one weeknight a month. We were only a postal unit.
> We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing," Bricken
> said in an interview.
>
> Last week, Lloyd said he is mystified why Bush's superiors at the
> time approved duty at such a unit.
>
> Inexplicably, months went by with no resolution to Bush's status
> - and no Guard duty. Bush's evident disconnection from his Guard
> duties was underscored in August, when he was removed from flight
> status for failing to take his annual flight physical.
>
> Finally, on Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty
> for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group
> in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report
> to Turnipseed, the unit's commander.
>
> In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative
> officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush
> ever reporting.
>
> "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,"
> Turnipseed said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there.
> If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."
>
> Lloyd, the retired Texas Air Guard official, said he does not
> know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. "If he did, his drill
> attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there
> would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he
> fulfilled the requirements in Alabama," he said.
>
> Indeed, Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station
> for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no
> record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any
> service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd said, "there should
> have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973."
>
> Said Lloyd, "It appeared he had a bad year. He might have lost
> interest, since he knew he was getting out."
>
> In an effort last year to solve the puzzle, Lloyd said he scoured
> Guard records, where he found two "special orders" commanding Bush to
> appear for active duty on nine days in May 1973. That is the same
> month that Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant
> Colonel Jerry B. Killian effectively declared Bush missing from duty.
>
> In Bush's annual efficiency report, dated May 2, 1973, the two
> supervising pilots did not rate Bush for the prior year, writing, "Lt.
> Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A
> civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery,
> Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing
> equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp,
> Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
>
> Asked about that declaration, campaign spokesman Bartlett said
> Bush told him that since he was no longer flying, he was doing "odds
> and ends" under different supervisors whose names he could not recall.
>
> But retired colonel Martin, the unit's former administrative
> officer, said he too thought Bush had been in Alabama for that entire
> year. Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned
> to duty at Ellington. And Bush, in his autobiography, identifies the
> late colonel Killian as a friend, making it even more likely that
> Killian knew where Bush was.
>
> Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he
> went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972,
> there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a
> flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit's
> records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102
> in 1973.
>
> During his search, Lloyd said, the only other paperwork he
> discovered was a single torn page bearing Bush's social security
> number and numbers awarding some points for Guard duty. But the
> partial page is undated. If it represents the year in question, it
> leaves unexplained why Bush's two superior officers would have
> declared him absent for the full year.
>
> There is no doubt that Bush was in Houston in late 1972 and early
> 1973. During that period, according to Bush's autobiography, he held a
> civilian job working for an inner-city, antipoverty program in the
> city.
>
> Lloyd, who has studied the records extensively, said he is an
> admirer of the governor and believes "the governor honestly served his
> country and fulfilled his commitment."
>
> But Lloyd said it is possible that since Bush had his sights set
> on discharge and the unit was beginning to replace the F-102s, Bush's
> superiors told him he was not "in the flow chart. Maybe George Bush
> took that as a signal and said, 'Hell, I'm not going to bother going
> to drills.'
>
> "Well, then it comes rating time, and someone says, 'Oh...he
> hasn't fulfilled his obligation.' I'll bet someone called him up and
> said, 'George, you're in a pickle. Get your ass down here and perform
> some duty.' And he did," Lloyd said.
>
> That would explain, Lloyd said, the records showing Bush cramming
> so many drills into May, June, and July 1973. During those three
> months, Bush spent 36 days on duty.
>
> Bush's last day in uniform before he moved to Cambridge was July
> 30, 1973. His official release from active duty was dated Oct. 1,
> 1973, eight months before his six-year commitment was scheduled to
> end.
>
> Officially, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains
> unaccounted for. In November 1973, responding to a request from the
> headquarters of the Air National Guard for Bush's annual evaluation
> for that year, Martin, the Ellington administrative officer, wrote,
> "Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."
>
> -------
>
> BUSH'S MILITARY SERVICE
>
> During his first four years in the Texas Air National Guard,
> according to his military records, Bush had a busy schedule of
> full-time training and drills:
>
> May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th
> Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is
> selected to attend pilot training.
>
> July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush
> should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing
> airman's basic training.
>
> July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic
> training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
>
> Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes
> an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida.
>
> Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from
> flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.
>
> December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an
> F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base.
>
> July 1970 to April 16, 1972: Bush, as a certified fighter pilot,
> attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.
>
> During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign
> he appeared for duty.
>
> May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US
> Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama.
> But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.
>
> Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at
> the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows
> no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never
> showed up.
>
> November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but
> apparently not to his Air Force unit.
>
> May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit
> in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not
> been at the unit in that period.
>
> May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him
> to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.
>
> July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.
>
> Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business
> School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard --
> eight months before his six-year term expires.
> www.truthout.org rememberjohn.com
>

Saturday, Jan. 24, 2004 3:05 p.m. EST
Bush 'Desertion' Charge Debunked

Did President Bush "desert" the military, as radical filmmaker Michael Moore
insists he did?

Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark suggested during New Hampshire's
presidential debate Thursday night that the facts on whether Bush ran out on
his National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 are in dispute.

But in the months before the 2000 presidential election, the New York Times
pretty much demolished this Democratic Party urban legend, a myth that first
surfaced in its sister paper, the Boston Globe.

"For a full year, there is no record that Bush showed up for the periodic
drills required of part-time guardsmen," the Globe insisted in May 2000, in
a report Moore currently cites on his Web site to rebut ABC newsman Peter
Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the story is "unsupported by the
facts."

"I don't know whether [Moore's desertion charge] is supported by the facts
or not," Clark replied "I've never looked at it."

The Times did, however, look at it, and found that Bush had indeed served
during part of the time the Globe had him AWOL - and later made up whatever
time he missed after requesting permission for the postponement.

In July 2000 the Times noted that Bush's chief accuser in the Globe report,
retired Gen. William Turnipseed, had begun to back away from his story that
Bush never appeared for service during the time in question.

"In a recent interview," said the Times, "[Turnipseed] took a tiny step
back, saying, 'I don't think he did, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.'"
In fact, military records obtained by the Times showed that Turnipseed was
wrong and that the Globe had flubbed the story.

"A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for
duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on
Nov. 3, 2000.

The Times explained:

"On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for
assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery [Alabama] 'for
the months of September, October and November,'" so Bush could manage the
Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.

"Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical
Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had
already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and
Nov. 4 and 5."

After the Bush AWOL story had percolated for months, Col. Turnipseed finally
remembered another glitch in his story: the fact that National Guard
regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up
within the same quarter.

And, in fact - according to the Times - that's what Bush did.

"A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed credit
for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14,
1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and
May."

The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates
correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April
23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active
duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."

Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of
the water.

It showed that Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July
30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe," the Times sheepishly
admitted.


http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/24/154936.shtml

[Bill and Susan Maddux]

I can not see how Bush's being awol from the national Guard is any worst
than Clinton's draft dodging, burning his draft card, leaving the country
and protesting the war.
and on the same note. IF Mr. Kerry tries to use it against him then allot
of crap is going to fly back about His anti war stance after he served in
Vietnam. He belonged to the Vietnam veterans against the war, and organized
protests along with Jane Fonda. they threw there medals at the capital
building. I believe this to mean that he gave up his medals, because he did
not believe in them anymore...but since the air has changed about Vietnam
veterans, he is fast to jump back on the I am a war hero bad wagon. Mr.
Kerry is no JFK even if he has the same Initials.
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Be Kind" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Go to Original
> > www.truthout.org www.rememberjohn.com
> > Bush's Missing Year
> > By Eric Boehlert
> > Salon.com
> >
> > Thursday 05 February 2004
> >
> > In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard service and
> > later lied about it. With the media finally paying attention, will he
> > now come clean?
> > In 1972, George W. Bush simply walked away from his pilot duties
> > in the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required weekend drill
> > sessions for many months, probably for more than a year, and did not
> > take a mandatory annual physical exam, which resulted in his being
> > grounded. Nonetheless, Bush, the son of a well-connected Texas
> > congressman, received an honorable discharge.
> >
> > If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a year, military
> > attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to active duty or,
> > more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a
> > less-than-honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty would be
> > especially swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman were a fully
> > trained pilot, as Bush was.
> >
> > Bush's National Guard record, long ignored by the media, has
> > surfaced with a vengeance. If the topic continues to rage, and if the
> > media presses him, Bush may finally be forced to release his full
> > military records, which could reveal the truth. By refusing to make
> > all those records public, Bush has until now broken with a
> > long-standing tradition of U.S. presidential candidates.
> >
> > Democrats have seized on the story of Bush's "missing year,"
> > which was first raised in a 2000 Boston Globe article. This week
> > Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry called on Bush to give a
> > fuller explanation of his service record. That brought an outraged
> > response from Bush-Cheney '04 chairman Marc Racicot, who denounced
> > Kerry's request as a "slanderous attack" and "character
> > assassination." White House spokesman Scott McClellan also tried to
> > slam the door on the subject, declaiming that Democratic questions
> > about Bush's military service "have no place in politics and everyone
> > should condemn them."
> >
> > In a sign that the Bush team is taking the issue seriously, on
> > Wednesday Bush's campaign spokesman questioned the integrity of the
> > retired Guard commander who claims Bush failed to show for duty in
> > 1972, citing the commander's recent donation to a Democratic candidate
> > for president.
> >
> > Republicans clearly want to quarantine the issue of Bush's
> > service and have it labeled as outside the bounds of acceptable public
> > discourse. With good reason: If the story takes root it could do real
> > damage to Bush's reelection run, which is anchored on his image as a
> > trusted leader in America's war on terrorism. Trying to make the
> > subject go away could prove difficult, though. "It's a booby trap
> > that's out there ticking for Bush," warns retired U.S. Army Col. David
> > Hackworth. "His opponents are going to keep turning this screw until
> > something gives."
> >
> > Right now, the network news is covering the political jousting.
> > It remains unclear, however, whether mainstream journalists will take
> > the time to examine Bush's military record and ask the president why,
> > after receiving pilot training that cost 1970s taxpayers nearly $1
> > million, he took it upon himself to decide he was finished with his
> > military requirements nearly two years before his six-year obligation
> > was up.
> >
> > Bush's infrequent responses to questions on the issue have been
> > by turns false, misleading and contradictory. His memory has also
> > proved to be highly unreliable: During 2000, Bush variously could not
> > remember which weekends he served during the year in question, where
> > he served, under whose command, or what his duties were.
> >
> > The story emerged in 2000 when the Boston Globe's Walter
> > Robinson, after combing through 160 pages of military documents and
> > interviewing Bush's former commanders, reported that Bush's flying
> > career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972
> > when he asked for, and was inexplicably granted, a transfer to a
> > paper-pushing Guard unit in Alabama. During this time Bush worked on
> > the Senate campaign of a friend of his father's. With his six-year
> > Guard commitment, Bush was obligated to serve through 1973. But
> > according to his own discharge papers, there is no record that he did
> > any training after May 1972. Indeed, there is no record that Bush
> > performed any Guard service in Alabama at all. In 2000, a group of
> > veterans offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who could confirm Bush's
> > Alabama Guard service. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Guardsmen who were
> > in Bush's unit, not a single person came forward.
> >
> > In 1973 Bush returned to his Houston Guard unit, but in May of
> > that year his commanders could not complete his annual officer
> > effectiveness rating report because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
> > been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Based on
> > those records, as well as interviews with Texas Air National
> > guardsmen, the Globe raised serious questions as to whether Bush ever
> > reported for duty at all during 1973.
> >
> > Throughout the 2000 campaign Bush aides never forcefully
> > questioned the Globe's account. Instead, they searched for military
> > documents that would support Bush's claim that he did indeed attend
> > drill duties during the year in question. His aides eventually
> > uncovered one piece of paper that seemed to bolster their case that he
> > had attended a drill in late 1972, but the document was torn and did
> > not have Bush's full name on it.
> >
> > Today, the White House says that although Bush did miss some
> > weekend drills, he eventually made them up, and more importantly he
> > received an honorable discharge. Bush supporters routinely cite the
> > president's honorable discharge as the ultimate proof that there was
> > nothing unbecoming about his military service.
> >
> > But experts say that citation does not wipe away the questions.
> > "An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record," says
> > Grant Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired
> > Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who served as a judge advocate, or JAG
> > officer. "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills
> > and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the
> > extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over
> > these types of issues. Lattin notes that the Guard "is obviously very
> > political, even more so than other military institutions, and is
> > subject to political influence."
> >
> > For failing to attend required monthly drill sessions and
> > refusing to take a physical, 1st Lt. Bush just as easily could have
> > been moved to active duty, given a less-than-honorable discharge, or
> > had his flying rights permanently revoked, says Eugene Fidell, a
> > leading Washington expert on military law. "For a fully trained pilot,
> > he was assigned to a nothing job [in Alabama], and the available
> > records indicate he never performed that job."
> >
> > In the Guard today, as a general rule, "if someone doesn't show
> > up for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be
> > separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable discharge"
> > most likely noting "unsatisfactory participation," says D.C. military
> > lawyer David Sheldon, who served in the Navy and represented officers
> > before the Court of Military Appeals.
> >
> > Meanwhile, recent questions have surfaced not only about Bush's
> > military service, but his official records. "I think some documents
> > were taken out" of his military file, the Boston Globe's Robinson
> > tells Salon. "And there's at least one document that appears to have
> > been inserted into his record in early 2000." That document -- the
> > aforementioned torn page that did not have Bush's full name on it --
> > plays a central role in the story.
> >
> > "His records have clearly been cleaned up," says author James
> > Moore, whose upcoming book, "Bush's War for Re-election," will examine
> > the issue of Bush's military service in great detail. Moore says as
> > far back as 1994, when Bush first ran for governor of Texas, his
> > political aides "began contacting commanders and roommates and people
> > who would spin and cover up his Guard record. And when my book comes
> > out, people will be on the record testifying to that fact: witnesses
> > who helped clean up Bush's military file."
> >
> > If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard
> > service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release
> > the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard could
> > make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and total
> > retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light on
> > where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between 1972
> > and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through Freedom of
> > Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or private
> > cannot be released without Bush's permission.)
> >
> > Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of
> > presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's
> > father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill
> > Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft
> > status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with
> > "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve
> > Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the
> > Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and
> > Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according to a
> > Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.
> >
> > Calls to the White House seeking comment on if and when the
> > president's full military records will be released were not returned.
> >
> > The spark that reignited this issue came when ABC News anchor
> > Peter Jennings, co-moderating a Democratic debate on Jan. 22, asked
> > retired Gen. Wesley Clark why he did not repudiate comments made by
> > his supporter, filmmaker Michael Moore, who publicly labeled Bush a
> > "deserter." Jennings editorialized, "Now that's a reckless charge not
> > supported by the facts."
> >
> > Republican pundits agreed. Bill Bennett, a director of Empower
> > America, told Fox News that Clark's "failure to distance himself,
> > repudiate, absolutely condemn Michael Moore's description of the
> > president as a deserter was a terrible thing."
> >
> > Most informed observers agree that Moore's choice of words was
> > sloppy and inaccurate. "Deserter" is a criminal term: It refers to a
> > military personnel who abandons his post with no intention of ever
> > returning. But Democrats have taken hold of the broader issue of
> > whether Bush was AWOL. Their willingness to bring up a previously
> > off-limits subject reflects their sense that Bush's aura of
> > invincibility has worn off and the confidence imparted by Kerry's
> > resurgent campaign. Democrats feel Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran,
> > has the personal history to question Bush's service.
> >
> > But the issue is also ripe because of Bush's own reelection
> > strategy. By donning a fighter flight suit and landing on the USS
> > Abraham Lincoln fora photo-op in May 2003, he has tried to paint
> > himself as a seasoned military leader in the United States' war on
> > terrorism. With newfound aggressiveness, Democrats are trying to
> > puncture that aura by hammering away on the fact that Bush's own
> > military record fails to back it up.
> >
> > That's what Democratic National Committee chairman Terry
> > McAuliffe did this Sunday on ABC News' "This Week," when he referred
> > to Bush as "a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." That
> > brought a quick rebuttal from South Carolina's Republican Gov. Mark
> > Sanford, who told CNN it was wrong for Democrats to be "taking shots
> > at [Bush] for being a guardsman."
> >
> > In similar fashion, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., claimed Tuesday
> > night that by bringing up Bush's National Guard service, the Democrats
> > are impugning the patriotism of guardsmen, implying that their
> > contributions are less worthy than those who serve in the military. As
> > those disingenuous comments suggest, Republicans are trying to change
> > the subject, falsely framing the debate as a repeat of the National
> > Guard controversy that dogged Vice President Dan Quayle during the
> > 1988 presidential campaign.
> >
> > It's easy to see why they're pursuing this strategy. If the story
> > were simply about how Bush used his family connections to land a slot
> > in the Texas Air National Guard (and all indications are he did just
> > that ), it wouldn't matter much. But the real story is not how Bush
> > got into the Guard. It's how he got out.
> >
> > Until the last two days the mainstream media has routinely
> > ignored or downplayed the issue. Slate columnist Michael Kinsley took
> > euphemism to new heights when he wrote in a Dec. 5 column that Bush
> > was "lackadaisical" about fulfilling his Guard requirement. On Jan.
> > 17, the Associated Press, recapping the "deserter" controversy, did
> > Bush a favor, erroneously reporting that his absent-without-leave time
> > lasted just three months in 1972, instead of the 12-18 months actually
> > in question. And on Feb. 1, ABC News, suggesting Democrats might turn
> > off voters by attacking Bush's military service, reported Bush simply
> > "missed some weekends of training." None of those descriptions come
> > anywhere near describing the established facts at the center of the
> > controversy.
> >
> > Perhaps that's not surprising. The press, apparently deeming the
> > National Guard story unworthy, paid more attention to the debate over
> > Moore's "deserter" comment than they did to the actual story of Bush's
> > unexplained absence when it came out during the 2000 campaign.
> >
> > While co-moderating the Democratic debate, ABC News' Jennings was
> > sure he knew the facts about Bush's military record. But as the Daily
> > Howler noted, a search of the LexisNexis electronic database indicates
> > that ABC's "World News Tonight," hosted by Jennings, never once during
> > the 2000 campaign ran a report about the questions surrounding Bush's
> > military record. Asked if ignoring the story was a mistake, and
> > whether ABC News planned to pursue it in 2004, a network spokeswoman
> > told Salon, "We continue to examine the records of all the candidates
> > running for president, including President Bush. If and when we have a
> > story about one of the candidates, we'll report it to our audience."
> >
> > ABC was not alone in turning away from the story in 2000. CBS
> > News did the same thing, and so did NBC News. But it was the New York
> > Times, and the way the paper of record avoided the issue of Bush's
> > no-show military service, that stands out as the most unusual. To this
> > day, the Times has never reported that in 1972 the Texas Air National
> > Guard grounded Bush for failing to take a required physical exam. Nor
> > has the paper ever reported that neither Bush nor his aides can point
> > to a single person who saw Bush, the hard-to-miss son of a congressman
> > and U.S. ambassador, perform any active duty requirements during the
> > final 18 months of his service. Instead, the Times served up stories
> > that failed to delve deep into the issue.
> >
> > The Boston Globe story broke on May 23, 2000. The next day Bush
> > answered reporters' questions on the campaign trail, defending his
> > military record. His comments were covered by the Times Union (of
> > Albany, N.Y.), the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and
> > the Houston Chronicle, among others, which all considered the story
> > newsworthy. Not the Times: The paper ignored the fact Bush was forced
> > to respond to allegations that he'd been AWOL during his Guard
> > service.
> >
> > Throughout the 2000 campaign, the Times' Nicholas Kristof wrote a
> > series of biographical dispatches about Bush's personal history. On
> > July 11, he wrote about Bush's post-college years, including his
> > National Guard service, but no mention was made of the controversy
> > surrounding Bush's missing year.
> >
> > The Times finally addressed the issue on July 22, two months
> > after the Globe exposé was published. The Times article, written by Jo
> > Thomas, focused on Bush's post-Yale years in the late '60s and early
> > '70s. In a section on the National Guard controversy, the Times
> > reported that Bush's commanding officer had told the Boston Globe that
> > Bush had never showed up, quoted Bush as insisting that he had, and
> > noted that "Emily Marks, who worked in the Blount campaign and dated
> > Mr. Bush, said she recalls that he returned to Montgomery after the
> > election to serve with the Air National Guard." But then the Times
> > went on to write, "National Guard records provided by the Guard and by
> > the Bush campaign indicate he did serve on Nov. 29, 1972, after the
> > election. These records also show a gap in service from that time to
> > the previous May. Mr. Bush says he made up for the lost time in
> > subsequent months, and guard records show he received credit for
> > having performed all the required service."
> >
> > On Oct. 31, the Boston Globe published another damning story,
> > suggesting Bush failed to serve -- in fact, did not even show up for
> > duty-- during the final 18 months of his commitment. The Times' Thomas
> > quickly wrote, "A review of records by The New York Times indicated
> > that some of those concerns [about Bush's absence] may be unfounded."
> > Contradicting the Globe's account of Bush war service, the paper
> > reported that Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett "pointed to a document in
> > Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty
> > ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he
> > moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."
> >
> > The document cited by the Times is apparently the mysterious torn
> > paper that appeared in Bush's records in 2000. That document, a
> > "Statement of Points Earned," tracks when guardsmen have served, and
> > whether they have fulfilled their annual duty. It contains references
> > to "29" and "14" and other numbers whose meaning is not clear. The
> > Times did not inform its readers that the document is badly torn,
> > undated, and unsigned; does not have Bush's name on it (just a wayward
> > "W"); and has a redacted Social Security number.
> >
> > "The Times got spun by Dan Bartlett," Robinson at the Globe told
> > Salon. He and others note that if the documents provided by the Bush
> > campaign proved he did Guard duty upon returning to Houston in January
> > and April of 1973, then why, on Bush's annual effectiveness report
> > signed by two superiors, did it say, "Lt. Bush has not been observed
> > at this unit during the period of the report," which covered the dates
> > between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973?
> >
> > "I had a lot of arguments with Dan Bartlett and never got spun by
> > him," says Thomas, now an assistant chancellor for public affairs at
> > the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. "But if he gave me
> > some documents that proved his point, I'm not going to ignore them."
> > She added, "The Times carried no brief for or against Bush."
> >
> > Nonetheless, the author James Moore says it was those two Times
> > stories, which seemed to back up Bush's sketchy account of his Guard
> > service, that effectively stopped other reporters from pursuing the
> > story.
> >
> > Here are the known facts of that story: Following his graduation
> > from Yale University in 1968, with the Vietnam War raging, Bush
> > vaulted to the top of a 500-person waiting list to land a coveted spot
> > in the Texas Air National Guard. Then, despite having no aviation or
> > ROTC experience, he was approved for an automatic commission as a
> > second lieutenant and assignment to flight school.
> >
> > By every indication, Bush's service between 1970 and 1972 as a
> > fully trained pilot in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron near
> > Houston was commendable. But then came the spring of 1972 -- and Bush
> > simply vanished.
> >
> > Contrary to the official campaign biography that appeared on the
> > Bush Web site during 2000, which stated he flew fighter planes until
> > his discharge in late 1973, Bush flew for the last time ever in April
> > 1972. In May, he moved to Alabama to help out in the Senate campaign
> > of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. Bush asked to be
> > transferred to an Alabama Air National Guard unit where he could do
> > "equivalent training." Bush asked to be transferred to a postal unit
> > for paper-pushing duties -- and remarkably, his Houston commanders
> > signed off on the request. But officials at the Air Reserve Personnel
> > Center in Denver eventually overruled the request, pointing out the
> > obvious: Doing paperwork in a postal unit did not qualify as
> > "equivalent training" for a fully trained pilot.
> >
> > The situation remained unresolved for months. During that time,
> > Bush was still obligated to attend drill sessions with his regular
> > unit near Houston. Guard records indicate he did not.
> >
> > In September 1972, Bush won approval to do temporary training at
> > the 187th Squadron in Montgomery. But the unit's commander, retired
> > Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, told the Boston Globe he was "dead
> > certain" Bush never showed. "Had he reported in, I would have had some
> > recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training
> > there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have
> > remembered."
> >
> > On Wednesday, Bush-Cheney '04 spokesman Terry Holt told Salon
> > that Turnipseed recently donated $500 to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.
> > Holt questioned whether the motives behind Turnipseed's comments
> > regarding Bush's service were "pure," or whether he's part of a
> > "political attack." Turnipseed could not be reached for comment.
> >
> > In any case, as already noted, there is no official National
> > Guard record of Bush's ever serving in Alabama, and not a single
> > guardsman who served at that time has ever come forward and
> > corroborated that Bush was there.
> >
> > Meanwhile, in July of that summer, Bush's "failure to accomplish"
> > his mandatory annual physical (that is, to take it) forced the Guard
> > to ground him.
> >
> > Following Blount's election loss in November, Bush returned to
> > Houston. But he did not return to his Guard duties, at least according
> > to his commanding officers. In May 1973, his two superior officers at
> > Ellington Air Force Base noted on Bush's evaluation that he had not
> > been seen during the previous year. In the comments section, Lt. Col.
> > William Harris Jr. wrote that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May 1972,
> > and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with
> > the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." The problem is,
> > Bush never reported for duty there, or anywhere else in Alabama.
> > According to his discharge papers, Bush took the whole year off
> > instead.
> >
> > Bush was finally recorded as having crammed in 36 active-duty
> > credits during May, June and July 1973, thereby meeting his minimal
> > requirement. But as the Boston Globe pointed out, nobody connected
> > with the Texas unit recalls seeing Bush during his cram sessions,
> > leading to suspicions that Bush was given credits for active duty he
> > did not perform.
> >
> > The suspicion stems in part from the incorrect, and inconsistent,
> > answers that Bush and his spokesmen have given to the question of why,
> > after going through extraordinarily rigorous flight training, he
> > simply walked away from flying. The day the Globe story appeared on
> > May 23, 2000, Bush explained to reporters that when he returned to
> > Houston in 1973, his old fighter plane was being phased out. "There
> > was a conscious decision not to retrain me in an airplane," he said,
> > suggesting it was the Texas Air National Guard's decision to end his
> > flying career. That's not true. The plane to which Bush was referring,
> > the F-102, was phased out during the 1970s, but it was still being
> > used in 1973. Bush did not tell reporters about his failed physical
> > exam and how that resulted in his being grounded.
> >
> > That misleading answer about Bush's Guard service was just one of
> > many the candidate and his aides gave during the campaign. For
> > instance, a campaign official told Cox News reporters in July 1999
> > that Bush's transfer to the Alabama Guard unit was for the same flying
> > job he held in Texas. That's false. There was no flying involved at
> > either Alabama unit (not that Bush ever reported to them, according to
> > Guard records), and without passing a physical, Bush couldn't fly
> > anyway.
> >
> > Also in July 1999, Bush's then-spokeswoman Karen Hughes told the
> > Associated Press it was accurate for Bush to suggest, as he'd done in
> > a previous campaign, that he served "in the U.S. Air Force," when in
> > fact he served in the Air National Guard.
> >
> > Asked in 2000 why Bush failed to take his physical in July 1972,
> > the campaign gave two different explanations. The first was that Bush
> > was (supposedly) serving in Alabama and his personal physician was in
> > Texas, so he couldn't get a physical. That's false. By military
> > regulations, Bush could not have received a military physical from his
> > personal physician, only from an Air Force flight surgeon, and there
> > were several assigned to nearby Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery,
> > Ala. The other explanation was that because Bush was no longer flying,
> > he didn't need to take a physical. But that simply highlights the
> > extraordinary nature of Bush's service and the peculiar notion that he
> > took it upon himself to decide that a) he was no longer a pilot and b)
> > he didn't have to take a physical.
> >
> > Early in September 1973, Bush submitted a request to effectively
> > end any requirements to attend monthly drills. Despite Bush's record,
> > the request was approved. He was given an honorable discharge, and
> > that fall he enrolled in Harvard Business School.
> >
> > One of the obvious questions raised by Bush's missing year is why
> > he was never brought up on any disciplinary charges under the Uniform
> > Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and why he was given an honorable
> > discharge. (It's unlikely Bush could have run for president if he'd
> > been tainted with anything less than an honorable discharge from the
> > military.)
> >
> > But the issue is not that black and white. "An honorable
> > discharge usually means the person has not committed any misconduct,"
> > says retired JAG officer Lattin. "He may have failed to honor his
> > obligation, but he hasn't committed a criminal act. And that's an
> > important distinction."
> >
> > It's important, because based on Lattin's interpretation of the
> > military law, a guardsman on non-active duty who fails to show up for
> > his monthly drill sessions, as Bush did, is not subject to the UCMJ.
> > The UCMJ, Lattin says, applies only to active-duty servicemen. And
> > while guardsmen who report for weekend duty are covered for those 48
> > hours by the UCMJ's unique codes (regarding desertion, being AWOL,
> > etc.), a non-active guardsman who refuses to report for duty in the
> > first place cannot be covered by the UCMJ. Instead, an
> > absent-without-leave guardsman is subject to the state's military
> > codes of justice, which mirror the UCMJ.
> >
> > But even then, says Lattin, cases of guardsmen who fail to attend
> > drill sessions are rarely dealt with under the military's criminal
> > code, but rather administratively, which is less burdensome.
> > Administrative options include transferring the solider to active
> > duty, or separating him from his unit while beginning dismissal
> > procedures that would likely -- although not always -- result in a
> > less than, or other than, honorable discharge. Also in Bush's case, he
> > could have been permanently stripped of his flight privileges.
> >
> > So why was no administrative action taken against Bush during his
> > missing year or more? "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a
> > reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal
> > official," says Fidell, the military law expert. "Observers of the
> > Guard at that time have said it did seem to be an entity in which
> > connections might be helpful."
> >
> > Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political
> > in the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very
> > day. One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not.
> > If George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward
> > not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."
> >
> > Lattin stresses that the Bush episode, and the Guard's failure to
> > take any administrative actions against him, have to be viewed in
> > context of the early '70s. With the Vietnam War beginning to wind down
> > and the U.S. military battling endemic low morale, the Pentagon showed
> > little interest in chasing after absent-without-leave guardsmen. "It
> > was too hard and there were too many of them," says Lattin. "There was
> > a 'who cares' attitude. Commanders didn't want to deal with them. And
> > they knew they'd stir up a hornet's nest, especially if one of the
> > [missing guardsmen] was named George Bush."
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> >
> > Go to Original
> >
> > One-year Gap in Bush's National Guard Duty
> > By Walter V. Robinson
> > The Boston Globe
> >
> > Tuesday 23 May 2000
> >
> > No record of airman at drills from 1972-73
> > AUSTIN, Texas - After George W. Bush became governor in 1995, the
> > Houston Air National Guard unit he had served with during the Vietnam
> > War years honored him for his work, noting that he flew an F-102
> > fighter-interceptor until his discharge in October 1973.
> >
> > And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep,"
> > recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June
> > 1970. "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,"
> > the governor wrote.
> >
> > But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military
> > records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military
> > service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of
> > that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is
> > no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of
> > part-time guardsmen.
> >
> > Bush, who declined to be interviewed on the issue, said through a
> > spokesman that he has "some recollection" of attending drills that
> > year, but maybe not consistently.
> >
> > From May to November 1972, Bush was in Alabama working in a US
> > Senate campaign, and was required to attend drills at an Air National
> > Guard unit in Montgomery. But there is no evidence in his record that
> > he did so. And William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded
> > the Alabama unit back then, said in an interview last week that Bush
> > never appeared for duty there.
> >
> > After the election, Bush returned to Houston. But seven months
> > later, in May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force
> > Base could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from
> > May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not
> > been observed at this unit during the period of this report."
> >
> > Bush, they mistakenly concluded, had been training with the
> > Alabama unit for the previous 12 months. Both men have since died. But
> > Ellington's top personnel officer at the time, retired Colonel Rufus
> > G. Martin, said he had believed that First Lieutenant Bush completed
> > his final year of service in Alabama.
> >
> > A Bush spokesman, Dan Bartlett, said after talking with the
> > governor that Bush recalls performing some duty in Alabama and
> > "recalls coming back to Houston and doing [Guard] duty, though he does
> > not recall if it was on a consistent basis."
> >
> > Noting that Bush, by that point, was no longer flying, Bartlett
> > added, "It's possible his presence and role became secondary."
> >
> > Last night, Mindy Tucker, another Bush campaign aide, asserted
> > that the governor "fulfilled all of his requirements in the Guard." If
> > he missed any drills, she said, he made them up later on.
> >
> > Under Air National Guard rules at the time, guardsmen who missed
> > duty could be reported to their Selective Service Board and inducted
> > into the Army as draftees.
> >
> > If Bush's interest in Guard duty waned, as spokesman Bartlett
> > hinted, the records and former Guard officials suggest that Bush's
> > unit was lackadaisical in holding him to his commitment. Many states,
> > Texas among them, had a record during the Vietnam War of providing a
> > haven in the Guard for the sons of the well-connected, and a tendency
> > to excuse shirking by those with political connections.
> >
> > Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in
> > April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
> > Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
> > of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
> > hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
> > "weekend warriors."
> >
> > Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush
> > spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months
> > in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
> > enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
> > logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
> > release from service.
> >
> > Still, the puzzling gap in Bush's military service is likely to
> > heighten speculation about the conspicuous underachievement that
> > marked the period between his 1968 graduation from Yale University and
> > his 1973 entry into Harvard Business School. It is speculation that
> > Bush has helped to fuel: For example, he refused for months last year
> > to say whether he had ever used illegal drugs. Subsequently, however,
> > Bush amended his stance, saying that he had not done so since 1974.
> >
> > The period in 1972 and 1973 when Bush sidestepped his military
> > obligation coincides with a well-publicized incident during the 1972
> > Christmas holidays: Bush had a confrontation with his father after he
> > took his younger brother, Marvin, out drinking and returned to the
> > family's Washington home after knocking over some garbage cans on the
> > ride home.
> >
> > In his autobiography, Bush says that his decision to go to
> > business school the following September was "a turning point for me."
> >
> > Assessing Bush's military service three decades later is no easy
> > task: Some of his superiors are no longer alive. Others declined to
> > comment, or, understandably, cannot recall details about Bush's
> > comings and goings. And as Bush has risen in public life over the last
> > several years, Texas military officials have put many of his records
> > off-limits and heavily redacted many other pages, ostensibly because
> > of privacy rules.
> >
> > But 160 pages of his records, assembled by the Globe from a
> > variety of sources and supplemented by interviews with former Guard
> > officials, paint a picture of an Air Guardsman who enjoyed favored
> > treatment on several occasions.
> >
> > The ease of Bush's entry into the Air Guard was widely reported
> > last year. At a time when such billets were coveted and his father was
> > a Houston congressman, Bush vaulted to the top of a waiting list of
> > 500. Bush and his father have denied that he received any preferential
> > treatment. But last year, Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas
> > House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he
> > called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of
> > Bush's father asked him to do so.
> >
> > Before he went to basic training, Bush was approved for an
> > automatic commission as a second lieutenant and assignment to flight
> > school despite a score of just 25 percent on a pilot aptitude test.
> > Such commissions were not uncommon, although most often they went to
> > prospective pilots who had college ROTC courses or prior Air Force
> > experience. Bush had neither.
> >
> > In interviews last week, Guard officials from that era said Bush
> > leapfrogged over other applicants because few applicants were willing
> > to commit to the 18 months of flight training or the inherent dangers
> > of flying.
> >
> > As a pilot, the future governor appeared to do well. After eight
> > weeks of basic training in the summer of 1968 - and a two-month break
> > to work on a Senate race in Florida - Bush attended 55 weeks of flight
> > school at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia, from November 1968 to
> > November 1969, followed by five months of full-time training on the
> > F-102 back at Ellington.
> >
> > Retired Colonel Maurice H. Udell, Bush's instructor in the F-102,
> > said he was impressed with Bush's talent and his attitude. "He had his
> > boots shined, his uniform pressed, his hair cut and he said, 'Yes,
> > sir' and 'No, sir,' the instructor recalled.
> >
> > Said Udell, "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I
> > knew. And in the thinking department, he was in the top 1 percent. He
> > was very capable and tough as a boot."
> >
> > But 22 months after finishing his training, and with two years
> > left on his six-year commitment, Bush gave up flying - for good, it
> > would turn out. He sought permission to do "equivalent training" at a
> > Guard unit in Alabama, where he planned to work for several months on
> > the Republican Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's
> > father. The proposed move took Bush off flight status, since no
> > Alabama Guard unit had the F-102 he was trained to fly.
> >
> > At that point, starting in May 1972, First Lieutenant Bush began
> > to disappear from the Guard's radar screen.
> >
> > When the Globe first raised questions about this period earlier
> > this month, Bartlett, Bush's spokesman, referred a reporter to Albert
> > Lloyd Jr., a retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel
> > director from 1969 to 1995.
> >
> > Lloyd, who a year ago helped the Bush campaign make sense of the
> > governor's military records, said Bush's aides were concerned about
> > the gap in his records back then.
> >
> > On May 24, 1972, after he moved to Alabama, Bush made a formal
> > request to do his equivalent training at the 9921st Air Reserve
> > Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Two days later, that
> > unit's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Reese H. Bricken, agreed to have
> > Bush join his unit temporarily.
> >
> > In Houston, Bush's superiors approved. But a higher headquarters
> > disapproved, noting that Bricken's unit did not have regular drills.
> >
> > "We met just one weeknight a month. We were only a postal unit.
> > We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing," Bricken
> > said in an interview.
> >
> > Last week, Lloyd said he is mystified why Bush's superiors at the
> > time approved duty at such a unit.
> >
> > Inexplicably, months went by with no resolution to Bush's status
> > - and no Guard duty. Bush's evident disconnection from his Guard
> > duties was underscored in August, when he was removed from flight
> > status for failing to take his annual flight physical.
> >
> > Finally, on Sept. 5, 1972, Bush requested permission to do duty
> > for September, October, and November at the 187th Tactical Recon Group
> > in Montgomery. Permission was granted, and Bush was directed to report
> > to Turnipseed, the unit's commander.
> >
> > In interviews last week, Turnipseed and his administrative
> > officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush
> > ever reporting.
> >
> > "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,"
> > Turnipseed said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there.
> > If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."
> >
> > Lloyd, the retired Texas Air Guard official, said he does not
> > know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. "If he did, his drill
> > attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there
> > would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he
> > fulfilled the requirements in Alabama," he said.
> >
> > Indeed, Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station
> > for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no
> > record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any
> > service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd said, "there should
> > have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973."
> >
> > Said Lloyd, "It appeared he had a bad year. He might have lost
> > interest, since he knew he was getting out."
> >
> > In an effort last year to solve the puzzle, Lloyd said he scoured
> > Guard records, where he found two "special orders" commanding Bush to
> > appear for active duty on nine days in May 1973. That is the same
> > month that Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant
> > Colonel Jerry B. Killian effectively declared Bush missing from duty.
> >
> > In Bush's annual efficiency report, dated May 2, 1973, the two
> > supervising pilots did not rate Bush for the prior year, writing, "Lt.
> > Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A
> > civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery,
> > Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing
> > equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp,
> > Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
> >
> > Asked about that declaration, campaign spokesman Bartlett said
> > Bush told him that since he was no longer flying, he was doing "odds
> > and ends" under different supervisors whose names he could not recall.
> >
> > But retired colonel Martin, the unit's former administrative
> > officer, said he too thought Bush had been in Alabama for that entire
> > year. Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned
> > to duty at Ellington. And Bush, in his autobiography, identifies the
> > late colonel Killian as a friend, making it even more likely that
> > Killian knew where Bush was.
> >
> > Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he
> > went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972,
> > there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a
> > flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit's
> > records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102
> > in 1973.
> >
> > During his search, Lloyd said, the only other paperwork he
> > discovered was a single torn page bearing Bush's social security
> > number and numbers awarding some points for Guard duty. But the
> > partial page is undated. If it represents the year in question, it
> > leaves unexplained why Bush's two superior officers would have
> > declared him absent for the full year.
> >
> > There is no doubt that Bush was in Houston in late 1972 and early
> > 1973. During that period, according to Bush's autobiography, he held a
> > civilian job working for an inner-city, antipoverty program in the
> > city.
> >
> > Lloyd, who has studied the records extensively, said he is an
> > admirer of the governor and believes "the governor honestly served his
> > country and fulfilled his commitment."
> >
> > But Lloyd said it is possible that since Bush had his sights set
> > on discharge and the unit was beginning to replace the F-102s, Bush's
> > superiors told him he was not "in the flow chart. Maybe George Bush
> > took that as a signal and said, 'Hell, I'm not going to bother going
> > to drills.'
> >
> > "Well, then it comes rating time, and someone says, 'Oh...he
> > hasn't fulfilled his obligation.' I'll bet someone called him up and
> > said, 'George, you're in a pickle. Get your ass down here and perform
> > some duty.' And he did," Lloyd said.
> >
> > That would explain, Lloyd said, the records showing Bush cramming
> > so many drills into May, June, and July 1973. During those three
> > months, Bush spent 36 days on duty.
> >
> > Bush's last day in uniform before he moved to Cambridge was July
> > 30, 1973. His official release from active duty was dated Oct. 1,
> > 1973, eight months before his six-year commitment was scheduled to
> > end.
> >
> > Officially, the period between May 1972 and May 1973 remains
> > unaccounted for. In November 1973, responding to a request from the
> > headquarters of the Air National Guard for Bush's annual evaluation
> > for that year, Martin, the Ellington administrative officer, wrote,
> > "Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."
> >
> > -------
> >
> > BUSH'S MILITARY SERVICE
> >
> > During his first four years in the Texas Air National Guard,
> > according to his military records, Bush had a busy schedule of
> > full-time training and drills:
> >
> > May 28, 1968: Bush enlists as an Airman Basic in the 147th
> > Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is
> > selected to attend pilot training.
> >
> > July 12, 1968: A three-member board of officers decides that Bush
> > should get a direct commission as a second lieutenant after competing
> > airman's basic training.
> >
> > July 14 to Aug. 25, 1968: Bush attends six weeks of basic
> > training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.
> >
> > Sept. 4, 1968: Bush is commissioned a second lieutenant and takes
> > an 8-week leave to work on a Senate campaign in Florida.
> >
> > Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969: Bush attends and graduates from
> > flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.
> >
> > December 1969 to June 27, 1970: Bush trains full-time to be an
> > F-102 pilot at Ellington Air Force Base.
> >
> > July 1970 to April 16, 1972: Bush, as a certified fighter pilot,
> > attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.
> >
> > During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign
> > he appeared for duty.
> >
> > May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US
> > Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama.
> > But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.
> >
> > Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at
> > the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows
> > no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never
> > showed up.
> >
> > November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but
> > apparently not to his Air Force unit.
> >
> > May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit
> > in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not
> > been at the unit in that period.
> >
> > May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him
> > to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.
> >
> > July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.
> >
> > Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business
> > School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard --
> > eight months before his six-year term expires.
> > www.truthout.org rememberjohn.com
> >
>
> Saturday, Jan. 24, 2004 3:05 p.m. EST
> Bush 'Desertion' Charge Debunked
>
> Did President Bush "desert" the military, as radical filmmaker Michael
Moore
> insists he did?
>
> Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark suggested during New Hampshire's
> presidential debate Thursday night that the facts on whether Bush ran out
on
> his National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 are in dispute.
>
> But in the months before the 2000 presidential election, the New York
Times
> pretty much demolished this Democratic Party urban legend, a myth that
first
> surfaced in its sister paper, the Boston Globe.
>
> "For a full year, there is no record that Bush showed up for the periodic
> drills required of part-time guardsmen," the Globe insisted in May 2000,
in
> a report Moore currently cites on his Web site to rebut ABC newsman Peter
> Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the story is "unsupported by the
> facts."
>
> "I don't know whether [Moore's desertion charge] is supported by the facts
> or not," Clark replied "I've never looked at it."
>
> The Times did, however, look at it, and found that Bush had indeed served
> during part of the time the Globe had him AWOL - and later made up
whatever
> time he missed after requesting permission for the postponement.
>
> In July 2000 the Times noted that Bush's chief accuser in the Globe
report,
> retired Gen. William Turnipseed, had begun to back away from his story
that
> Bush never appeared for service during the time in question.
>
> "In a recent interview," said the Times, "[Turnipseed] took a tiny step
> back, saying, 'I don't think he did, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.'"
> In fact, military records obtained by the Times showed that Turnipseed was
> wrong and that the Globe had flubbed the story.
>
> "A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared
for
> duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on
> Nov. 3, 2000.
>
> The Times explained:
>
> "On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors
for
> assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery [Alabama] 'for
> the months of September, October and November,'" so Bush could manage the
> Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.
>
> "Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th
Tactical
> Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had
> already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and
> Nov. 4 and 5."
>
> After the Bush AWOL story had percolated for months, Col. Turnipseed
finally
> remembered another glitch in his story: the fact that National Guard
> regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up
> within the same quarter.
>
> And, in fact - according to the Times - that's what Bush did.
>
> "A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed
credit
> for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14,
> 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and
> May."
>
> The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates
> correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April
> 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active
> duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."
>
> Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of
> the water.
>
> It showed that Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through
July
> 30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe," the Times
sheepishly
> admitted.
>
>
> http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/24/154936.shtml
>
>
>
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Bill and Susan Maddux" > wrote in message >...
> I can not see how Bush's being awol from the national Guard is any worst
> than Clinton's draft dodging, burning his draft card, leaving the country
> and protesting the war.

Consider, if you will:

1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
muster.

2) AFAIK, Clinton has denied nothing you alleged above.

3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
duty however.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message news:<5% "Be Kind" > wrote in message
>
> "A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for
> duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on
> Nov. 3, 2000.
>
> ...
> "A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed credit
> for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14,
> 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and
> May."

[should that last have been 'and dates in..' rather than 'on dates in..'?
-- FF]

>
> The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates
> correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April
> 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active
> duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."
>
> Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of
> the water.
>
> It showed that Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July
> 30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe," the Times sheepishly
> admitted.
>
>
> http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/24/154936.shtml

The webpage above does not feature images of any of the documents
to which the article refers. Are any such images available?

--

FF

[Tarver Engineering]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bill and Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
>...
> > I can not see how Bush's being awol from the national Guard is any worst
> > than Clinton's draft dodging, burning his draft card, leaving the
country
> > and protesting the war.
>
> Consider, if you will:
>
> 1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
> with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
> or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
> from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
> muster.

Making a fraudulent offer to join ROTC with an induction notice in hand is a
crime.

> 2) AFAIK, Clinton has denied nothing you alleged above.

It was all forgiven by Executive Order.

> 3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
> he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
> about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
> duty however.

http://www.johnkerrytruth.com/

[Keith Willshaw]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bill and Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
>...
> > I can not see how Bush's being awol from the national Guard is any worst
> > than Clinton's draft dodging, burning his draft card, leaving the
country
> > and protesting the war.
>
> Consider, if you will:
>
> 1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
> with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
> or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
> from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
> muster.
>

As a disinterested (ie I have no time for either of them) foreign
observer I find this whole squabble rather amusing

IRC Clinton never actually claimed to have burnt his draft
card he just went to University in the UK and kinda forgot
he was supposed to join the army, musta been that marijuana
he didnt inhale

LOL

> 2) AFAIK, Clinton has denied nothing you alleged above.
>
> 3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
> he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
> about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
> duty however.
>

In fact he was apparently in the national guard reserve at the time
and this was the period after he had volunteered and been
turned down for active service. Given the aircraft he trained
on was being phased out and the war was winding down I
kind of doubt he was the only one who did less than the
optimum with regard to service.

Keith

[Pete]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote

>
> In fact he was apparently in the national guard reserve at the time
> and this was the period after he had volunteered and been
> turned down for active service. Given the aircraft he trained
> on was being phased out and the war was winding down I
> kind of doubt he was the only one who did less than the
> optimum with regard to service.

Not all who were in the military went to Vietnam.
Not all who 'volunteered' went to Vietnam. Especially specialists or aircrew
on a particular weapon system that saw little service there.
By far most American males of eligible age did no service during the Vietnam
years.

Bush has nothing to be ashamed of.

OTOH, I find Kerry's screechings on this deplorable.

Pete

[* * Chas]

"Be Kind" > wrote in message
om...
> Go to Original
> www.truthout.org
www.rememberjohn.com
> Bush's Missing Year
> By Eric Boehlert
> Salon.com
>
> Thursday 05 February 2004
>
> In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard
service and
> later lied about it. With the media finally paying
attention, will he
> now come clean?
> In 1972, George W. Bush simply walked away from his
pilot duties
> in the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required
weekend drill
> sessions for many months, probably for more than a year,
and did not
> take a mandatory annual physical exam, which resulted in
his being
> grounded. Nonetheless, Bush, the son of a well-connected
Texas
> congressman, received an honorable discharge.
>
> If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a
year, military
> attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to
active duty or,
> more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a
> less-than-honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty
would be
> especially swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman
were a fully
> trained pilot, as Bush was.
>
> Bush's National Guard record, long ignored by the
media, has
> surfaced with a vengeance. If the topic continues to rage,
and if the
> media presses him, Bush may finally be forced to release
his full
> military records, which could reveal the truth. By
refusing to make
> all those records public, Bush has until now broken with a
> long-standing tradition of U.S. presidential candidates.

I served in the Marines from 1961 to 1966. I volunteered for
Vietnam in 1964 while stationed in Japan with the 1st Marine
Airwing. We had 3 chopper squadrons down in Danang, RSV
before there were any "ground troops" on the ground. I also
served in the Dominican Republic Crisis in 1965.

I was at one time a card carrying member of the John Birch
Society so I have some well established conservative
credentials!

I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
egos!

We were doing a holding action instead of fighting to win
and it was costing us billions while destroying our youths.
I became opposed to the war because it was getting nowhere
and eventually became active in the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War.

Absence Without Leave during a time of war was a Courts
Martial offense that could have led to the death penalty!

I knew of quite a few Reservists and National Guardsmen who
were sent on Active Duty - usually directly to Vietnam for
failing to attend meetings. They usually had to serve their
remaining enlistments on Active Duty. There were also a
number of officers who were busted to the Enlisted Ranks and
then sent to Vietnam.

We the taxpayers spent a million dollars to send a not so
bright draft dodging poor little rich kid to flight school
to learn to fly an early 50's vintage interceptor designed
to shoot down Russian prop job bombers. This was at a time
when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

About the only bombers little Georgie saw were the ones he
rolled himself while protecting his cocaine supply routes up
the Rio Grande!

All of the weenie dicked Chicken Hawks point to Bill Clinton
as a draft dodger, what about all of the members of Bush's
entourage: Cheney for example, "I had more important things
to do" and so on.

On the eve of the 2000 election, 3 Senators released the
strait scoop on W's war record but their words fell on deaf
ears.

Georgie where were you? What did you know? We know that
Bill didn't inhale but were you a drunk and a coke head? You
didn't like cocaine, you just liked the way it smelled???

BTW, where's you're pre 1995 driving records.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Bill and Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I can not see how Bush's being awol from the national Guard is any worst
> > > than Clinton's draft dodging, burning his draft card, leaving the
> country
> > > and protesting the war.
> >
> > Consider, if you will:
> >
> > 1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
> > with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
> > or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
> > from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
> > muster.
>
> Making a fraudulent offer to join ROTC with an induction notice in hand is a
> crime.

I'd like to know the basis for that.

Anyhow IIRC, Clinton never admitted to making a fraudulent offer.
He said that he changed his mind. I believe that the offer was
fraudulent, or at best that he was stalling for time, but I
cannot prove that, even though it is the only reasonable explanation.
Similarly, I believe that I believe that the Bush administration
sabotaged the UNMOVIC inspection program by supplying it with false
information, though I cannot prove that, even though it is the
only reasonable explanation given that some of the documents supplied
to UNMOVIC are undisputed forgeries.

>
> > 3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
> > he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
> > about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
> > duty however.
>
> http://www.johnkerrytruth.com/

John Kerry served in Vietnam, or rather off the coast for one tour
of duty returning to the US when his ship came back to the US.
He then volunterred for a second tour and then came home from that
tour of duty after being wounded for the third time. I believe
his wounds were not serious, but then again, GWB never saw combat
at all.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "
> As a disinterested (ie I have no time for either of them) foreign
> observer I find this whole squabble rather amusing
>
> IRC Clinton never actually claimed to have burnt his draft
> card he just went to University in the UK and kinda forgot
> he was supposed to join the army, musta been that marijuana
> he didnt inhale

I once read a detailed description of exactly how he got out of
both service in Vietnam AND National Guard duty in the US without
a deferment, being ruled out for health reasons, or consientious
objector status. Then I read it again. The process was sufficiently
convoluted that it made my head hurt.

Anyhow, WJ Clinton is not President, one might as well criticize
Grover Cleveland for hiring someone to replace him after he was
drafted.

GW Bush is Presient. I do not care to defend any of the three.

> > 2) AFAIK, Clinton has denied nothing you alleged above.
> >
> > 3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
> > he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
> > about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
> > duty however.
> >
>
> In fact he was apparently in the national guard reserve at the time
> and this was the period after he had volunteered and been
> turned down for active service.

Huh? I never heard anyone claim that GWB volunteered for active duty.
Also, in the US the National Guard and the Reserves are different
outfits, though in the last 15 years or so the National Guard have
been called to active duty more than any time since WWII I think.

During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.

> Given the aircraft he trained
> on was being phased out and the war was winding down I
> kind of doubt he was the only one who did less than the
> optimum with regard to service.
>

My guess is that he was such a crappy pilot his commander in TX
was glad to see him quit flying befor he screwed his aircraft
into the ground.

But the documents posted online indicate that his commander in TX
gave him verbal permission to transfer to an AL unit in advance
of written orders. After that transfer was officially denied,
it appears no one ordered him back to duty in TX. And no one
noticed for about 14 months at which time GWB asked for an
early discharge. Which he got.

Maybe he did some duty somewhere during that time but if so,
no one seems to know what or where.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Consider, if you will:
>
> 1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
> with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
> or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
> from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
> muster.
>

Hell, the draft didn't pass Constitutional muster!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
>

That's not correct. On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20
units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War.
Eight units deployed to Vietnam. One of them, Company D (Ranger), 151st
Infantry, Indiana National Guard, earned distinction as one of the most
highly decorated combat units of the war.

On January 25, 1968, eight ANG Tactical Fighter Squadrons and three Tactical
Reconnaissance Squadrons were mobilized. A second callup on April 11 added
two Tactical Fighter Squadrons and an Aeromedical Airlift Squadron. Four of
the fighter squadrons served in combat in Vietnam, flying F-100Cs.


>
> My guess is that he was such a crappy pilot his commander in TX
> was glad to see him quit flying befor he screwed his aircraft
> into the ground.
>

One of his instructors stated not long ago that his flying skills were
better than average.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
> question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
> destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
> our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
> egos!
>

Nixon didn't become president until January 20, 1969. Kissinger was at
Harvard until Nixon became president.

[Kevin Brooks]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...

>
> I served in the Marines from 1961 to 1966. I volunteered for
> Vietnam in 1964 while stationed in Japan with the 1st Marine
> Airwing. We had 3 chopper squadrons down in Danang, RSV
> before there were any "ground troops" on the ground. I also
> served in the Dominican Republic Crisis in 1965.
>
> I was at one time a card carrying member of the John Birch
> Society so I have some well established conservative
> credentials!
>
> I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
> question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
> destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
> our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
> egos!

Your timeline suffers a bit when exposed against harsh reality. So, you were
a "staunch HAWK up through 68", when you then questioned the nefarious
intentions of Nixon and Kissenger as to how the war was being handled. The
problem with that is that Nixon did not win his first election until
November of 1968, and did not enter office until January 1969. So either
your concerns as to how the war was being managed were incorrectly targeted
(it would have been LBJ who controlled the war throughout 1968, and it would
generally take a few months after inauguration for the new administration to
have any effect on something as vast as a war effort), or your recollection
as to when you actually became convinced the war was being mismanaged and by
who were other than what you stated. be reminded it was Nixon who
immediately began the "Vietnamization" policy and was soon reducing the US
troop committment to the war.

>
> We were doing a holding action instead of fighting to win
> and it was costing us billions while destroying our youths.
> I became opposed to the war because it was getting nowhere
> and eventually became active in the Vietnam Veterans Against
> the War.

Sorry to hear that. Having a military background, you should have been one
of those who realized (despite what the media was balthering at the time)
that the 68 Tet Offensive actually broke the back of the VC, for all intents
and purposes leaving the fight solely in the hands of the NVA. As to VVAW, I
hold little respect for an organization that conducted the likes of "Winter
Soldier", where folks like John Kerry in his ribbon bedecked fatigues and
long hair claimed US troops were apparently solely concerned with committing
war atrocities.

>
> Absence Without Leave during a time of war was a Courts
> Martial offense that could have led to the death penalty!

Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for
individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training"
assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't reasonably
attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results, that
is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to
perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion.

>
> I knew of quite a few Reservists and National Guardsmen who
> were sent on Active Duty - usually directly to Vietnam for
> failing to attend meetings. They usually had to serve their
> remaining enlistments on Active Duty.

Some may have been. But *most* Guardsmen/Reservists who went to Vietnam did
so because they either (a) were in units mobilized and sent there (yes,
there were quite a few units that did that), or (b) they volunteered for
active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which could
have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted).

There were also a
> number of officers who were busted to the Enlisted Ranks and
> then sent to Vietnam.

Are you sure about that? Please provide some evidence. IIRC, the only way an
officer can revert to enlisted rank in that manner is if he had prior
enlisted service.

>
> We the taxpayers spent a million dollars to send a not so
> bright draft dodging poor little rich kid to flight school
> to learn to fly an early 50's vintage interceptor designed
> to shoot down Russian prop job bombers. This was at a time
> when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
> had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.

Brooks

<snip further rant>

[Steve Hix]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "* * Chas" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
> > question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
> > destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
> > our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
> > egos!
>
> Nixon didn't become president until January 20, 1969. Kissinger was at
> Harvard until Nixon became president.

Chas verifies the saying "if you remember the '60s, you didn't live
through them".

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message .net>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> > and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
> >
>
> That's not correct. On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in 20
> units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War.
> Eight units deployed to Vietnam. One of them, Company D (Ranger), 151st
> Infantry, Indiana National Guard, earned distinction as one of the most
> highly decorated combat units of the war.
>
> On January 25, 1968, eight ANG Tactical Fighter Squadrons and three Tactical
> Reconnaissance Squadrons were mobilized. A second callup on April 11 added
> two Tactical Fighter Squadrons and an Aeromedical Airlift Squadron. Four of
> the fighter squadrons served in combat in Vietnam, flying F-100Cs.


Thanks.

Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam. IF so,
T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who
served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I
(also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US
but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_
no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam.

>
> >
> > My guess is that he was such a crappy pilot his commander in TX
> > was glad to see him quit flying befor he screwed his aircraft
> > into the ground.
> >
>
> One of his instructors stated not long ago that his flying skills were
> better than average.

Then my guess would be wrong, which is a chronic problem with guessing.
Can you name the instructor, or recall where you heard/read that?

Although I am far more concerned with how he conducts himself today
as President than with how he conducted himself back then, it never
hurts to know facts.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...

> GW Bush is Presient. I do not care to defend any of the three.
>
>>> 2) AFAIK, Clinton has denied nothing you alleged above.
>>>
>>> 3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
>>> he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
>>> about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
>>> duty however.
>>>
>>
>> In fact he was apparently in the national guard reserve at the time
>> and this was the period after he had volunteered and been
>> turned down for active service.
>
> Huh? I never heard anyone claim that GWB volunteered for active duty.

The following was extracted from http://www.greaterthings.com

"At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed
additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so
important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small amount
of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three month Vietnam
tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once again to overcome his lack
of readiness, or perhaps safe in the knowledge that his request would certainly
be rejected."

Parenthetically, during his interview by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Feb.8,
2004, Bush denied ever volunteering for service in Viet Nam. How sad that he
couldn't remember doing it; I still have my 201 file dating back to WWII, which
contains stuff like copies of volunteer statements, special orders, etc. I'm
amazed that somebody as highly organized as he is somehow apparently misplaced
his.

> Also, in the US the National Guard and the Reserves are different
> outfits, though in the last 15 years or so the National Guard have
> been called to active duty more than any time since WWII I think.
>
> During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.

I believe there were some National Guard troops who served in VN. Cong.
Gephardt (D-Mo), for one, was in the Missouri ANG and served in VN.
>
>> Given the aircraft he trained
>> on was being phased out and the war was winding down I
>> kind of doubt he was the only one who did less than the
>> optimum with regard to service.

That may be true, but he undoubtedly was the only President who lied about it.
AIR, Clinton had applied for entrance to the ROTC and, when the Selective
Service System initiated the use of lotteries to determine which registrants
would be called for service, and Clinton drew a high number (#311), he withdrew
his application for entrance to the ROTC. He subjected himself to the draft
process, which never got around to calling him. Many other Americans did the
exact same thing, and it did not involve telling lies, merely taking advantage
of the system that had been set up to provide equity in selection.
>>
>
> My guess is that he was such a crappy pilot his commander in TX
> was glad to see him quit flying befor he screwed his aircraft
> into the ground.
>
> But the documents posted online indicate that his commander in TX
> gave him verbal permission to transfer to an AL unit in advance
> of written orders. After that transfer was officially denied,
> it appears no one ordered him back to duty in TX. And no one
> noticed for about 14 months at which time GWB asked for an
> early discharge. Which he got.
>
> Maybe he did some duty somewhere during that time but if so,
> no one seems to know what or where.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> > > and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
> > >
> >
> > That's not correct. On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in
20
> > units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War.
> > Eight units deployed to Vietnam. One of them, Company D (Ranger), 151st
> > Infantry, Indiana National Guard, earned distinction as one of the most
> > highly decorated combat units of the war.
> >
> > On January 25, 1968, eight ANG Tactical Fighter Squadrons and three
Tactical
> > Reconnaissance Squadrons were mobilized. A second callup on April 11
added
> > two Tactical Fighter Squadrons and an Aeromedical Airlift Squadron.
Four of
> > the fighter squadrons served in combat in Vietnam, flying F-100Cs.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam. IF so,
> T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who
> served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I
> (also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US
> but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_
> no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam.

No, that is not all of the deployed Guardsmen. In addition to the deployed
units, at least one activated unit (an infantry brigade out of Hawaii) found
itself transferring troops out as individual replacements destined for
Vietnam. In addition, there were troops and officers from the Guard who
volunteered individually for active duty and saw service in Vietnam.

LBJ failed to activate the Guard and Reserve early in the conflict because
he was afraid of the political backlash--but as the war drew down the lesson
that had been learned was that failing to activate in larger measure the
reserve components had actually been a factor that adversely affected
support at the root level of the nation for the effort. Hence Abrams
returned from commanding MACV to assignment as Army C/S and immediately
instituted the "Total Army" program which saw the reserve components so
enmeshed in the operational fabric of the service that it would be
impossible to embark on any future major military endeavor without
conducting significant mobilizations at the outset.

And be careful casting any "broad brush" strokes regarding the Guard during
Vietnam; while there were undoubtedly some folks in the Guard who thought
that was a way for them to serve without their likely having to go to
Vietnam, there were also a lot of veterans who had joined the Guard well
before the Vietnam conflict, many of whom had been Korean War veterans, and
all returning Vietnam veterans did not immediately run for the nearest VVAW
chapter either--many joined local Guard units (my brother returned from his
combat tour and immediately joined the Guard).

>
> >
> > >
> > > My guess is that he was such a crappy pilot his commander in TX
> > > was glad to see him quit flying befor he screwed his aircraft
> > > into the ground.
> > >
> >
> > One of his instructors stated not long ago that his flying skills were
> > better than average.
>
> Then my guess would be wrong, which is a chronic problem with guessing.
> Can you name the instructor, or recall where you heard/read that?

Maurice Udell was the name given in the newspapers just this week:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20040208-2301-vietnamechoes.html

Brooks

>
> Although I am far more concerned with how he conducts himself today
> as President than with how he conducted himself back then, it never
> hurts to know facts.
>
> --
>
> FF

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> > GW Bush is Presient. I do not care to defend any of the three.
> >
> >>> 2) AFAIK, Clinton has denied nothing you alleged above.
> >>>
> >>> 3) I am not convinced that Bush was AWOL, it appears that at worse
> >>> he was left without orders to appear anywhere in particular for
> >>> about a year. Certainly a far cry from volunteering for combat
> >>> duty however.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In fact he was apparently in the national guard reserve at the time
> >> and this was the period after he had volunteered and been
> >> turned down for active service.
> >
> > Huh? I never heard anyone claim that GWB volunteered for active duty.
>
> The following was extracted from http://www.greaterthings.com
>
> "At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed
> additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so
> important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small
amount
> of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three month
Vietnam
> tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once again to overcome
his lack
> of readiness, or perhaps safe in the knowledge that his request would
certainly
> be rejected."

What utter crap. So the F-102 was flying, "... the dangerous reconnaissance
missions so important to the fate of American troops on the ground"? That
statement alone opens the entire quote to scrutiny in terms of veracity,
since F-102's were NOT performing reconnaissance missions "important to the
fate of American troops on the ground".

>
> Parenthetically, during his interview by Tim Russert on Meet the Press,
Feb.8,
> 2004, Bush denied ever volunteering for service in Viet Nam. How sad that
he
> couldn't remember doing it; I still have my 201 file dating back to WWII,
which
> contains stuff like copies of volunteer statements, special orders, etc.
I'm
> amazed that somebody as highly organized as he is somehow apparently
misplaced
> his.

Uhmm...that is not exactly the way it was reported. Russert asked if he
"didn't volunteer or enlist to go" to Vietnam; in other words, did he join
the military with the sole intent of going to Vietnam. There were an awful
lot of folks who volunteered for military service during that time and took
what assignment they were given; my old high school history teacher ended up
serving as an MP in Germany, is he somehow guilty of "dishonorable" service?
Bush (and others) have verified that he did indeed volunteer for Palace
Alert duty. Place Alert was a program that could have taken him to any
number of duty stations, including Vietnam.

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and
enjoyed it, and we provided a service to our country. In those days we had
what was called "Air Defense Command," and it was part of the air defense
command system.

>
> > Also, in the US the National Guard and the Reserves are different
> > outfits, though in the last 15 years or so the National Guard have
> > been called to active duty more than any time since WWII I think.
> >
> > During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> > and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
>
> I believe there were some National Guard troops who served in VN. Cong.
> Gephardt (D-Mo), for one, was in the Missouri ANG and served in VN.
> >
> >> Given the aircraft he trained
> >> on was being phased out and the war was winding down I
> >> kind of doubt he was the only one who did less than the
> >> optimum with regard to service.
>
> That may be true, but he undoubtedly was the only President who lied about
it.

How has he lied about it? Sounds like another George Z. fabrication is
brewing...

> AIR, Clinton had applied for entrance to the ROTC and, when the Selective
> Service System initiated the use of lotteries to determine which
registrants
> would be called for service, and Clinton drew a high number (#311), he
withdrew
> his application for entrance to the ROTC.

How convenient for you to forget the part about him seeking entrance into
ROTC using political pull (something you are oh-so-quick to claim in the
case of Bush and the ANG), and his later letter to the ROTC PMS:

"First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft...I am
writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to
understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves
still loving their country but loathing the military..."

> He subjected himself to the draft

By his own admission he did NOT do that. In addition to admitting that COL
Holmes had "saved him from the draft", he went on to say:

"At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1-D
deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self-regard and
self-confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by
eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on
September 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my
draft board saying basically what is in the last paragraph, thanking him for
trying to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn
't do the R.O.T.C. after all and would he please draft me as soon as
possible." I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day
until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter
because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going
to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished
myself and gotten what I deserved."

> process, which never got around to calling him.

Because he had used the ROTC PMS to step around his availability,
immediately discarding ROTC when it became apparent he was not going to in
fact be drafted. Note that he did not send that letter to COL Holmes until
*after* he was assured he was safe from the draft.

Many other Americans did the
> exact same thing, and it did not involve telling lies, merely taking
advantage
> of the system that had been set up to provide equity in selection.

Sounds like Clinton did indeed lie, repeatedly. He lied to COL Holmes when
he said he really was interested in the ROTC, and later admitted he had not
been interested in it for any reason other than avoiding the draft and
getting that coveted deferrment statement from the good colonel. And, even
worse, he either lied when he admitted to "loathing" the military, or later
when he miraculously claimed to admire all of those fine young people who
served--which was it?

> >>
> >
> > My guess is that he was such a crappy pilot his commander in TX
> > was glad to see him quit flying befor he screwed his aircraft
> > into the ground.
> >
> > But the documents posted online indicate that his commander in TX
> > gave him verbal permission to transfer to an AL unit in advance
> > of written orders. After that transfer was officially denied,
> > it appears no one ordered him back to duty in TX. And no one
> > noticed for about 14 months at which time GWB asked for an
> > early discharge. Which he got.
> >
> > Maybe he did some duty somewhere during that time but if so,
> > no one seems to know what or where.

His duty performance has been scrutinized by very critical media
opponents--none have been able to deny he completed his service obligation
and was honorably discharged. That you can't seem to accept that, while
excusing every mealy-mouthed lie and dodge perpetrated by your hero Clinton
in his active and deceitful avoidance of *any* kind of military service is
hardly surprising given your demonstrated bias to date.

Brooks

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam.
>

No. The Convair F-102 was the interceptor of choice in the earlier part of
direct US military operations in Vietnam. In mid-1968, the USAF was
running short of experienced F-102 drivers. Not surprising, since by that
time the ANG had been the primary operator of that aircraft for some years.
Guard pilots were sought to volunteer for 90 or 180 day tours to fill out
the F-102 squadrons. That program was called Palace Alert.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn of other Guard involvement in Vietnam, but
that's all I'm aware of.


>
> IF so, T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who
> served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I
> (also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US
> but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_
> no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam.
>

Yup. But that was a policy decision made by President Johnson. The joint
chiefs wanted to employ the Guard and ANG as early as 1964. LBJ could have
changed his policy at any time, and by March 1968 it was known that someone
other than Johnson would be president in January 1969. Perhaps someone that
didn't agree with Johnson's policy.


>
> Then my guess would be wrong, which is a chronic problem with
> guessing. Can you name the instructor, or recall where you heard/read
> that?
>

His name was Maurice H. Udell.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5025.shtml

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Consider, if you will:
> >
> > 1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
> > with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
> > or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
> > from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
> > muster.
> >
>
> Hell, the draft didn't pass Constitutional muster!

Yes it did. Though my guess is you're no more than half serious:

Have you ever heard the saying that the First Amendment does not
protect a man's right shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater? There
are variations on that, but the original, or at least the most
famous appears in the majority decision written by Chief Justice
of the USSC, Oliver Wendel Holmes in a ruling which upheld the
treason conviction of man who agued that Conscription was
unconstitutional, and advocated draft resistance, even after
the draft was ruled to be not unconstitutional by the USSC.

Inasmuch as the best basis for holding the draft to be unconstitutional
is the 13th amendment, which was passed during the Reconstruction
of a Union that had survived in no small measure due to the
institution of conscription, it seems likely that the ruling was
consistent with the original intent of the Constitution and its
amendments, regardless of the specifics of the wording. The
draft is indisputedly involuntary and I daresay that few who
have been drafted would argue that the subsequent experience
is anything other than servitude. However the term, 'involuntary
servitude' had been used as a euphemism for slavery for some
time before the Civil War and was never specifically applied to
military service by draftees so it seems the USSC was on solid
ground.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> The following was extracted from http://www.greaterthings.com
>
> "At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed
> additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so
> important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small
> amount of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three
> month Vietnam tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once
> again to overcome his lack of readiness, or perhaps safe in the
> knowledge that his request would certainly be rejected."
>

Right. They needed F-102 pilots to fly reconnaissance missions. I would
have thought RF-101 or RF-4 or even RF-84 pilots would have been preferable
to F-102 pilots for reconnaissance missions. Silly me.


>
> I believe there were some National Guard troops who served in VN.
> Cong. Gephardt (D-Mo), for one, was in the Missouri ANG and
> served in VN.
>

What's your source for that? I can find no mention of Vietnam service in
any of Gephardt's online biographies. If he was truly a Vietnam veteran I'd
expect it would be trumpeted loudly.

Gephardt served in the Air National Guard from 1965 to 1971 . He was a legal
affairs officer with the 131st Combat Support Squadron based in St. Louis.
The 131st CSG was part of the 131st Tactical Fighter Wing, as was the 110th
Tactical Fighter Squadron, equipped with F-100s. Four ANG F-100 squadrons
deployed to Vietnam in 1968 for 11 month combat tours, but the 110th TFS was
not one of them. It was not called to federal service at any time during
Gephardt's tour.




>
> That may be true, but he undoubtedly was the only President who
> lied about it.
>

Lied about what?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>...
> Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for
> individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training"
> assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't reasonably
> attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results, that
> is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to
> perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion.

I've never seen copies of the documents allegedly obtained by the
NYT. Have they been posted online?

Hopefully this will eventually settle the matter:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26843-2004Feb9.html

This document has been cited as evidence of poor attendence, but it
certainly is not clear to me.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif

>
> ... or (b) they volunteered for
> active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which could
> have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted).

Somewhere I have seen a copy of a document in which GWB had expressed
a preference to not be assigned ot overseas duty. But I wasn't able
to find it just now.

This is the first that I heard of 'Palace ALert Duty' or that Bush
had volunteered for duty outside of the US. Can you offer some
evidence in support of that, explain 'Palace Alert Duty'?

Was PAD related to the SAC in any way?


>
> >
> > ... This was at a time
> > when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
> > had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
rather than being hard pressed for them.

>
> Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
> Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
> another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.
>

If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
were lost in combat, does it not?

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...

(Snip)

>>> ... This was at a time
>>> when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
>>> had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
>
> It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
> Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
> of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
> rather than being hard pressed for them.

The last time I looked, the USMC did NOT train its pilots. They received their
training from the Navy; I never heard of Marines being trained by either the
Army or the AF.

George Z.
>
>>
>> Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
>> Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
>> another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.
>>
>
> If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
> were lost in combat, does it not?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> >...
> > Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for
> > individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training"
> > assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't
reasonably
> > attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results,
that
> > is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to
> > perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion.
>
> I've never seen copies of the documents allegedly obtained by the
> NYT. Have they been posted online?

Not to my knowledge. But another poster has included a rather detailed
analysis of Bush's records that does seem to support the contention that he
attended sufficient days of training each year.

>
> Hopefully this will eventually settle the matter:
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26843-2004Feb9.html

Looks like the former kind of makes the latter immaterial, and that he did
perform enough required duty to receive credit for "good" years.

>
> This document has been cited as evidence of poor attendence, but it
> certainly is not clear to me.
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif

Hard to read it, but it appears to be nothing more than an acknowledgement
statement--the undersigned acknowledges he has been informed that he has to
perform IAW whatever regfulation and faces potential penalties if he does
not do so. Not an uncommon kind of transaction in the military.

>
> >
> > ... or (b) they volunteered for
> > active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which
could
> > have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted).
>
> Somewhere I have seen a copy of a document in which GWB had expressed
> a preference to not be assigned ot overseas duty. But I wasn't able
> to find it just now.

That refers to the statement he signed upon initially entering the service.
As has been pointed out elsewhere by others, signing such a statement upon
service entry, for a guy going into a Guard unit, is not out of line. He had
enlisted into a vacancy in a particular unit, not into the Air
Force-as-a-whole as active duty personnel do. As someone else has already
mentioned regarding this, it is likely that he was told something to the
effect, "Nah, you are joining this ANG unit, so don't check the "am willing"
block for overseas service".

>
> This is the first that I heard of 'Palace ALert Duty' or that Bush
> had volunteered for duty outside of the US. Can you offer some
> evidence in support of that, explain 'Palace Alert Duty'?

Palace Alert was a program where ANG F-102 pilots volunteered for extended
active duty periods (six months, IIRC) flying F-102's in active component
squadrons. The USAF was getting short of F-102 pilots in the later sixties,
so the ANG was a source for fleshing out that requirment. Palace Alert could
find the ANG volunteer serving at any number of F-102 bases (see:
www.philippecolin.net/Gmb.html ), including those in SEA. ISTR Bush
mentioned in his autobiography that he and a buddy signed up for the program
but were eventually told they lacked the experience that was required. Some
folks (one rather loud mouthed yet poorly informed old coot in this NG being
among the worst) claim that he nefariously *knew* he would not be qualified
for the program and dreamed this up as a way of being able to say he
volunteered for overseas duty when he knew it would not happen. But in fact
the determination of how much experience was required would have been based
upon how many pilots had volunteered at that point, and how many slots the
ANG was tasked to fill--here is an excerpt concerning an ANG second
lieutenant F-102 pilot who found himself serving in Iceland with the 57th
FIS while the bulk of the squadron was undergoing transition to the F-4:

"...what is believed to be the last F-102 intercept was made by 2nd Lt.
Grant E. Bollen. Lt. Bollen was an ANG pilot that volunteered along with
four other ANG pilots to go on an open ended TDY to Iceland to replace
"Deuce drivers" that were in the USA, converting to the F-4. His arrival
caused some consternation in Keflavik, because 2nd lieutenants were not to
be posted to Iceland. He had 500 hours in the 102, but he was not allowed to
stand alert at first and states that "I had to be escorted by a major
everywhere I went".

www.verslo.is/baldur/57th_fis/57th.htm

>
> Was PAD related to the SAC in any way?

No, it was an ADC (Air Defense Command) mission.


> > >
> > > ... This was at a time
> > > when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
> > > had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
>
> It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
> Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
> of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
> rather than being hard pressed for them.

I did not write that. Yeah, you'd have to wonder what the problem with their
own pipeline was, or what other considerations were taken into account
(i.e., this was arounf the time the USMC started to get the UH-1N, so
piggybacking Huey training on the Army's UH-1 training program would have
made some sense). Either way, the issue is meaningless to the GWB situation.

>
> >
> > Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand
and
> > Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already
seen in
> > another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.
> >
>
> If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
> were lost in combat, does it not?

Not really. The F-102 was never really intended to be anything other than a
point defense interceptor do defend against enemy bomber attacks. It did not
have the capability of carrying the best short range AAM we had
(Sidewinder), and it was rather pitiful in the ground attack role (which
some did actually perform in Vietnam). Nor was it designed to really mix it
up with enemy fighters. Baugher's site indicates that two were lost to AAA,
and one to a Mig-21. Another fifteen were operational losses not related to
combat (can't recall if that includes those destroyed in saper/rocket
attacks on their bases). It continued on in active service with the ANG
until the 74-76 timeframe, when the last were withdrawn from service; the
Turks and Greeks flew them for a few more years, with one rumored encounter
between a couple of Turkish F-102's and Greek F-5's (IIRC) in 1974.

Brooks

>
> --
>
> FF

[* * Chas]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in
message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
<snip>

> > > ... This was at a time
> > > when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that
they
> > > had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
>
> It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to
the
> Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a
SURPLUS
> of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its
own)
> rather than being hard pressed for them.

DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The
life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I
have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a
riffleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines developed
the concept of close air support in "banana Wars' of the
late 20's and early 30's!

> > Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were
sent to Thailand and
> > Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we
have already seen in
> > another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat
operations.
> >
>
> If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why
some
> were lost in combat, does it not?

They flew anything that they could get off of the ground
down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of
Tucson, AZ.

We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN
troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens
around. They were full of patches from bullet holes.

The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
Aussies also flew.

The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the
old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed
A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider
squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy
still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until
late 1965???

And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
haulers.
--
Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail
me)

[* * Chas]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in
message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
<snip>

> > > ... This was at a time
> > > when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that
they
> > > had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
>
> It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to
the
> Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a
SURPLUS
> of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its
own)
> rather than being hard pressed for them.

DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The
life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I
have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a
rifleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines developed
the concept of close air support in "banana Wars' of the
late 20's and early 30's!

> > Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were
sent to Thailand and
> > Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we
have already seen in
> > another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat
operations.
> >
>
> If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why
some
> were lost in combat, does it not?

They flew anything that they could get off of the ground
down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of
Tucson, AZ.

We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN
troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens
around. They were full of patches from bullet holes.

The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
Aussies also flew.

The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the
old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed
A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider
squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy
still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until
late 1965???

And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
haulers.
--
Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail
me)

[* * Chas]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in
message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
<snip>

> > > ... This was at a time
> > > when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that
they
> > > had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
>
> It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to
the
> Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a
SURPLUS
> of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its
own)
> rather than being hard pressed for them.

DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The
life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I
have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a
riffleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines develoved
the concept of close air support in "bannana Wars' of the
late 20's and early 30's!

> > Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were
sent to Thailand and
> > Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we
have already seen in
> > another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat
operations.
> >
>
> If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why
some
> were lost in combat, does it not?

They flew anything that they could get off of the ground
down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of
Tucson, AZ.

We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN
troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens
around. They were full of patches from bullet holes.

The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
Aussies also flew.

The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the
old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed
A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider
squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy
still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until
late 1965???

And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
haulers.
--
Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail
me)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
>

There were no R4Ds in 1964-65, and it was C-47 and DC-3.


>
> The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
> until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
> 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
> Aussies also flew.
>

It's A-26, B-26, and B-57, and the WWII era B-26 was out of the inventory
shortly after WWII ended.


>
> And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
> haulers.
>

C-123.

[Kevin Brooks]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in
> message
> om...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> <snip>
>
> > > > ... This was at a time
> > > > when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that
> they
> > > > had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
> >
> > It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to
> the
> > Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a
> SURPLUS
> > of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its
> own)
> > rather than being hard pressed for them.
>
> DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate.

So was the Army, and the USAF, and the USN. In fact, IIRC the USMC aircrew
casualty rate was below all of the above?

The
> life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I
> have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a
> riffleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines developed
> the concept of close air support in "banana Wars' of the
> late 20's and early 30's!

And that is applicable how...?

>
> > > Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were
> sent to Thailand and
> > > Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we
> have already seen in
> > > another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat
> operations.
> > >
> >
> > If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why
> some
> > were lost in combat, does it not?
>
> They flew anything that they could get off of the ground
> down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of
> Tucson, AZ.

Not really.

>
> We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
> The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN
> troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens
> around. They were full of patches from bullet holes.

The C-47 family continues in service in some air forces to this day; its use
during Vietnam was while it was a relative *youngster*!

>
> The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
> until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
> 16 .50 Cal MGs.

Those "On Mark" B-26's were used for a number of reasons, not because they
were the only thing available.

Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
> Aussies also flew.

Which were not that old at the time (the last EB-57 did not exit service
until after 1980), and BTW, they were not the same aircraft. The USAF flew
the Martin built B-57, with a fair number of mods; the Aussies flew the
original BAC Canberra.

>
> The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the
> old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed
> A-1E through A-1J.

No, they were not. The A-1's did fly CAS, and a lot more RESCAP, but they
were not the USAF's "mainstay". There were more F-100's in country than
A-1's.

The Marines retired the last Skyraider
> squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy
> still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until
> late 1965???

Good airplane--so your point would have been?

>
> And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
> haulers.

That would presumably be C-123, and they were also used by the USAF side,
alongside the later C-130's. And the last C-123K's did not leave USAF
service until the early eighties.

Brooks

> --
> Chas. (Drop spamski to E-mail
> me)
>
>
>
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Fred, I didn't know you stuttered. (^-^)))

George Z.

* * Chas wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in
> message
> om...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
> <snip>
>
>>>> ... This was at a time
>>>> when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
>>>> had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.
>>
>> It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
>> Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
>> of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
>> rather than being hard pressed for them.
>
> DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate. The
> life expectancy for USMC Huey crews was about 3 months! I
> have a quote from a current Marine fighter pilot "I'm a
> riffleman and I fly a jet fighter!" The Marines develoved
> the concept of close air support in "bannana Wars' of the
> late 20's and early 30's!
>
>>> Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
>>> Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
>>> another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.
>>>
>>
>> If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
>> were lost in combat, does it not?
>
> They flew anything that they could get off of the ground
> down at the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Airbase outside of
> Tucson, AZ.
>
> We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
> The seats were removed and they were used to ferry ARVN
> troops and their families and all of their pigs and chickens
> around. They were full of patches from bullet holes.
>
> The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
> until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
> 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
> Aussies also flew.
>
> The mainstay of the USAF close air support effort were the
> old ex Navy/USMC propjob AD-6 and AD-7 Skyraiders renamed
> A-1E through A-1J. The Marines retired the last Skyraider
> squadron out of NAS Memphis in the early 60's. The Navy
> still flew them off of carriers in the Tonkin Gulf until
> late 1965???
>
> And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
> haulers.

[B2431]

>From: "* * Chas"

<snip>

>DOH! we were loosing them at an extremely high rate.

It's spelled "losing."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "* * Chas" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as DC3).
> >
>
> There were no R4Ds in 1964-65, and it was C-47 and DC-3.
>
>
> >
> > The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
> > until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up to
> > 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which the
> > Aussies also flew.
> >
>
> It's A-26, B-26, and B-57, and the WWII era B-26 was out of the inventory
> shortly after WWII ended.

But they then reclassed the A-26 Invader to become the B-26 Invader once the
Marauder was gone.

"In June of 1948, the A-26B was redesignated B-26B. There was no danger of
confusion with the Martin B-26 Marauder, since that aircraft was by that
time out of service." http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/a26_3.html

Brooks

>
>
> >
> > And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23 cargo
> > haulers.
> >
>
> C-123.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> But they then reclassed the A-26 Invader to become the B-26
> Invader once the Marauder was gone.
>

That's correct, and so is my statement.

[Ron]

...
>>
>> The following was extracted from http://www.greaterthings.com
>>
>> "At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed
>> additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so
>> important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small
>> amount of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three
>> month Vietnam tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once
>> again to overcome his lack of readiness, or perhaps safe in the
>> knowledge that his request would certainly be rejected."
>>

Was it from some Black Ops super secret RF-102? :)

Maybe it was there at Groom Lake along with those YF-12s that Daryl Hunt saw


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[dougdrivr]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> > > and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
> > >
> >
> > That's not correct. On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen in
20
> > units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam War.
> > Eight units deployed to Vietnam. One of them, Company D (Ranger), 151st
> > Infantry, Indiana National Guard, earned distinction as one of the most
> > highly decorated combat units of the war.
> >
> > On January 25, 1968, eight ANG Tactical Fighter Squadrons and three
Tactical
> > Reconnaissance Squadrons were mobilized. A second callup on April 11
added
> > two Tactical Fighter Squadrons and an Aeromedical Airlift Squadron.
Four of
> > the fighter squadrons served in combat in Vietnam, flying F-100Cs.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam. IF so,
> T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who
> served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I
> (also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US
> but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_
> no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam.

President Johnson called up the Guard and Reserves right after the USS
Pueblo was captured by the North Koreans in January 1968. While he
emphatically stated that the National Guard would not be sent to Viet Nam,
this was only partially true. The unit flags stayed in the US and the men
were sent to Viet Nam as replacements. In my Brigade ( the 69th Inf, mostly
from Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska), 65% of the enlisted men and 95% of the
Officers were sent to Viet Nam. Thirty-seven members of the 69th were KIA
while serving in RVN. The number of wounded is not even mentioned.

[Kevin Brooks]

"dougdrivr" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> .net>...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >
> > > > During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> > > > and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's not correct. On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen
in
> 20
> > > units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam
War.
> > > Eight units deployed to Vietnam. One of them, Company D (Ranger),
151st
> > > Infantry, Indiana National Guard, earned distinction as one of the
most
> > > highly decorated combat units of the war.
> > >
> > > On January 25, 1968, eight ANG Tactical Fighter Squadrons and three
> Tactical
> > > Reconnaissance Squadrons were mobilized. A second callup on April 11
> added
> > > two Tactical Fighter Squadrons and an Aeromedical Airlift Squadron.
> Four of
> > > the fighter squadrons served in combat in Vietnam, flying F-100Cs.
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam. IF so,
> > T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who
> > served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I
> > (also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US
> > but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_
> > no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam.
>
> President Johnson called up the Guard and Reserves right after the USS
> Pueblo was captured by the North Koreans in January 1968. While he
> emphatically stated that the National Guard would not be sent to Viet
Nam,
> this was only partially true. The unit flags stayed in the US and the men
> were sent to Viet Nam as replacements. In my Brigade ( the 69th Inf,
mostly
> from Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska), 65% of the enlisted men and 95% of the
> Officers were sent to Viet Nam. Thirty-seven members of the 69th were KIA
> while serving in RVN. The number of wounded is not even mentioned.

Interesting; I had thought the guys out of the Hawaii ARNG brigade were the
only ones who went through that kind of treatment. Incidents like your's
were a sore point in the relationship between the ARNG and active Army for a
long time. But FYI, a number of ARNG units, complete with flags, were indeed
deployed to Vietnam under that same mobilization effort. As another poster
has already mentioned, the INARNG's D-51st Inf Co (Ranger) was one, and a
few arty battalions and some CS/CSS units also made the trip. IIRC an arty
unit from the KYARNG was involved in a rather close fight when its firebase
came under attack. And IIRC those KIA's you mention were not included in the
ARNG KIA total for the war, since they were considered active component
individual fillers when they became casualties; ISTR the deployed Guard
units suffered just under one hundred KIA during their period in country.

Brooks
>
>

[* * Chas]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
hlink.net.
...
>
> "* * Chas" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > We had 2 R4Ds at Danang in 1964-65 (C47 also known as
DC3).
> >
>
> There were no R4Ds in 1964-65, and it was C-47 and DC-3.
>
>
> >
> > The Air Force flew WWII era Douglas A26/B26 Invaders up
> > until Feb 1964. They carried 6,000 bomb loads and had up
to
> > 16 .50 Cal MGs. Then there were the B57 Canberras which
the
> > Aussies also flew.
> >
>
> It's A-26, B-26, and B-57, and the WWII era B-26 was out
of the inventory
> shortly after WWII ended.

Nope, read your history. There were 2 different planes with
the B-26 designation. The original was the Martin Marauder
that had a round body. The Douglas A-26 Invader was designed
as an attack bomber thus the A-26 designation. They had a
somewhat square shaped body.

They were used extensively in Korea and at some point were
redesignated B-26 for use in Vietnam where they served until
1964 in close air support roles. With 16 .50 cals, they were
the predicesors to the Puffs.

They were eventually all sent to Clark AFB in the Philipines
and scraped because the wings were failing from the stress
of hard turns at high speeds at low altitudes with heavy
bomb loads.

The B-57 was the US adaptation of English Electric's
Canberra twin engine jet bomber. It was selected by the Air
Force in 1951 to fulfil the requirement for a night bomber.
They were built by Martin and didn't enter US service until
1954-55.
They eventually served many roll in the USAF.

See http://www.b-57canberra.org/

> > And of course, the spooks had a slew of C-47 and C-23
cargo
> > haulers.
> >
> C-123.

Ya, I meant C-123, see, I said "the spooks". They also took
a liking to the old Fairchild C119 "Flying Boxcars". As I
said, they flew anything that they could get off the ground.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Nope, read your history. There were 2 different planes with
> the B-26 designation. The original was the Martin Marauder
> that had a round body. The Douglas A-26 Invader was designed
> as an attack bomber thus the A-26 designation. They had a
> somewhat square shaped body.
>

Oh? What part of the history did I get wrong? Yes, there were two
different airplanes that were designated B-26, but they weren't both
designated B-26 during World War II. The B-26 of WWII was the Martin
Marauder, the Douglas Invader was designated A-26 throughout WWII. The
Marauder was out of the inventory by 1946, the Douglas Invader served
considerably longer.

[* * Chas]

The bottom line is this:

During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
in many cases avoiding military service altogether!

That said, I think at the time, most of the reluctance to
serve in the military was more of an issue of facing the
regementation, dicipline and the loss of personal freedoms
encountered in every day military life rather than the fear
of bodily harm from combat in Vietnam.

"DO YOU MISS YOUR MOMMY!"

"WHAT'S MARYJANE ROTTENCROTCH DOING WHILE YOU'RE AWAY
MAGGOT!"

The prospect of Boot Camp and military service was ( and
probably still is) just plain scary!

Before 1965, joining the service was a way out of poverty
for many young men and was generally looked upon with
respect. I joined the service right out of high school
because I wanted adventure plus I felt that I was serving my
country. For me it was a way to travel and see the world.

One side effect of the Draft and Vietnam war in the 1960s
was the number of young men who went to college or got
married and had children just to get a Draft Deferment.

One friend went to school from 1962 until 1969. He got
married and had 2 kids. When he finally graduated, he got
drafted and spent a year in 'Nam as a grunt.

Things changed after 1965. There were many young men who
enlisted the same day they received a notice from their
Draft Board. They tried to get into the Air Force or Navy
(or reserves) thinking that a 4 year enlistment was better
than 2 years in the Army as a draftee.

I volunteered, that was my choice and like most people who
served their country whether they got drafted or enlisted, I
was not a hero nor did I do anything special. I just did my
duty. Like most, I was "Shot at and missed, **** at and
hit"!

I never really faulted most people for trying to avoid
military service. However I never respected poor little rich
kids who landed cushy positions in the reserves or received
some kind of deferement because mommy and daddy didn't want
to see little Jr. come home in a box. What about all of the
thousands of poorer kids who had no choice!

Yes, Bill Clinton avoided getting drafted but so did most of
the young men who attended college in the late 60s including
many prominent members of George Ws entourage especially
Cheney who "had other things to do"!

Whether we ever find the truth about W's service record
(along with his pre-1995 Texas driver's license record) will
be a subject for debate.

One thing that rubs me wrong is that George W got an early
discharge from the Texas ANG so that he could attend
graduate school. Now isn't that special!

I was due to be discharged in October, 1965. I was trying to
"get a Cut", an early discharge to attend school myself. On
August 20, 1965, ALL members of the US Navy and Marines got
an involuntary 4 month extention at the convience of the
government tagged on to their enlistment. I don't remember
how long the extention was in effect but it sure messed up
my plans. My dad wasn't a congressman.

A more important issue that affects all of is is that we
have gotten bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq, led there by
a bunch of Chicken Hawks who never heard a shot fired in
anger!

[Tarver Engineering]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...
> The bottom line is this:
>
> During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
> age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
> find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
> in many cases avoiding military service altogether!

But you are a fake Vet, Chad; much like Kerry's peers before Congress in
'72.

[Kevin Brooks]

"* * Chas" > wrote in message
om...

<snip>

>
> Yes, Bill Clinton avoided getting drafted but so did most of
> the young men who attended college in the late 60s

But "most of the young men" did not play footsie with the ROTC PMS to get a
deferment, then as soon as it became obvious they were not going to be
drafted anyway, dump the ROTC program with a letter that states they
"loathed" the folks who *were* serving in *any* capacity--Clinton did.

including
> many prominent members of George Ws entourage especially
> Cheney who "had other things to do"!
>
> Whether we ever find the truth about W's service record

The truth has been published, and has been repeatedly "discovered", and the
folks claiming he failed to perform the duties he was required to perform
have not been able to prove their case; when the New York Times, which is
definitely no friend of GWB, investigates the claims and concludes that he
did indeed meet his obligations, then you gotta wonder about the basis for
thses claims.

> (along with his pre-1995 Texas driver's license record) will
> be a subject for debate.

Are there any other specious accusations you'd like to make about GWB? I
mean, gee, the guy has repeatedly admitted he had an alcohol problem, and by
all reports he kicked it. Bully for him. Unlike his predecessor, who clung
to his vices throughout his White House stay, he demonstrated an ability to
overcome his failing in this case.

>
> One thing that rubs me wrong is that George W got an early
> discharge from the Texas ANG so that he could attend
> graduate school. Now isn't that special!

Yeah! Gosh, I guess you *really* hate Kerry, who got an early discharge as
well, largely because he happened to be serving as an Admiral's aide? Glass
houses and rocks...

>
> I was due to be discharged in October, 1965. I was trying to
> "get a Cut", an early discharge to attend school myself. On
> August 20, 1965, ALL members of the US Navy and Marines got
> an involuntary 4 month extention at the convience of the
> government tagged on to their enlistment. I don't remember
> how long the extention was in effect but it sure messed up
> my plans. My dad wasn't a congressman.

And your supervisor was not an Admiral.

>
> A more important issue that affects all of is is that we
> have gotten bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq,

What quagmire? You mean the "quagmire" that saw the ousting of one of the
more ruthless dictators we have seen in recent memory, or the one where we
have now extended the power and telephone grids to serve more people than
they did *before* the war, or the one where the AQ-related fellow just had
his letter intercepted admitting that things were not going too well for the
insurgents, and that they should shift focus to killing more Shiites in a
desperate attempt to foment civil insurrection?

led there by
> a bunch of Chicken Hawks who never heard a shot fired in
> anger!

Is Colin Powell a "chicken hawk"? How about the former CENTCOM commander,
GEN Franks? If you are referring to the guy in the White House...well, gee,
I guess you REALLY hated Clinton and his "Get Aidid" policy in Somalia, huh?
And how many shots did Gore hear fired in anger during his (short) tour in
Vietnam? And wasn't he the (gasp!) son of a Senator?

Brooks

[B2431]

>From: "* * Chas"

>
>The bottom line is this:
>
>During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
>age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
>find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
>in many cases avoiding military service altogether!

I read somewhere reliable that the casualties of rich people in Viet Nam was no
lower than that of the poor. Were there more middle class in Viet Nam than
rich? Yes, ofcourse, the "middle class" population is, and was, bigger than the
upper and lower classes combined.

The percentage of black casualties was roughly the same percentage as the U.S.
black population etc.

Can we find examples of people using influence to get cushy spots? Sure, it
happens throughout society at all levels.

I hardly call joining the guard or reserves avoiding the draft since they are
military services. This is expcially true since there were elements of both who
went to Viet Nam and you can find the names of some of them on the wall.

By the way, being drafted did not ensure a trip to Viet Nam in the infantry.
Draftees were given MOS and posts as needed. If memory serves the percentage of
draftees who saw combat as about 50%.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "* * Chas"
>
> >
> >The bottom line is this:
> >
> >During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
> >age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
> >find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
> >in many cases avoiding military service altogether!
>
> I read somewhere reliable that the casualties of rich people in Viet Nam
was no
> lower than that of the poor. Were there more middle class in Viet Nam than
> rich? Yes, ofcourse, the "middle class" population is, and was, bigger
than the
> upper and lower classes combined.
>
> The percentage of black casualties was roughly the same percentage as the
U.S.
> black population etc.
>
> Can we find examples of people using influence to get cushy spots? Sure,
it
> happens throughout society at all levels.
>
> I hardly call joining the guard or reserves avoiding the draft since they
are
> military services. This is expcially true since there were elements of
both who
> went to Viet Nam and you can find the names of some of them on the wall.
>
> By the way, being drafted did not ensure a trip to Viet Nam in the
infantry.
> Draftees were given MOS and posts as needed. If memory serves the
percentage of
> draftees who saw combat as about 50%.

While the military effort against Vietnam saw 20% in combat?

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

* * Chas wrote:
>
> The bottom line is this:
>
> During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
> age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
> find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
> in many cases avoiding military service altogether!

Yes, that's true; they dodged the draft by attending college,
hoping their deferment would last longer than the war.
The wealthy and well-connected had a much easier time gaining
entry somewhere - when there were three qualified male applicants
for every available college slot... and every one of them trying
to dodge the draft.

> That said, I think at the time, most of the reluctance to
> serve in the military was more of an issue of facing the
> regementation, dicipline and the loss of personal freedoms
> encountered in every day military life rather than the fear
> of bodily harm from combat in Vietnam.

Horse****.
If you were classified 1-A (physically fit and mentally competent)
you would be drafted, period, at age 19 or upon completion of your
four-year college deferment. (Ask me how I know. There was no
draft lottery back then.) With a 1-A classification, most employers
would not hire you - because you would definitely be gone in less
than six months (and they'd be required by law to rehire you if
you returned).

> The prospect of Boot Camp and military service was ( and
> probably still is) just plain scary!
>
> One side effect of the Draft and Vietnam war in the 1960s
> was the number of young men who went to college or got
> married and had children just to get a Draft Deferment.

Now you're talking; but the deferment for fathers disappeared
in 1967 or 68.

> Things changed after 1965. There were many young men who
> enlisted the same day they received a notice from their
> Draft Board.

Only in a service that had plenty of openings: the Army or
Marines.

> They tried to get into the Air Force or Navy
> (or reserves) thinking that a 4 year enlistment was better
> than 2 years in the Army as a draftee.

They were right - but very foolish not to have gotten their
name on a waiting list a year earlier. The waiting lists
for the guard, reserves, or Coast Guard in most cases extended
far into the future - longer than any enlistment in one of
those services.
A year's wait was about right - though even the AF was taking
Sky Cops on short notice, as was the Navy hiring common deck
hands for immediate enlistment.

- John T, former Msgt, USAF (drafted during the Tet Offensive,
and magically moved up on the AF waiting list to avoid the
draft by a couple of days.)

[dougdrivr]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dougdrivr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
> > .net>...
> > > > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > >
> > > > > During the Vietnam War, National Guard troops stayed in the US
> > > > > and were only activated for natural disasters and riot control.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's not correct. On May 13, 1968, 12,234 Army National Guardsmen
> in
> > 20
> > > > units from 17 states were mobilized for service during the Vietnam
> War.
> > > > Eight units deployed to Vietnam. One of them, Company D (Ranger),
> 151st
> > > > Infantry, Indiana National Guard, earned distinction as one of the
> most
> > > > highly decorated combat units of the war.
> > > >
> > > > On January 25, 1968, eight ANG Tactical Fighter Squadrons and three
> > Tactical
> > > > Reconnaissance Squadrons were mobilized. A second callup on April
11
> > added
> > > > two Tactical Fighter Squadrons and an Aeromedical Airlift Squadron.
> > Four of
> > > > the fighter squadrons served in combat in Vietnam, flying F-100Cs.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Were those the only Guardsmen deployed in Vietnam. IF so,
> > > T\that would mean that less than 5% of the troops who
> > > served the US in Vietnam were activated National Guard. I
> > > (also) don't know how many Guardsnmen there were in the US
> > > but I will be careful in the future to say that _almost_
> > > no guardsmen were deployed in Vietnam.
> >
> > President Johnson called up the Guard and Reserves right after the USS
> > Pueblo was captured by the North Koreans in January 1968. While he
> > emphatically stated that the National Guard would not be sent to Viet
> Nam,
> > this was only partially true. The unit flags stayed in the US and the
men
> > were sent to Viet Nam as replacements. In my Brigade ( the 69th Inf,
> mostly
> > from Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska), 65% of the enlisted men and 95% of the
> > Officers were sent to Viet Nam. Thirty-seven members of the 69th were
KIA
> > while serving in RVN. The number of wounded is not even mentioned.
>
> Interesting; I had thought the guys out of the Hawaii ARNG brigade were
the
> only ones who went through that kind of treatment. Incidents like your's
> were a sore point in the relationship between the ARNG and active Army for
a
> long time. But FYI, a number of ARNG units, complete with flags, were
indeed
> deployed to Vietnam under that same mobilization effort. As another poster
> has already mentioned, the INARNG's D-51st Inf Co (Ranger) was one, and a
> few arty battalions and some CS/CSS units also made the trip. IIRC an arty
> unit from the KYARNG was involved in a rather close fight when its
firebase
> came under attack. And IIRC those KIA's you mention were not included in
the
> ARNG KIA total for the war, since they were considered active component
> individual fillers when they became casualties; ISTR the deployed Guard
> units suffered just under one hundred KIA during their period in country.
>
> Brooks


Thanks, I didn't know that about the deployed intact units. Someone posted
somewhere else that 5700 of the dead in Viet Nam were National Guard. That
seems a bit high and probably refers to NG casualties. It would be easy
enough to check because in those days your serial number was prefixed with
NG and everyone knew where you came from when you had to deal with
personnel.

[B2431]

>From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
<snip>

>Horse****.
>If you were classified 1-A (physically fit and mentally competent)
>you would be drafted, period, at age 19 or upon completion of your
>four-year college deferment. (Ask me how I know. There was no
>draft lottery back then.) With a 1-A classification, most employers
>would not hire you - because you would definitely be gone in less
>than six months (and they'd be required by law to rehire you if
>you returned).
>

There never was a 100% draft of 1-As. Just because you were 19 and 1-A didn't
guarantee you would be drafted. I don't know what the percentages were, but I'd
venture to say it was less than 50%. For every man I personally knew at the
time that was drafted there were a few that weren't.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Bob McKellar]

B2431 wrote:

> >From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
> >
> <snip>
>
> >Horse****.
> >If you were classified 1-A (physically fit and mentally competent)
> >you would be drafted, period, at age 19 or upon completion of your
> >four-year college deferment. (Ask me how I know. There was no
> >draft lottery back then.) With a 1-A classification, most employers
> >would not hire you - because you would definitely be gone in less
> >than six months (and they'd be required by law to rehire you if
> >you returned).
> >
>
> There never was a 100% draft of 1-As. Just because you were 19 and 1-A didn't
> guarantee you would be drafted. I don't know what the percentages were, but I'd
> venture to say it was less than 50%. For every man I personally knew at the
> time that was drafted there were a few that weren't.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The rate varied by locality and time period. When I faced the draft in 1968 it was
essentially 100% for me. I actually heard someone ( no, not me ) commenting to a
friend of mine how lucky my friend had been to get polio as a child and thus be
safe from the draft. I knew years in advance I would have to go. I raised my hand
on May 1, 1968. When I got back to school from that little trip, my notice to
report for a draft physical was in my mail box. It was scheduled for the week
before graduation.

Bob McKellar, who is not whining or complaining, just explaining the times

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Bob McKellar wrote:
>
> B2431 wrote:
>
> > >From: Dweezil Dwarftosser
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Horse****.
> > >If you were classified 1-A (physically fit and mentally competent)
> > >you would be drafted, period, at age 19 or upon completion of your
> > >four-year college deferment. (Ask me how I know. There was no
> > >draft lottery back then.) With a 1-A classification, most employers
> > >would not hire you - because you would definitely be gone in less
> > >than six months (and they'd be required by law to rehire you if
> > >you returned).
> > >
> >
> > There never was a 100% draft of 1-As. Just because you were 19 and 1-A didn't
> > guarantee you would be drafted. I don't know what the percentages were, but I'd
> > venture to say it was less than 50%. For every man I personally knew at the
> > time that was drafted there were a few that weren't.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> The rate varied by locality and time period. When I faced the draft in 1968 it was
> essentially 100% for me.

The local newspapers reported the "current draft age"
every month; it was a very good indicator of the likely
amount of time you had left. Through 1967, it was 19
years and 10 or 11 months in my area. All of a sudden,
the draft levy increased dramatically after Tet, and
the age dropped accordingly. I was 19 years and 7 mos.
old when I received the notice - and had to report within
ten days of it.

My location: New York City, the Bronx. The draft was 100%
of eligibles, oldest first. It had dropped from 25 in the
early 60s (when it wasn't 100%) to 19 years and 6 months
by March, 1968. All of the older eligibles had been exhausted.

[dougdrivr]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "* * Chas"
>
> >
> >The bottom line is this:
> >
> >During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
> >age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
> >find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
> >in many cases avoiding military service altogether!
>
> I read somewhere reliable that the casualties of rich people in Viet Nam
was no
> lower than that of the poor. Were there more middle class in Viet Nam than
> rich? Yes, ofcourse, the "middle class" population is, and was, bigger
than the
> upper and lower classes combined.
>
> The percentage of black casualties was roughly the same percentage as the
U.S.
> black population etc.
>
> Can we find examples of people using influence to get cushy spots? Sure,
it
> happens throughout society at all levels.
>
> I hardly call joining the guard or reserves avoiding the draft since they
are
> military services. This is expcially true since there were elements of
both who
> went to Viet Nam and you can find the names of some of them on the wall.
>
> By the way, being drafted did not ensure a trip to Viet Nam in the
infantry.
> Draftees were given MOS and posts as needed. If memory serves the
percentage of
> draftees who saw combat as about 50%.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here, Dan, but I'd guess the number
of total draftees that went to Viet Nam was 50%. The number that actually
saw combat was probably less than 10%.

[dougdrivr]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "* * Chas"
>
> >
> >The bottom line is this:
> >
> >During the Vietnam era it wasn't too difficult for the draft
> >age sons of the wealthy and/or politically well placed to
> >find ways of avoiding the posibility of going to Vietnam or
> >in many cases avoiding military service altogether!
>
> I read somewhere reliable that the casualties of rich people in Viet Nam
was no
> lower than that of the poor. Were there more middle class in Viet Nam than
> rich? Yes, ofcourse, the "middle class" population is, and was, bigger
than the
> upper and lower classes combined.
>
> The percentage of black casualties was roughly the same percentage as the
U.S.
> black population etc.
>
> Can we find examples of people using influence to get cushy spots? Sure,
it
> happens throughout society at all levels.
>
> I hardly call joining the guard or reserves avoiding the draft since they
are
> military services. This is expcially true since there were elements of
both who
> went to Viet Nam and you can find the names of some of them on the wall.

Believe me, it is more than just a few!

[Be Kind]

Move to Screen Bush File in 90's Is Reported
By Ralph Blumenthal
The New York Times www.truthout.org
www.rememberjohn.com

Thursday 12 February 2004

HOUSTON, Feb. 11 — A retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas
National Guard complained to a member of the Texas Senate in 1998 that
aides to Gov. George W. Bush improperly screened Mr. Bush's National
Guard files in a search for information that could embarrass the
governor in future elections.

The retired officer, Bill Burkett, said in the letter to Senator
Gonzalo Barrientos, a Democrat from Austin, that Dan Bartlett, then a
senior aide to Governor Bush and now White House communications
director, and Gen. Daniel James, then the head of the Texas National
Guard, reviewed the file to "make sure nothing will embarrass the
governor during his re-election campaign."

A copy of the letter was provided to The New York Times by a
lawyer for Mr. Burkett to support statements he makes in a book to be
published this month, which Mr. Burkett repeated in interviews this
week, that Mr. Bush's aides ordered Guard officials to remove damaging
information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files.

Mr. Bartlett denied on Wednesday that any records were altered.
General James, since named head of the Air National Guard by President
Bush, also denied Mr. Burkett's account. But Mr. Bartlett and another
former official in Mr. Bush's administration in Texas, Joe Allbaugh,
acknowledged speaking to National Guard officials about the files as
Mr. Bush was preparing to seek re-election as governor.

Both said their goal was to ensure that the records would be
helpful to journalists who inquired about Mr. Bush's military
experience.

Questions about Mr. Bush's service in the National Guard have
arisen in every campaign he has run since his 1994 race for governor.
His 2004 re-election campaign is no different, as Democrats have
pointed to apparent gaps in his service record with the National
Guard.

On Tuesday, the White House released 18 months of payroll records
that it says demonstrate that Mr. Bush fully completed his service.
And on Wednesday, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the
administration was awaiting more records and promised to make public
any previously undisclosed information from the file.

Mr. McClellan and other administration officials criticized the
Democrats for their attacks on Mr. Bush's service in the National
Guard during the Vietnam War. "What you are seeing is gutter
politics," Mr. McClellan said. "The American people deserve better.
There are some who are not interested in their facts. They are simply
trolling for trash."

Mr. Burkett's letter to Senator Barrientos was part of a running
battle that he waged with the National Guard after retiring in January
1998. In it, Mr. Burkett complained of "severe retaliation" from
General James for what he said was reporting "illegal acts" within the
National Guard. He also complained about the government's failure to
pay for his medical care after suffering from a tropical disease after
a military assignment to Panama in 1997. Before finally winning
medical benefits in July 1998, he said, he suffered a nervous
breakdown and was hospitalized for depression.

A spokesman for Senator Barrientos, Ray Perez, said on Wednesday
that "Mr. Burkett did correspond with this office." Senator Barrientos
said he was trying to find the six-year-old records of contacts with
Mr. Burkett. Another Texas legislator contacted at the time by Mr.
Burkett, Representative Bob Hunter, Republican of Abilene, said Mr.
Burkett had appeared before his committee overseeing military affairs
and had complained of mishandling of his medical claims but did not
mention Mr. Bush's files. He called Mr. Burkett "disgruntled."

In telephone interviews this week from his home near Abilene, Mr.
Burkett, 55, a systems analyst with 27 years in the National Guard
including service as deputy commandant of the New Mexico Military
Academy, said he happened to be in General James' office at Camp Mabry
in Austin in mid-1997 and overheard Mr. Allbaugh on a speakerphone
telling General James that Mr. Bartlett and Karen P. Hughes, another
aide to Governor Bush, would be coming to the Guard offices to review
Mr. Bush's military files.

Ms. Hughes, who left the White House in 2002, did not return a
call.

Mr. James said though a spokesman that "that discussion never
happened" and that he would "never condone falsification of any
record." Mr. Allbaugh called the account "pure hogwash," but said he
talked to General James about making Mr. Bush's records available to
reporters.

"We spoke about a lot of things," Mr. Allbaugh said. "I'm sure we
had a conversation with General James where all the records were kept
because it was an issue in 1994 and 1998 and would be in 2000. We
wanted to make sure we could refer people of your profession where to
go."

Mr. Burkett further said that about 10 days later he and another
officer walked into the Camp Mabry military museum and saw the head of
the museum, Gen. John Scribner, going through Mr. Bush's personnel
records. Mr. Burkett said he saw a trash basket with discarded papers
bearing Mr. Bush's name. Mr. Burkett said the papers appeared to be
"retirement point certificates, pay documents, that sort of thing."

General Scribner dismissed the account. "It never happened as far
as I know," he said. "Why would I be going into records?"

Mr. Burkett is quoted at length in a book to come out by the end
of the month, "Bush's War for Re-election" by James Moore, a former
Texas television reporter and co-author of "Bush's Brain."

The other Guard officer who Mr. Burkett says was with him the day
he saw General Scribner going though the records, George Conn,
declined in an e-mail message to comment on Mr. Burkett's statements.
But Mr. Conn, a former chief warrant officer for the Texas Guard and
now a civilian on duty with American forces in Europe, said: "I know
LTC Bill Burkett and served with him several years ago in the Texas
Army National Guard. I believe him to be honest and forthright. He
`calls things like he sees them.' "

A retired officer, Lt. Col. Dennis Adams, said Mr. Burkett told
him of the incidents shortly after they happened. "We talked about
them several different times," said Mr. Adams, who spent 15 years in
the Texas Guard and 12 years on active duty in the Army. He now works
for the Texas Department of Public Safety as a security officer
guarding the state Capitol.

www.rememberjohn.com www.truthout.org

[Tarver Engineering]

"dougdrivr" > wrote in message
...

> I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass here, Dan, but I'd guess the number
> of total draftees that went to Viet Nam was 50%. The number that actually
> saw combat was probably less than 10%.

A lot of draftees wound up in Europe manning the nuclear atrillery.