GWB and the Air Guard

[JD]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

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

Letters to the Editor
Published February 11, 2004

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

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris
and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of
the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of
fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his
military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert
S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard
and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
community's attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS,
Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was
focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear
bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in
Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace
Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to
the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was
advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not
have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was
winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and
conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in
the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be
available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional
reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting
active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt.
Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air
Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were
shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or
the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because
there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic
training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara
were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for
many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid
the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up
to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of
mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt.
Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival
training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine
months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was
even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure
weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which
you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding
service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at
any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots
were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our
Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's
tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
was risking one's life.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush
abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was
excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and
later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard,
as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I
later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs
until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment.
Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the
active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little
use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a
pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would
require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely
option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative
post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was
unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged.
Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to
"pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him
because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the
unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush
twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a
required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the
exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in
Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in
reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for
their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves,
it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of
reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the
Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part
of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of
its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not
confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to
which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver
is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific
unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm
"being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or
court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's
performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in
The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career
parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman,
I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of
the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such
people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I
served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in
crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar
games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who
knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North
Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in
showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the
first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of
Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they
were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen --
then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to
serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that
Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators
and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are
starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster
strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to
slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: GWB and the Air Guard
>From: "JD"
>Date: 2/12/04 11:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

> In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are
>starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster
>strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to
>slander the Guard: Knock it off.
>
> COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
> U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
> Herndon, Va.5
>
>

Wow. You sure had a way with words. (grin)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dudley Henriques]

Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"JD" > wrote in message
news:nPQWb.15337$jk2.51376@attbi_s53...
> The Washington Times
> www.washingtontimes.com
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> Letters to the Editor
> Published February 11, 2004
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
> George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
> Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
> 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris
> and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of
> the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of
> fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
> It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and
> Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping
his
> military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
> during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
> National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush
did
> not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert
> S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the
Guard
> and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
> only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
> community's attention.
> The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS,
> Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It
was
> focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear
> bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in
> Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called
Palace
> Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to
> the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but
was
> advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not
> have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program
was
> winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
> If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
> squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and
> conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in
> the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
> squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots
be
> available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional
> reservists with outside employment.
> The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of
exiting
> active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt.
> Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the
Air
> Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were
> shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force
or
> the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because
> there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
> Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
> environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
> reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months'
basic
> training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
> weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
McNamara
> were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge
for
> many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
> There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid
> the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
> members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant
up
> to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of
> mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt.
> Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
> through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival
> training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to
nine
> months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he
was
> even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure
> weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which
> you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding
> service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
> The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at
> any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots
> were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our
> Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt.
Bush's
> tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
> was risking one's life.
> Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
> McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush
> abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
> authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
> Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was
> excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and
> later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
> Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard,
> as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I
> later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career
affairs
> until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment.
> Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on
the
> active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has
little
> use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a
> pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would
> require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely
> option for a temporary hire.
> As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor
administrative
> post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was
> unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged.
> Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to
> "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him
> because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the
> unit combat ready.
> Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt.
Bush
> twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for
a
> required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the
> exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in
> Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
> First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in
> reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for
> their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
> weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the
Reserves,
> it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of
> reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
> individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
> If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
> physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the
> Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special
part
> of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because
of
> its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not
> confront a drug user.
> Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado"
to
> which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in
Denver
> is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a
specific
> unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm
> "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
> discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
> wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or
> court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt.
Bush's
> performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in
> The Washington Post in 2000.
> Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
> slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career
> parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a
guardsman,
> I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of
> the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such
> people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I
> served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in
> crashes flying air-defense missions.
> While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar
> games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who
> knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North
> Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in
> showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the
> first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan
and
> Iraq.
> It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of
> Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they
> were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and
citizen --
> then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him
to
> serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would
that
> Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague
senators
> and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
> In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are
> starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before
disaster
> strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want
to
> slander the Guard: Knock it off.
>
> COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
> U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
> Herndon, Va.5
>
>

[Mike Marron]

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
>this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm glued to FOX newschannel every night
anyway from 8:00 to 10:00 pm starting with O'Reilly and then Hannity &
Colmes which follows immediately.

But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.

[Grantland]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
>>this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.
>
>Thanks for the heads up. I'm glued to FOX newschannel every night
>anyway from 8:00 to 10:00 pm starting with O'Reilly and then Hannity &
>Colmes which follows immediately.
>
>But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
>misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
>vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
>the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
>the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.
>
Tell us about it, Tarver. Or was it Mazor, or Dweebbel. ****-eating bogus.

Grantland

[Mike Marron]

(Grantland) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>>>Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
>>>this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.

>>Thanks for the heads up. I'm glued to FOX newschannel every night
>>anyway from 8:00 to 10:00 pm starting with O'Reilly and then Hannity &
>>Colmes which follows immediately.

>>But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
>>misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
>>vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
>>the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
>>the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.

>Tell us about it, Tarver. Or was it Mazor, or Dweebbel. ****-eating bogus.

Oh yeah, and after we clean up the Middle East situation, perhaps
your rotten-to-the-core homeland of South Africa (which competes with
civil war-torn Colombia for the dubious distinction of being the
world’s most crime-ridden country) should be next...

[Lawrence Dillard]

"JD" > wrote in message
news:nPQWb.15337$jk2.51376@attbi_s53...
> The Washington Times
> www.washingtontimes.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SNIP

> Published February 11, 2004
>
> 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
> George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
> Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
> 1971.
SNIP

Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.

> It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and
> Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping
his
> military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
> during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
> National Guardsmen are finding out today.

With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link his
service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called to
serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards in
the years since the ending of the Cold War.

If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
> not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert
> S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the
Guard
> and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
> only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
> community's attention.

They were right about that, certainly. But furthrmore, it made sense only to
call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

>SNIP

> If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
> squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and
> conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in
> the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
> squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots
be
> available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional
> reservists with outside employment.

GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do either
with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part and
parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record" on
this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an elected
Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
Center, Denver, CO).

SNIP

> Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
> environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
> reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months'
basic
> training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
> weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
McNamara
> were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge
for
> many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
> There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid
> the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
> members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant
up
> to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of
> mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt.
> Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
> through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival
> training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to
nine
> months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he
was
> even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure
> weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which
> you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding
> service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or was
involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take the
required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time, included
drug-testing. GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a "sentence"
to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.

> The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at
> any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots
> were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our
> Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt.
Bush's
> tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
> was risking one's life.

Unfortunately, for some twelve to eighteen months during his enlistment, GWB
inexplicably did not fly, although he apparently had taken to military
aviation "like a duck to water" and apparently flew the F-102 with elan. In
fact, GQB apparently missed a great many days of required military reserve
duty during that time.

> Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
> McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush
> abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
> authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
> Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was
> excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and
> later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.

Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served, among
other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO. Members of the NG
are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could GWB
have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something else
entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG toward
required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately six
months' later than that given by NGB.

SNIP two paragraphs

> Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt.
Bush
> twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for
a
> required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the
> exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in
> Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
> First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in
> reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for
> their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
> weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the
Reserves,
> it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of
> reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
> individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
> If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
> physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the
> Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special
part
> of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because
of
> its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not
> confront a drug user.

Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we should
continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush never
took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior to
the time such was done in the active USAF.

> Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado"
to
> which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in
Denver
> is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a
specific
> unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm
> "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
> discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
> wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or
> court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt.
Bush's
> performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in
> The Washington Post in 2000.

Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about 1973.
ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for disciplinary
measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of the
service as well as inside.

> Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
> slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career
> parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a
guardsman,
> I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of
> the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such
> people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I
> served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in
> crashes flying air-defense missions.

During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective sea-change
in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its preparation
and readiness for active service. The Colonel was perhaps lucky in being
able to stay the course and experience those changes. What some find
troublesome is that GWB suggests that his service was directly comparable to
today's N-Guardsmens', which clearly it was not. (Nor apparently, was it
equivalent to the Colonel's, as the Colonel demonstrates that he took his
own role seriously and served through thick and thin). In that case, who
slanders whom? Is it appropriate for our President to wrap his service in
the same mantle as that of comtemporary, dedicated guardsmen who have been
called to active duty, if his own service was not in most ways comparable?

SNIP remainder

IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding from
aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his assignment
to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--), his community service commitment in
Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between dates
of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need not
be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
(informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
second term.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> wrote:

> Published February 11, 2004
>>
> > 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
>> George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
>> Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
>> 1971.
>SNIP
>
> Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
>Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.

The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
choice not an obligation.
>
>With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
>ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
>service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link his
>service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called to
>serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards in
>the years since the ending of the Cold War.

Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

>They were right about that, certainly. But furthrmore, it made sense only to
>call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."
>
>GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do either
>with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part and
>parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
>cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record" on
>this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an elected
>Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
>enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
>separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
>separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
>Center, Denver, CO).

By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.

The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.
>
>What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
>flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or was
>involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take the
>required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time, included
>drug-testing. GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
>PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a "sentence"
>to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.

First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.
>
>Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served, among
>other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO. Members of the NG
>are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could GWB
>have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something else
>entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG toward
>required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately six
>months' later than that given by NGB.

Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
office complex. That's its job.
>
>Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we should
>continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush never
>took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
>notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior to
>the time such was done in the active USAF.

That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.
>
>
>Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about 1973.
>ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
>inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for disciplinary
>measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of the
>service as well as inside.

Some have "suggested" that drawing conclusions on what might be and
what could have happened is the exercise of spin doctors.
>
>During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective sea-change
>in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its preparation
>and readiness for active service. The Colonel was perhaps lucky in being
>able to stay the course and experience those changes. What some find
>troublesome is that GWB suggests that his service was directly comparable to
>today's N-Guardsmens', which clearly it was not. (Nor apparently, was it
>equivalent to the Colonel's, as the Colonel demonstrates that he took his
>own role seriously and served through thick and thin). In that case, who
>slanders whom? Is it appropriate for our President to wrap his service in
>the same mantle as that of comtemporary, dedicated guardsmen who have been
>called to active duty, if his own service was not in most ways comparable?

Show me someone who has survived the training environment of UPT
(where I was an instructor for 4 years), who has handled the multiple
survival courses required of an aircrew (which I am familiar with),
who has qualified in a Century Series SE/SS fighter and performed
operationally, even without combat, and they will have my respect.
>
>SNIP remainder
>
>IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
>explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding from
>aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his assignment
>to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--), his community service commitment in
>Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between dates
>of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need not
>be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
>(informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
>second term.

You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
seek answers. The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
you believe any of them?


>
>

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JD" > wrote in message
> news:nPQWb.15337$jk2.51376@attbi_s53...
> > The Washington Times
> > www.washingtontimes.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --
> SNIP
>
> > Published February 11, 2004
> >
> > 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
> > George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
> > Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
> > 1971.
> SNIP
>
> Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
> Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.

Uhmmm...the quote says during 1970 and 1971; I don't think anyone is
claiming GWB did not indeed serve during that period.

>
> > It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left
and
> > Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping
> his
> > military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
> > during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
> > National Guardsmen are finding out today.
>
> With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
> ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
> service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link his
> service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called to
> serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards
in
> the years since the ending of the Cold War.

Balderdash. The first four F-100 groups called up during 1968 were certified
as combat ready before they were even activated. The three tactical recon
groups only required around a month after activation to be ready for
deployment. An additional two F-100 squadrons were subsequently called up
that same year. Other ANG units were also activated, for a total of about
eleven thousand personnel. Check out the actual history of the ANG before
you try to make such claims. The only thing that stood between
earlier/larger call-ups was LBJ's false impression that major reserve
mobilization would hurt support for the war--the JCS had asked for
mobilization well before 1968 and been denied. Politicians are fickle
creatures--LBJ could just have easily done an earlier about-face and
mobilized an even greater number of reserve units.

>
> If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
> > not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
Robert
> > S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the
> Guard
> > and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
> > only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
> > community's attention.
>
> They were right about that, certainly.

Then one wonders why the military as a whole, and the Army in particular,
retooled after the war to make sure that no future major combat operations
would be conducted *without* such mobilization. The proof is in the
pudding--with a large number of reservists and guardsmen currently mobilized
and deployed, the support for the war continues to remain pretty strong.

But furthrmore, it made sense only to
> call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

Odd then that a number of units called up by both the Army and Air Force in
1968 went to environs other than Vietnam.

>
> >SNIP
>
> > If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
> > squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and
> > conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change
in
> > the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
> > squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots
> be
> > available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time
traditional
> > reservists with outside employment.
>
> GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do
either
> with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part
and
> parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
> cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record"
on
> this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an
elected
> Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
> enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
> separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
> separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
> Center, Denver, CO).

More innuendo, and nothing to back up any claim that he did not indeed
fulfill his duty requirements.

>
> SNIP
>
> > Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
> > environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
> > reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months'
> basic
> > training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
> > weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
> McNamara
> > were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge
> for
> > many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
> > There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to
avoid
> > the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
> > members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty
meant
> up
> > to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability
of
> > mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as
Lt.
> > Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
> > through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival
> > training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to
> nine
> > months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he
> was
> > even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure
> > weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to
which
> > you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam.
Avoiding
> > service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
>
> What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
> flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or was
> involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take the
> required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,
included
> drug-testing.

Drug testing did not enter into the pale until the eighties; where are you
getting this stuff? And being as he was not with his unit (i.e., splitting
with that ALANG outfit) during the time he was scheduled to receive his
physical, it is understandable why he did not get one. Big deal.

GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
> PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a
"sentence"
> to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.

Ahh. More "suggestions", huh? Let's see, we have one former President who
*acknowledged* using illegal narcotics and never receiving any legal
punishment, but methinks you would excuse that rather quickly--but innuendo
and "suggestions" suffice to condemn GWB, right? Double standard much?

>
> > The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation
at
> > any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such
pilots
> > were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our
> > Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt.
> Bush's
> > tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing
F-102s
> > was risking one's life.
>
> Unfortunately, for some twelve to eighteen months during his enlistment,
GWB
> inexplicably did not fly, although he apparently had taken to military
> aviation "like a duck to water" and apparently flew the F-102 with elan.
In
> fact, GQB apparently missed a great many days of required military reserve
> duty during that time.

Which he made up; not unusual, as the writer of the letter, who actually
served in a similar role, indicates; and your expertise in contradicting his
claims is based upon...?

>
> > Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
> > McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt.
Bush
> > abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
> > authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
> > Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was
> > excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and
> > later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
>
> Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,
among
> other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO.

Disciplinary unit my butt. Where do you get these notions? I was briefly
assigned to the Army counterpart to that organization in 1988 following my
departure from active duty while I was awaiting orders assigning me to what
became my Guard unit--was I being "disciplined"? Nope. And ge whiz, guess
what? Just like GWB, the admin buffons lost track of me--six months after I
had received my orders and been drilling with my Guard unit, I got a letter
from ARPERSCEN informing me that I had to report to the nearest USAR
facility to update my records as part of my IRR obligation, and warning me
of dire consequences if I failed to do so--so much for the infallibility of
military duty staus tracking.

Members of the NG
> are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could
GWB
> have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something else
> entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG toward
> required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately
six
> months' later than that given by NGB.

More unsupported innuendo...now it is "among other reasons", huh? Your
claims hold about as much water as those the Kerry camp has been flinging
about lately.

>
> SNIP two paragraphs
>
> > Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt.
> Bush
> > twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report
for
> a
> > required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the
> > exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit
in
> > Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
> > First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in
> > reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled
for
> > their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
> > weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the
> Reserves,
> > it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety
of
> > reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
> > individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
> > If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
> > physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by
the
> > Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special
> part
> > of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use
because
> of
> > its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not
> > confront a drug user.
>
> Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we should
> continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush never
> took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
> notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior to
> the time such was done in the active USAF.

Bullcrap. Provide proof that the ANG instituted drug testing in 1972. You
are the one wanting to claim the writer, a retired ANG officer, does not
know what he is talking about, so either provide some proof; something
beyond "suggestions", I might add.

>
> > Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado"
> to
> > which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in
> Denver
> > is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a
> specific
> > unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess
I'm
> > "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
> > discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
> > wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction
or
> > court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt.
> Bush's
> > performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed
in
> > The Washington Post in 2000.
>
> Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about
1973.
> ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
> inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for
disciplinary
> measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of
the
> service as well as inside.

Neatly sidestepped the author's refutation of your repeated "disciplinary
unit" crap, didn't you?

>
> > Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
> > slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career
> > parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a
> guardsman,
> > I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense
of
> > the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such
> > people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I
> > served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died
in
> > crashes flying air-defense missions.
>
> During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective
sea-change
> in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its preparation
> and readiness for active service.

Korea--major activations in the ANG. Berlin Crisis--major activations in the
ANG. Vietnam--significant activations and deployment to Vietnam (and Korea,
where things were none too nice in 1968). The facts seem to disprove your
claims.

<snip>

>
> IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
> explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding from
> aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his assignment
> to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--),

There is that "discplinary unit" crap again...

his community service commitment in
> Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between
dates
> of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need not
> be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
> (informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
> second term.

It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon the
outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and innuendo
that you base your argument upon.

Brooks

>
>
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
>
> But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
> misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
> vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
> the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
> the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.

Invading Afghanistan, the nation that harbored more Al Queda members
incljuding bin Laden, than any other was a good start.

Invading Iraq, the nation that harbored fewer than any other Arab
nation, perhaps NONE, had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept 11,
2001. Indeed, the evidence is that those attacks delayed the war
with Iraq by a year.

There were a lot of good reasons to invade Iraq but the attacks of
Sept 11, 2001 were not among them. The resources we have tied
down in the occupation of Iraq are not available to hunt down Al
Queda.

If, as you say, "Dubya plans on finishing what the cowardly
terrorists started on 9/11." he'd better get back to it soon
because he may have less than a year left to get the job done,
and it's a job he put on hold for over a year ago.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>
> ..
>
> Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
> conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
> were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
> Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
> combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
time did NOT go to Vietnam.

It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
> number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
> Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.
>

Yup. And what's wrong with that?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > ..
> >
> > Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
> > conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
> > were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
> > Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
> > combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.
>
> I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
> CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
> guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
> total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
> time did NOT go to Vietnam.

I'd guess CNN is (again) wrong when it comes to things military. The total
number of Guardsmen mobilized was about twenty-three thousand (not including
previous and later volunteers for programs like Palace Alert), and the ARNG
alone sent over seven thousand personnel to Vietnam, either in units or as
individual fillers. I am not sure what the total manpower was for the ANG,
but with four ANG fighter squadrons (and their attendant support units from
their peacetime groups) in-country, and providing the bulk of the pilots for
another active component F-100 unit, we can safely assume it was well over
one thousand personnel. Not including the various Palace Alert personnel
rotations. And not including the numerous ANG/USAFR transport sorties into
the country.

Why do you focus on the issue of how many Guardsmen were mobilized or
deployed? The fact is that Guardsmen did serve in the conflict, from both
the air and ground sides. Folks like Bush had no say as to whether their
unit would be activated and deployed, or for that matter what kind of
aircraft their unit would fly or what its mission was. Is the isssue you are
concerned with relative danger? If so, I'd encourage you to tally up the
total number of US personnel who served in-country, or flew missions into
Vietnam from the immediate surroundings, throughout the conflict, and
balance that against the number of KIA. Then take a gander at the number of
fatalities sustained by single engine high performance jet pilots during
training/non-combat operations versus the number of such pilots, and tell us
which is higher. Based upon the comments from COL Campenni's letter to the
editor, I would not be surprised if the latter was just as dangerous as the
former when viewed against their respective total populations.

>
> It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
> number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
> Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.

After 1969 that was not necessarily true, courtesy of the Vietnamization
policy. I believe the ground force drawdown started really rolling in 1970,
and by the time of the NVA's '72 Easter Offensive the US ground presence was
pretty darned small.

Brooks

>
> --
>
> FF

[Peter Stickney]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message >...
> "JD" > wrote in message
> news:nPQWb.15337$jk2.51376@attbi_s53...
> > The Washington Times
> > www.washingtontimes.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> SNIP
>
> > Published February 11, 2004
> >
> > 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
> > George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
> > Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
> > 1971.
> SNIP
>
> Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
> Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.
>
> > It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and
> > Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping
> his
> > military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
> > during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
> > National Guardsmen are finding out today.
>
> With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
> ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
> service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link his
> service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called to
> serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards in
> the years since the ending of the Cold War.

Nope, Sorry. That's completely incorrect.
Air National Guard Fighter-Interceptor Squadrons not only had to
train to the same standards of Combat Readines as their Regular
Air Force counterparts, they had also, since 1954, been standing
the same Zulu Alert commitments aas the regulars as well. They
were an integral part of Air Defence Command's (ADTAC, later on)
force structure. Since the early 1960s, in fact, with the drawdown
in Regular Air Force Air Defence assets, they had been the majority
of the full-time Air Defences of the Continental U.S.. Essentially,
the Air Guard Fighter Interceptor Squadrons were, since 1954,
already called up for Federal Service, acting under Air FOrce orders,
and integrated into the Air Force command structure.
And they didn't take a back seat to anybody. Air Guard units
consistantly won or placed highly in their categories at the
William Tell Fighter Weapons Competitions.

SNIP - Much stuff unrealted.
> During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective sea-change
> in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its preparation
> and readiness for active service.

That's also certainly not the case. All you have to do is look at
the record:
During the Berlin Crisis of 1961, many National Guard units were
called up. Withing 2 weeks of callup, an Air Guard Tactical Fighter
Wing, with a combat element of 3 Tactical Fighter Squadrons of F-86Hs
re-opened Phalsbourg AB, France.
3 more Tactical Fighter Squadrons of F-84Fs operated from the
re-activated Chaumont AB, Toul-Rosieres AB, and Chambley AB.
A Tactical Recon Squadron flying F-84Fs deplowed to Dreux AB.
2 Air Guard FIghter Interceptor Squadrons, flying F-104As,
deployed to Ramstein AB. A further FIS, also with the F-104A,
deployed to Moron AB, Spain. The F-84Fs sat Victor Alert, which
is runway alert with pilots in the cockpits, and nuclear weapons
loaded.

Stateside, 3 Tactical Fighter Wings, (3 Squadrons each), and
a Tactical Reconnaisance Wing were activated, as well as
8 Heavy Air Transport Squadrons, which flew global airlift
missions from their home bases. All of these units were
activated for more than 1 year.

Note that during the Cuban Misssile Crisis, no Air Guard
Fighter-Interceptor units were called up. They didn't have
to be - they were already on alert.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, noting the shortfall of
the Military Air Transport Service's ability to meet its
commitments, Air Guard Air Transport Squadrons (Military
Airlift Squadrons after Jan 1966, when MAC was formed)
volunteered to fly as part of the regular MAC rotation.
This usually meant hauling stuff to Viet Nam or Thailand.
(In fact, the first Air Rescue Service helicopters to deploy
to Southest Asia went out on Air Guard C-97s).

Air Guard transport units also provided aircraft and crews to
various Non-Governmental Organizations (International Red Cross,
World Church Aid, etc.) flying humanitarian flights into the trouble
spots in Africa and Asia, such as Biafra.

Air guard units participated in the Dominican Republic airdrops
in 1965.

During the Pueblo Crisis of 1968, Air Guard units were also
called up. Tactical Fighter units flying F-100s deplowed to
Viet Nam and Korea, and a Tactical Reconnaisance Wing with
RF-101s deployed to Japan. Palace Guard, which placed
Air Guard pilots in active units worldwide has already been
mentioned.

Not much of a "Sea Change" there, at least for the
Air National Guard.

--
Pete Stickney

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:04:28 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> During that entire time,
>you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
>light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
>can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

Nicely said. May I quote it?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
>number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
>Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.

Or went to law school :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>>
>> ..
>>
>> Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
>> conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
>> were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
>> Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
>> combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.
>
>I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
>CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
>guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
>total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
>time did NOT go to Vietnam.

I don't have a number to refute that, but I'm fairly confident that
the number of guardsmen over the ten years of conflict that served in
Vietnam would greatly exceed 8,000.

One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
maintaining operational readiness.

How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did
NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to
do with anything?
>
>It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
>number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
>Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.

If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the
Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he
didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go.

Fact is, it isn't cowardice or dodging to take a commission in the
ANG, go to UPT, fly single-seat, single engine fighters for several
years if you don't have to. It's a pretty commendable act.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 17:46:15 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:04:28 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>> During that entire time,
>>you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
>>light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
>>can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.
>
>Nicely said. May I quote it?

Absolutely! It's one of my favorite memories of a life well lived.
Walking away from the "big iron", turning back at the beast and
thinking, "she coulda killed me." It's a damn good feeling.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Keith Willshaw]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> Mike Marron > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
> > misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
> > vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
> > the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
> > the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.
>
> Invading Afghanistan, the nation that harbored more Al Queda members
> incljuding bin Laden, than any other was a good start.
>
> Invading Iraq, the nation that harbored fewer than any other Arab
> nation, perhaps NONE, had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept 11,
> 2001. Indeed, the evidence is that those attacks delayed the war
> with Iraq by a year.
>

Hmm

At least 2 terrorist groups were based in Iraq and had active
support from the Iraqi government

Abu Nidal ran one and the other was Ansar Al Islam believed
to be associated with Al Qaeda

It may be that these groups didnt have an active part in the
events of Sept 11 but they certainly qualify as terrorist groups.

Keith

[Moose]

Hi Gang

Here's a list of F-100 Super Sabre-equipped Air National Guard units that
were activated and served overseas in Viet Nam. Two other Super
Sabre-equipped A.N.G. units served in Korea as well. While two more were
called to active duty to serve in CONUS to cover for active duty units that
were deployed to Southeast Asia.

120th TFS
*********
Home Base - Buckley Denver, Colorado
Activated in January 1968
Overseas Assignment - Phan Rang Air Base, Republic of Viet Nam
Personnel Deployed - 900 personnel
Deactivation Date - 30th of April 1969
*** Note: The 120th TFS entered combat on the 5th of May 1968, just two
days after its arrival in country. It completed its 1,000 mission fifty-one
days later.

174th TFS
*********
Home Base - Sioux City, Iowa
Activated in January 1968
Overseas Assignment - Phu Cat Air Base, Republic of Viet Nam
Personnel Deployed - 853 personnel
Deactivation Date - 28th of May 1969

188th TFS
*********
Home Base - Albuquerque, New Mexico
Activated - January 1968
Overseas Assignment - Tuy Hoa Air Base, Republic of Viet Nam
Personnel Deployed - 831 personnel
Deactivation Date - 4th of June 1969

136th TFS
*********
Home Base - Niagara Falls, New York
Activated in January 1968
Overseas Assignment - Tuy Hoa Air Base, Republic of Viet Nam
Personnel Deployed - 811 personnel
Deactivation Date - 11th of June 1969

** Pilots from these four squadrons flew 24, 124 sorties and 38, 614 combat
hours. If you include the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron whose ranks were
predominately personnel of the Air National Guard, then the above totals
rise to approximately 30,000 sorties and 50,000 combat hours. Air National
Guard losses included 14 aircraft, 7 pilots and 1 intelligence officer
serving as an observer.

In 1973, Air Force Chief of Staff, General George S. Brown made this quote
when talking of the A.N.G. squadrons in Viet Nam.

"I had.five F-100 Air Nation Guard squadrons.These were the five best in the
field. The aircrews were a little older, but they were more experienced,
and the maintenance people were also more experienced than the regular
units. They had done the same work on the same weapon systems for years,
and they had [personnel] stability that a regular unit doesn't have."


Cheers.Chris

[dougdrivr]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
> >I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
> >CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
> >guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
> >total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
> >time did NOT go to Vietnam.
>
> I don't have a number to refute that, but I'm fairly confident that
> the number of guardsmen over the ten years of conflict that served in
> Vietnam would greatly exceed 8,000.

This sounds more like the number of casualties that were ARNG to me.


> One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
> While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
> AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
> maintaining operational readiness.

Explain that remark about being notorious?

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> > wrote:
Snip

> >SNIP
> >
> > Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
> >Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.
>
> The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
> obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
> choice not an obligation.

The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but whether
GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
while not performing is reserve function.

> >
> >With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
> >ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
> >service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link
his
> >service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called
to
> >serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards
in
> >the years since the ending of the Cold War.
>
> Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
> conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
> were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
> Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
> combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my
meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted
the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have emphasized
that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his
type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for their
services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand
comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected.

>
> >They were right about that, certainly. But furthrmore, it made sense only
to
> >call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.
>
> There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
> operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
> inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."

Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no longer
in great demand in the war zone.

> >
> >GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do
either
> >with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part
and
> >parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
> >cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record"
on
> >this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an
elected
> >Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
> >enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
> >separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
> >separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
> >Center, Denver, CO).
>
> By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
> for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
> reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
> of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
> time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.

Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to
make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have seen
no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG.

>
> The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
> in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
> within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.

I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at hand:
whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was
legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller" who
performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to boot.

> >
> >What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
> >flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or
was
> >involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take
the
> >required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,
included
> >drug-testing. GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based
Project
> >PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a
"sentence"
> >to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.
>
> First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
> training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
> you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
> light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
> can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the
intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the
issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972) after
going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded from
TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty
after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712). It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
other things, disciplinary reasons. Neither drills nor attendance were
required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in
question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official
duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three years
(approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no
service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years of
his commitment.

>
> Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
> public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
> level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
> with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.

Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are
Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to
learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had taken
on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a
powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's work
with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than
standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program
seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe at
some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy.
Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made
that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became
concerned.

> >
> >Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,
among
> >other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO. Members of the
NG
> >are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could
GWB
> >have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something
else
> >entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG toward
> >required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately
six
> >months' later than that given by NGB.
>
> Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
> aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
> imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
> office complex. That's its job.

ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always
encompass eithere physical restraint or custody.

> >
> >Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we should
> >continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush
never
> >took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
> >notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior to
> >the time such was done in the active USAF.
>
> That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.


Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances can
be revealed by flight physicals.
So, when did TANG institute drug-testing?

> >Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about
1973.
> >ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
> >inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for
disciplinary
> >measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of
the
> >service as well as inside.
>
> Some have "suggested" that drawing conclusions on what might be and
> what could have happened is the exercise of spin doctors.

In any event, a clean copy of at least one redacted file (the partially torn
document) has become available; an ARF document detailing GWB's guard
activity in 1972-1973, which first entry is for October. It does not deal
with either TANG or ANG service, but with ARF. I don't recall having drawn
any conclusions or having attempted to place any sort of "spin" on any
thing.

> >
> >During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective
sea-change
> >in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its
preparation
> >and readiness for active service. The Colonel was perhaps lucky in being
> >able to stay the course and experience those changes. What some find
> >troublesome is that GWB suggests that his service was directly comparable
to
> >today's N-Guardsmens', which clearly it was not. (Nor apparently, was it
> >equivalent to the Colonel's, as the Colonel demonstrates that he took his
> >own role seriously and served through thick and thin). In that case, who
> >slanders whom? Is it appropriate for our President to wrap his service in
> >the same mantle as that of comtemporary, dedicated guardsmen who have
been
> >called to active duty, if his own service was not in most ways
comparable?
>
> Show me someone who has survived the training environment of UPT
> (where I was an instructor for 4 years), who has handled the multiple
> survival courses required of an aircrew (which I am familiar with),
> who has qualified in a Century Series SE/SS fighter and performed
> operationally, even without combat, and they will have my respect.

No argument here. But does your respect for such a person extend to a period
of time in which no actual service appears to have been performed but for
which the principal nonetheless was paid, and during which time no clear
record of his activities emerged, for such a long time?

> >
> >SNIP remainder
> >
> >IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
> >explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding
from
> >aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his
assignment
> >to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--), his community service commitment in
> >Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between
dates
> >of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need
not
> >be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
> >(informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
> >second term.
>
> You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
> seek answers.

Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the rumors
or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware of
them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My motivation
is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President
can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I
value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be.

The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
> provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
> you believe any of them?

The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the
ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable is
other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.

BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article
focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been terribly
concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged
use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
> >>
> >> ..
> >>
> >> Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
> >> conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
> >> were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
> >> Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
> >> combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.
> >
> >I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
> >CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
> >guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
> >total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
> >time did NOT go to Vietnam.
>
> I don't have a number to refute that, but I'm fairly confident that
> the number of guardsmen over the ten years of conflict that served in
> Vietnam would greatly exceed 8,000.
>
> One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
> While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
> AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
> maintaining operational readiness.

What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush
up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who
deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost
*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about
pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing
through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel
it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG
look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were
given in that conflict.

Brooks

<snip stuff I agree with>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Or went to law school :)
>

Not after February 1968.

[B2431]

>From: "Lawrence Dillard"

.. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
>issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
>refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.
>

Documents have been provided about his service. During the 2000 election cycle
Bush repeatedly denied using cocaine. What more do you want?

Did you ask similar questions about clinton's administration? He did sign up
for ROTC. He did promise to show for duty. He confessed to a drug felony
(possesion of marijuana was a felony when he tried it) remember " I only tried
it twice, didn't inhale and didn't like it?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
> ...
SNIP

> > SNIP
> >
> > > Published February 11, 2004
> > >
> > > 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
> > > George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
> > > Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970
to
> > > 1971.

> > SNIP
> >
> > Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of the
> > Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.
>
> Uhmmm...the quote says during 1970 and 1971; I don't think anyone is
> claiming GWB did not indeed serve during that period.

Agreed. The controversy has to do with GWB's activities after that time. The
Colonel carried on for ears afterward, whereas it has been alleged that GWB
did not and was nonetheless paid as if he were fulfilling his obligatiion.

> >
> > > It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left
> and
> > > Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush
escaping
> > his
> > > military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
> > > during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many
Air
> > > National Guardsmen are finding out today.
> >
> > With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to
today's
> > ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with
active
> > service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link
his
> > service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called
to
> > serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the
Guards
> in
> > the years since the ending of the Cold War.
>
> Balderdash. The first four F-100 groups called up during 1968 were
certified
> as combat ready before they were even activated. The three tactical recon
> groups only required around a month after activation to be ready for
> deployment. An additional two F-100 squadrons were subsequently called up
> that same year. Other ANG units were also activated, for a total of about
> eleven thousand personnel. Check out the actual history of the ANG before
> you try to make such claims.

Let's try to keep to the topic, which is whether GWB fulfilled his
commitment to serve or not.

SNIP

> > If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
> > > not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
> Robert
> > > S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the
> > Guard
> > > and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a
draftee
> > > only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a
whole
> > > community's attention.
> >
> > They were right about that, certainly.
>
> Then one wonders why the military as a whole, and the Army in particular,
> retooled after the war to make sure that no future major combat operations
> would be conducted *without* such mobilization.

No need to wonder. A buck doesn't go as far as it used to. pgrading reserve
componenets and making them more fo an integral part of the active forces
simply made good fiscal sense, among other things.

The proof is in the
> pudding--with a large number of reservists and guardsmen currently
mobilized
> and deployed, the support for the war continues to remain pretty strong.

Agreed. Most if not all reserve components are now of high-quality. As
planned.

> But furthrmore, it made sense only to
> > call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.
>
> Odd then that a number of units called up by both the Army and Air Force
in
> 1968 went to environs other than Vietnam.

Based upon their operational readiness, of course. Was TANG ever called up
during those years?

> > >SNIP
> >
> > > If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
> > > squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations
and
> > > conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a
change
> in
> > > the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
> > > squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more
pilots
> > be
> > > available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time
> traditional
> > > reservists with outside employment.
> >
> > GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do
> either
> > with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part
> and
> > parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
> > cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record"
> on
> > this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an
> elected
> > Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
> > enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
> > separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
> > separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
> > Center, Denver, CO).
>
> More innuendo, and nothing to back up any claim that he did not indeed
> fulfill his duty requirements.

Not really. There must be a logical reason, for example, for the discrepancy
in official separation dates. The controversy is furthermore over the
location of and the duties performed by GWB for some time before May, 1972,
because on May 2 of that, the same day, during which GWB is said to have
reported for drill, his superiors (Ellington AFB) concluded that they could
not render a useful evaluation of GWB because they had not seen him for
several months.

> > SNIP

> > > Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
> > > environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
> > > reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months'
> > basic
> > > training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with
two
> > > weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
> > McNamara
> > > were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of
refuge
> > for
> > > many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
> > > There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to
> avoid
> > > the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
> > > members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty
> meant
> > up
> > > to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability
> of
> > > mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as
> Lt.
> > > Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
> > > through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year),
survival
> > > training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to
> > nine
> > > months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before
he
> > was
> > > even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you
sure
> > > weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to
> which
> > > you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam.
> Avoiding
> > > service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

> > What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
> > flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or
was
> > involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take
the
> > required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,
> included drug-testing.

> Drug testing did not enter into the pale until the eighties; where are you
> getting this stuff? And being as he was not with his unit (i.e., splitting
> with that ALANG outfit) during the time he was scheduled to receive his
> physical, it is understandable why he did not get one. Big deal.

Well, possibly yes, a Big Deal. There is still considerable confusion as to
whether GWB did actually ransfer to AlaANG and what duties he performed, as
well as an apparent timing overlap with his community service with Project
PULL in a youth center in Houston's ghetto. (That service was important to
me in deciding how to cast my vote, as it seemed to show an unusual
willingness to give personally of himself, at perhaps some personal risk, in
contrast to merely making a donation. I personally gave Mr Bush high marks
for integrity based on the nature of that service).
>
> GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
> > PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a
> "sentence"
> > to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.
>
> Ahh. More "suggestions", huh? Let's see, we have one former President who
> *acknowledged* using illegal narcotics and never receiving any legal
> punishment, but methinks you would excuse that rather quickly--but
innuendo
> and "suggestions" suffice to condemn GWB, right? Double standard much?

You think wrongly. I have never used or condoned the use of narcotics, even
of so-called "recreational" drugs. Where did you get the mistaken impression
that I condemn Pres Bush?

> >
> > > The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation
> at
> > > any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such
> pilots
> > > were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas.
Our
> > > Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt.
> > Bush's
> > > tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing
> F-102s
> > > was risking one's life.
> >
> > Unfortunately, for some twelve to eighteen months during his enlistment,
> GWB
> > inexplicably did not fly, although he apparently had taken to military
> > aviation "like a duck to water" and apparently flew the F-102 with elan.
> In
> > fact, GQB apparently missed a great many days of required military
reserve
> > duty during that time.
>
> Which he made up; not unusual, as the writer of the letter, who actually
> served in a similar role, indicates; and your expertise in contradicting
his
> claims is based upon...?

Based upon the fragments of the (until recent days) incomplete record of
GWB's TANG, AlaANG and ARPC/ARF service. I have made no claim to any
especial "expertise".

> >
> > > Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
> > > McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt.
> Bush
> > > abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
> > > authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
> > > Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush
was
> > > excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman
and
> > > later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
> >
> > Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,
> among
> > other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO.
>
> Disciplinary unit my butt. Where do you get these notions? I was briefly
> assigned to the Army counterpart to that organization in 1988 following my
> departure from active duty while I was awaiting orders assigning me to
what
> became my Guard unit--was I being "disciplined"? Nope. And ge whiz, guess
> what? Just like GWB, the admin buffons lost track of me--six months after
I
> had received my orders and been drilling with my Guard unit, I got a
letter
> from ARPERSCEN informing me that I had to report to the nearest USAR
> facility to update my records as part of my IRR obligation, and warning me
> of dire consequences if I failed to do so--so much for the infallibility
of
> military duty staus tracking.

Agreed. Hence, I believe that the President can and should put an end to the
controversies by releasing all pertinent documents and letting the public
decide its feelings and beliefs on the issues.

> Members of the NG
> > are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could
> GWB
> > have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something
else
> > entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG
toward
> > required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately
> six
> > months' later than that given by NGB.
>
> More unsupported innuendo...now it is "among other reasons", huh? Your
> claims hold about as much water as those the Kerry camp has been flinging
> about lately.

Thank you for your kind comments. But if you will re-read my earlier post,
you will discover that I used the qualifying phrase, where appropriate, more
than once. Pleas also recall that discipline can be accomplished without
placing one in custody or otherwise physically restraining him. The
"disciplinary" part comes into play because ARFs can be called to active
duty in the military (theoretically, at least). GWB was not in fact called
up, but the Damoclean Sword was nonetheless there.

> >
> > SNIP two paragraphs
> >
> > > Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG,
Lt.
> > Bush
> > > twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report
> for
> > a
> > > required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of
the
> > > exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary
unit
> in
> > > Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
> > > First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders
in
> > > reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled
> for
> > > their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
> > > weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the
> > Reserves,
> > > it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a
variety
> of
> > > reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
> > > individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
> > > If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
> > > physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by
> the
> > > Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a
special
> > part
> > > of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use
> because
> > of
> > > its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot,
not
> > > confront a drug user.
> >
> > Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we
should
> > continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush
never
> > took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
> > notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior
to
> > the time such was done in the active USAF.
>
> Bullcrap. Provide proof that the ANG instituted drug testing in 1972. You
> are the one wanting to claim the writer, a retired ANG officer, does not
> know what he is talking about, so either provide some proof; something
> beyond "suggestions", I might add.

I am not the person who made the suggestions or initiated the innuendo.
Please keep that fact in mind. Why don't you inquire as to whether TANG
institute drug testing in its flight physicals prior to July, 1972, the time
when GWB failed to report for his flight physical? I am willing, certainly
to accept corrrection on the matter if such is indicated.

> >
> > > Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in
Colorado"
> > to
> > > which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in
> > Denver
> > > is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a
> > specific
> > > unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess
> I'm
> > > "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
> > > discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group
or
> > > wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an
infraction
> or
> > > court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt.
> > Bush's
> > > performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed
> in
> > > The Washington Post in 2000.

GWB was suspended (grounded) from flight activity in August, 1972, for
having failed to take his required examination, a suspension which was
officially recorded on September 29 of that year. He began to receive ARF
credits from October of that year. But neither drills nor attendance were
required. GWB's TANG records appear to indicate he performed no actual
duties after May, 1972. ARF "duty" is not considered as official duty by
TANG.
> >
> > Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about
> 1973.
> > ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
> > inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for
> disciplinary
> > measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of
> the
> > service as well as inside.
>
> Neatly sidestepped the author's refutation of your repeated "disciplinary
> unit" crap, didn't you?

The Colonel did not refute anything I wrote. My post was in response to his.
Please keep that in mind.

> >
> > > Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
> > > slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard
career
> > > parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a
> > guardsman,
> > > I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense
> of
> > > the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by
such
> > > people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom
I
> > > served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they
died
> in
> > > crashes flying air-defense missions.
> >
> > During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective
> sea-change
> > in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its
preparation
> > and readiness for active service.
>
> Korea--major activations in the ANG. Berlin Crisis--major activations in
the
> ANG. Vietnam--significant activations and deployment to Vietnam (and
Korea,
> where things were none too nice in 1968). The facts seem to disprove your
> claims.

I should have made it clear that my comments were in reply to the Colonel's
own description of TANG during the time he served alongside the future
President. Since that time, of course, there have been fundamental changes
in the readiness levels of and integration of the ANGs into the active force
structure.

> <snip>

> >
> > IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
> > explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding
from
> > aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his
assignment
> > to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--),
>
> There is that "discplinary unit" crap again...

Must you characterize comments with which you can't agree as "crap"? Most
undignified.

> his community service commitment in
> > Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between
dates
> > of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need
not
> > be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
> > (informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
> > second term.
>
> It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon the
> outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and innuendo
> that you base your argument upon.

You are so kind. Thanks. To repeat, all I want to have is clear answers.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
> > ...
> SNIP
>
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Published February 11, 2004
> > > >
> > > > 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
> > > > George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
> > > > Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970
> to
> > > > 1971.
>
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of
the
> > > Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.
> >
> > Uhmmm...the quote says during 1970 and 1971; I don't think anyone is
> > claiming GWB did not indeed serve during that period.
>
> Agreed. The controversy has to do with GWB's activities after that time.
The
> Colonel carried on for ears afterward, whereas it has been alleged that
GWB
> did not and was nonetheless paid as if he were fulfilling his obligatiion.

We now have a dental record that proves he was in a duty status in Alabama
during the time in question, along with a former unit member (a fellow LT)
who has vouched that he did indeed drill with the 187th; against that we
have the former commander saying he does not recall seeing him (wow, big
surprise--as if O-5's really met, or knew, some LT who showed up to perform
a few moths of ET drills with their unit...) and a lot of increasingly
shrill refusals to accept any of the above from the parties making the
accusations against Bush. Not exactly hard to see which way the *facts* are
leaning at this point.

>
> > >
> > > > It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the
left
> > and
> > > > Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush
> escaping
> > > his
> > > > military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air
Guard
> > > > during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many
> Air
> > > > National Guardsmen are finding out today.
> > >
> > > With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to
> today's
> > > ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with
> active
> > > service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link
> his
> > > service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be
called
> to
> > > serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the
> Guards
> > in
> > > the years since the ending of the Cold War.
> >
> > Balderdash. The first four F-100 groups called up during 1968 were
> certified
> > as combat ready before they were even activated. The three tactical
recon
> > groups only required around a month after activation to be ready for
> > deployment. An additional two F-100 squadrons were subsequently called
up
> > that same year. Other ANG units were also activated, for a total of
about
> > eleven thousand personnel. Check out the actual history of the ANG
before
> > you try to make such claims.
>
> Let's try to keep to the topic, which is whether GWB fulfilled his
> commitment to serve or not.

If you want to "keep to the topic", why did you waste electrons with your
specious claims about the naturre of the ANG at the time?

>
> SNIP
>
> > > If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
> > > > not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
> > Robert
> > > > S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of
the
> > > Guard
> > > > and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a
> draftee
> > > > only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a
> whole
> > > > community's attention.
> > >
> > > They were right about that, certainly.
> >
> > Then one wonders why the military as a whole, and the Army in
particular,
> > retooled after the war to make sure that no future major combat
operations
> > would be conducted *without* such mobilization.
>
> No need to wonder. A buck doesn't go as far as it used to. pgrading
reserve
> componenets and making them more fo an integral part of the active forces
> simply made good fiscal sense, among other things.

You need to read up on Abrams' "Total Army" program. The foundation for that
program was that never again would the Army deploy for major operations
without having the Guard/Reserve along, not because the active component
wanted the Guard per se, but because they wanted to ensure that a widespread
spectrum of communities from across the nation identified with the effort.
And his philosophy has been proven right during both ODS/ODS and during
OEF/OIF.

>
> The proof is in the
> > pudding--with a large number of reservists and guardsmen currently
> mobilized
> > and deployed, the support for the war continues to remain pretty strong.
>
> Agreed. Most if not all reserve components are now of high-quality. As
> planned.

And what was the "quality" of those seven thousand plus ARNG troops who
deployed to Vietnam in 1968? Or those four plus tactical fighter squadrons?
Pretty darned high, using the standards of the day for our military forces,
active and reserve. I have no doubt that the quality of NG/Reserve units has
indeed improved since then--but so has that of the active components.

>
> > But furthrmore, it made sense only to
> > > call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.
> >
> > Odd then that a number of units called up by both the Army and Air Force
> in
> > 1968 went to environs other than Vietnam.
>
> Based upon their operational readiness, of course. Was TANG ever called up
> during those years?

NO, not "based upon their operational readiness". In fact, two of the ANG
units that went to Korea actually *suffered* a reduction in operational
readiness, since their support elements were not deployed with them--their
aircraft OR rates went down alarmingly at one point. The defining factor in
who-went-where was mission requirements. A number of Guard units ended up in
Korea, since the Pueblo crisis had been the final reason for conducting the
mobilization in the first place, and Korea was a rather nasty flashpoint at
the time (there is a reason that 2nd ID and 7th ID troops serving along the
DMZ got to wear their combat patches--firefights were not uncommon).

>
> > > >SNIP
> > >
> > > > If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
> > > > squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations
> and
> > > > conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a
> change
> > in
> > > > the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a
training
> > > > squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more
> pilots
> > > be
> > > > available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time
> > traditional
> > > > reservists with outside employment.
> > >
> > > GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do
> > either
> > > with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is
part
> > and
> > > parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge
of
> > > cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his
"record"
> > on
> > > this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an
> > elected
> > > Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while
GWB's
> > > enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
> > > separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact,
his
> > > separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve
Personnel
> > > Center, Denver, CO).
> >
> > More innuendo, and nothing to back up any claim that he did not indeed
> > fulfill his duty requirements.
>
> Not really. There must be a logical reason, for example, for the
discrepancy
> in official separation dates.

As Dan Ford has shown quite capably, he did have to make up some drills to
get credit for good years--hardly anything to get wound up about, and not a
completely uncommon experience.

The controversy is furthermore over the
> location of and the duties performed by GWB for some time before May,
1972,
> because on May 2 of that, the same day, during which GWB is said to have
> reported for drill, his superiors (Ellington AFB) concluded that they
could
> not render a useful evaluation of GWB because they had not seen him for
> several months.

Been there, done that. Had an officer from another state take a new job in
our state. he got permission from his chain of command to perform ET with
our unit (we were in the same division, albeit from different states). He
did so for a matter of some months, until he ended up transferring to our
state and unit. His closeout OER shows up from his old unit, and...they
indicated he had been AWOL. A phone call to the unit resulted in them
scrambling around, then getting back to us and saying, "Ooops, one of our
NCO's dropped the ball and did not process the validation certificates that
you did indeed fax to us for each month of ET." They had to cut a corrected
OER on the guy. In this case the officer was lucky in that they at least did
indeed forward him his copy of the initial OER, so that we could catch the
problem. And before you claim this was an isolated example, I myself found
that the Army had failed to credit me with about five months of IDT and a
full two weeks of AT towards my service time--luckily I was able to scramble
up enough supporting documentation to prove otherwise. To summarize, what
you are presenting here is far from being a strong case against him.

>
> > > SNIP
>
> > > > Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
> > > > environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
> > > > reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six
months'
> > > basic
> > > > training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with
> two
> > > > weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr.
> > > McNamara
> > > > were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of
> refuge
> > > for
> > > > many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
> > > > There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to
> > avoid
> > > > the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or
crew
> > > > members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty
> > meant
> > > up
> > > > to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high
probability
> > of
> > > > mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such
as
> > Lt.
> > > > Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty
going
> > > > through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year),
> survival
> > > > training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six
to
> > > nine
> > > > months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before
> he
> > > was
> > > > even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you
> sure
> > > > weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to
> > which
> > > > you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam.
> > Avoiding
> > > > service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
>
> > > What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the
requisite
> > > flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or
> was
> > > involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take
> the
> > > required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,
> > included drug-testing.
>
> > Drug testing did not enter into the pale until the eighties; where are
you
> > getting this stuff? And being as he was not with his unit (i.e.,
splitting
> > with that ALANG outfit) during the time he was scheduled to receive his
> > physical, it is understandable why he did not get one. Big deal.
>
> Well, possibly yes, a Big Deal. There is still considerable confusion as
to
> whether GWB did actually ransfer to AlaANG and what duties he performed,

He did not transfer, he performed ET with them--big difference. And the only
people still denying that he did indeed show up for duty there are in
denial--he had to be in a duty status to get that dental exam, and the
account from his fellow LT who shared lunches with him at the 187th further
proves his presence.

as
> well as an apparent timing overlap with his community service with Project
> PULL in a youth center in Houston's ghetto. (That service was important to
> me in deciding how to cast my vote, as it seemed to show an unusual
> willingness to give personally of himself, at perhaps some personal risk,
in
> contrast to merely making a donation. I personally gave Mr Bush high marks
> for integrity based on the nature of that service).

What? You are condemning him because of when he did some charitable work?
Where is your *evidence*? If he was indeed doing this under the requirements
of a criminal court ruling, you should be able to dig up *something* about
that. Where is it? More smoke and mirrors...

> >
> > GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
> > > PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a
> > "sentence"
> > > to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.
> >
> > Ahh. More "suggestions", huh? Let's see, we have one former President
who
> > *acknowledged* using illegal narcotics and never receiving any legal
> > punishment, but methinks you would excuse that rather quickly--but
> innuendo
> > and "suggestions" suffice to condemn GWB, right? Double standard much?
>
> You think wrongly. I have never used or condoned the use of narcotics,
even
> of so-called "recreational" drugs. Where did you get the mistaken
impression
> that I condemn Pres Bush?

Your comments seem to indicate that, in spite of repeated explanations from
folks who served with him, from folks in this NG who better understand the
Guard and how it operates, etc., you are still clinging to this "he did not
perform his duty in Alabama", compounded by the use of "suggestions" of
alleged drug convictions with no supporting evidence, and now are willing to
crucify the man for having the temerity of performing some civic work during
the same period of time he served in the Guard. Kind of looks like an agenda
to me.

>
> > >
> > > > The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter
aviation
> > at
> > > > any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such
> > pilots
> > > > were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas.
> Our
> > > > Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt.
> > > Bush's
> > > > tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing
> > F-102s
> > > > was risking one's life.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, for some twelve to eighteen months during his
enlistment,
> > GWB
> > > inexplicably did not fly, although he apparently had taken to military
> > > aviation "like a duck to water" and apparently flew the F-102 with
elan.
> > In
> > > fact, GQB apparently missed a great many days of required military
> reserve
> > > duty during that time.
> >
> > Which he made up; not unusual, as the writer of the letter, who actually
> > served in a similar role, indicates; and your expertise in contradicting
> his
> > claims is based upon...?
>
> Based upon the fragments of the (until recent days) incomplete record of
> GWB's TANG, AlaANG and ARPC/ARF service. I have made no claim to any
> especial "expertise".

Then you should strongly consider listening to the comments from COL
Campenni, the retired contractor from Atlanta who served with Bush in
Alabama during that time you are so worried about, and the explanations from
others more familair with the way the Guard operates.

>
> > >
> > > > Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know),
Terry
> > > > McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say
Lt.
> > Bush
> > > > abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation
or
> > > > authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
> > > > Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush
> was
> > > > excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman
> and
> > > > later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
> > >
> > > Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,
> > among
> > > other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO.
> >
> > Disciplinary unit my butt. Where do you get these notions? I was briefly
> > assigned to the Army counterpart to that organization in 1988 following
my
> > departure from active duty while I was awaiting orders assigning me to
> what
> > became my Guard unit--was I being "disciplined"? Nope. And ge whiz,
guess
> > what? Just like GWB, the admin buffons lost track of me--six months
after
> I
> > had received my orders and been drilling with my Guard unit, I got a
> letter
> > from ARPERSCEN informing me that I had to report to the nearest USAR
> > facility to update my records as part of my IRR obligation, and warning
me
> > of dire consequences if I failed to do so--so much for the infallibility
> of
> > military duty staus tracking.
>
> Agreed. Hence, I believe that the President can and should put an end to
the
> controversies by releasing all pertinent documents and letting the public
> decide its feelings and beliefs on the issues.

So you agree that it was NOT a "disciplinary unit"? I'd hope so--enough
folks have pointed out that FACT. Now, thirty years later you expect the
military to be able to whisk out a pristine and complete file on some former
1LT that will answer all of the questions that both you and Mr. Kerry's
folks have? Good luck. By this point I would imagine the files on folks from
that period consist of the very minimum of data--they can't store everything
for ever, and there is no way thay can even digitize the mountains of old
paperwork they *do* still retain.

>
> > Members of the NG
> > > are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons.
Could
> > GWB
> > > have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something
> else
> > > entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG
> toward
> > > required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is
approximately
> > six
> > > months' later than that given by NGB.
> >
> > More unsupported innuendo...now it is "among other reasons", huh? Your
> > claims hold about as much water as those the Kerry camp has been
flinging
> > about lately.
>
> Thank you for your kind comments. But if you will re-read my earlier post,
> you will discover that I used the qualifying phrase, where appropriate,
more
> than once. Pleas also recall that discipline can be accomplished without
> placing one in custody or otherwise physically restraining him. The
> "disciplinary" part comes into play because ARFs can be called to active
> duty in the military (theoretically, at least). GWB was not in fact called
> up, but the Damoclean Sword was nonetheless there.

IT IS NOT A DISCIPLINARY TOOL. How many folks have to tell you that before
you get it through your skull?

>
> > >
> > > SNIP two paragraphs
> > >
> > > > Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG,
> Lt.
> > > Bush
> > > > twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to
report
> > for
> > > a
> > > > required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of
> the
> > > > exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary
> unit
> > in
> > > > Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
> > > > First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders
> in
> > > > reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are
scheduled
> > for
> > > > their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that
month's
> > > > weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the
> > > Reserves,
> > > > it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a
> variety
> > of
> > > > reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
> > > > individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
> > > > If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
> > > > physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted
by
> > the
> > > > Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a
> special
> > > part
> > > > of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use
> > because
> > > of
> > > > its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot,
> not
> > > > confront a drug user.
> > >
> > > Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we
> should
> > > continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush
> never
> > > took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
> > > notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior
> to
> > > the time such was done in the active USAF.
> >
> > Bullcrap. Provide proof that the ANG instituted drug testing in 1972.
You
> > are the one wanting to claim the writer, a retired ANG officer, does not
> > know what he is talking about, so either provide some proof; something
> > beyond "suggestions", I might add.
>
> I am not the person who made the suggestions or initiated the innuendo.

Bullcrap. Your words--"The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior
to the time such was done in the active USAF." Prove it. Ed has called you
on it, I have called you on it--time to put up or shut up.

> Please keep that fact in mind. Why don't you inquire as to whether TANG
> institute drug testing in its flight physicals prior to July, 1972, the
time
> when GWB failed to report for his flight physical? I am willing, certainly
> to accept corrrection on the matter if such is indicated.

It was your ridiculous claim, not ours. You bear the burden of proof. FYI,
when it comes to things like drug testing, the reserve components *follow*,
or at best do so concurrently, the active components in instituting them,
they don't lead. Face it, drug testing was not in the cards at that time.

>
> > >
> > > > Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in
> Colorado"
> > > to
> > > > which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in
> > > Denver
> > > > is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a
> > > specific
> > > > unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I
guess
> > I'm
> > > > "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist.
Any
> > > > discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group
> or
> > > > wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an
> infraction
> > or
> > > > court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in
Lt.
> > > Bush's
> > > > performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was
confirmed
> > in
> > > > The Washington Post in 2000.
>
> GWB was suspended (grounded) from flight activity in August, 1972, for
> having failed to take his required examination, a suspension which was
> officially recorded on September 29 of that year. He began to receive ARF
> credits from October of that year. But neither drills nor attendance were
> required. GWB's TANG records appear to indicate he performed no actual
> duties after May, 1972. ARF "duty" is not considered as official duty by
> TANG.

If it counts towards points it is plenty official, regardles of what the
TXANG thinks. And do you have any proof of that?

> > >
> > > Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about
> > 1973.
> > > ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
> > > inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for
> > disciplinary
> > > measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside
of
> > the
> > > service as well as inside.
> >
> > Neatly sidestepped the author's refutation of your repeated
"disciplinary
> > unit" crap, didn't you?
>
> The Colonel did not refute anything I wrote. My post was in response to
his.
> Please keep that in mind.

You lose. The good Colonel obviously knows a whale of a lot more about it
than you do--I'll take his word over yours in this matter.
>
<snip>

> >
> > Korea--major activations in the ANG. Berlin Crisis--major activations in
> the
> > ANG. Vietnam--significant activations and deployment to Vietnam (and
> Korea,
> > where things were none too nice in 1968). The facts seem to disprove
your
> > claims.
>
> I should have made it clear that my comments were in reply to the
Colonel's
> own description of TANG during the time he served alongside the future
> President. Since that time, of course, there have been fundamental changes
> in the readiness levels of and integration of the ANGs into the active
force
> structure.

During the good colonels time, ANG folks like him were subject to sitting
alert with nuclear armed AIM-26's and AIR-2's affixed under their aircraft.
ARNG personnel were manning the Nike Herc sites, replete with even larger
nukes, that defended CONUS. And both ARNG and ANG personnel were serving and
dying in Vietnam. Sounds like you need to go back to school in regards to
what the true face of the Guard was during that time.

>
> > <snip>
>
> > >
> > > IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
> > > explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding
> from
> > > aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his
> assignment
> > > to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--),
> >
> > There is that "discplinary unit" crap again...
>
> Must you characterize comments with which you can't agree as "crap"? Most
> undignified.

Well, it becomes a bit tedious when some clown keeps trying to classify a
services personnel center as a "disciplinary unit" in spite of repeated
corrections from folks who know one hell of a lot more about the facts than
he does.

>
> > his community service commitment in
> > > Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between
> dates
> > > of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need
> not
> > > be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all,
our
> > > (informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
> > > second term.
> >
> > It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon
the
> > outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and
innuendo
> > that you base your argument upon.
>
> You are so kind. Thanks. To repeat, all I want to have is clear answers.

Why? You won't accept the ones you have been getting, so why should anyone
bother?

Brooks
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
>> While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
>> AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
>> maintaining operational readiness.
>
>What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush
>up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who
>deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost
>*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
>assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about
>pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing
>through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel
>it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG
>look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were
>given in that conflict.

I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that
I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the
Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four
years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery
numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection
such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college.

The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft
notification. The training requirements were exceptionally low and the
maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled
members was virtually non-existant in many units.

This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army
Guard units that were activated and served with honor. And, it should
be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much
higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training
schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments.

By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
specialists, had operational air defense responsibilities and
conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot
of SEA deployments.

An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who
points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of
an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to
deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five
years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more
easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E146%257E,00.html



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
>> > wrote:
>Snip
>
>> The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
>> obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
>> choice not an obligation.
>
>The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but whether
>GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
>while not performing is reserve function.

Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL
TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational
alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was
assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of
conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to
NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a
reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft
available at the time.
>
>> Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
>> conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
>> were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
>> Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
>> combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.
>
>I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my
>meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted
>the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have emphasized
>that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his
>type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for their
>services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand
>comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected.

You have an interesting way with words. My service "does not stand
comparions to that which modern-day units can often be subjected"
either. That's a meaningless requirement. How can service in the
present be compared to the unknown of what service might be like in
the future?
>
>> There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
>> operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
>> inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."
>
>Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no longer
>in great demand in the war zone.

So, now we are demanding prescience? How does one know when starting a
two year training program leading inevitably to qualification in a
combat aircraft that in two years the type will no longer be in great
demand in the war zone?????
>
>> By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
>> for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
>> reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
>> of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
>> time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.
>
>Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to
>make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have seen
>no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG.

Read today's newspaper.
>
>>
>> The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
>> in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
>> within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.
>
>I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at hand:
>whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was
>legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller" who
>performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to boot.

The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. The
relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975,
from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was
drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could
have had it for the asking at any time.
>
>> First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
>> training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
>> you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
>> light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
>> can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.
>
>The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the
>intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the
>issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972) after
>going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded from
>TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty
>after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712).

His flight physical omission was at the time of his reassignment to
Montgomery where he was not going to be on active flying duty.


> It is a matter of
>record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
>where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
>other things, disciplinary reasons.

Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a
disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence
of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment
(Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed.


> Neither drills nor attendance were
>required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in
>question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official
>duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three years
>(approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no
>service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years of
>his commitment.

Duty is duty. You are either on duty or you are not. If the ARPC
posting was a duty assignment, then the time would count with TANG.
Confess now, you're really making this up aren't you?
>
>>
>> Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
>> public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
>> level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
>> with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.
>
>Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are
>Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to
>learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had taken
>on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a
>powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's work
>with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than
>standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program
>seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe at
>some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy.
>Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made
>that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became
>concerned.

I am wrong in my statement? Reread it (or have a friend read it to
you). You agree with me in your response, until you get to the last
sentence, which indicates that you place great credence in "rumor" and
"suggestions were persistently made" (don't you just love the
non-attibution of passive voice??) Now you are "concerned"? Now you
are the rumor monger and suggester!
>
>> Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
>> aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
>> imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
>> office complex. That's its job.
>
>ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always
>encompass eithere physical restraint or custody.

It can also encompass reduction in rank or loss of pay. None of this
is supported by any credible evidence.

>>
>> That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.
>
>
>Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances can
>be revealed by flight physicals.
>So, when did TANG institute drug-testing?

I wasn't in TANG, but the requirements for a flight phyical are the
same across components. I was on flight status from July '64 through
June '87. During those 23 years, I was never tested during a flight
physical for banned substances. Drug testing was done separately and
handled independently. The first drug testing I can recall was 1974,
but it was not done in a flight physical.

The annual physical is scheduled, drug testing was random and "no
notice." The state of drug test discrimination at that time would make
it no problem to "clean up" 72 hours before the scheduled physical
making it virtually useless.
>
>
>> You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
>> seek answers.
>
>Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the rumors
>or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware of
>them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My motivation
>is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President
>can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I
>value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be.

You do not apparently sincerely seek answers because you refuse
adamantly to acknowledge when you are corrected either by someone with
experience or first-hand knowledge or simply with regard to the logic
of your rhetoric and subscription to rumor and suggestion.

>The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
>> provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
>> you believe any of them?
>
>The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the
>ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable is
>other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
>issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
>refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.

See today's newspaper for full service records. Then, since the Guard
Colonel and I have both served for more than 20 years each as rated AF
pilots in tactical aircraft type, the (g)ambit of our knowledge
certainly covers the issue in question.

Let me ask about your background and ability to credibly refute our
experience. Where and when did you serve? Guard or active duty? Rated
or non-rated? Type aircraft qualified? Familiarity with out of career
field postings? Educational level? Political experience? Affiliations?

Nah, you won't go there will you?
>
>BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article
>focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been terribly
>concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged
>use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly.

So, mom says she is concerned when the media, political opponents,
etc, make allegations (please look up the definition of "allegation")
about drug use. My mom would be concerned as well. So would yours.
What's the down side of that report? It seems normal and natural. It
also doesn't indicate that there was any truth to the allegations.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
> >> While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
> >> AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
> >> maintaining operational readiness.
> >
> >What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to
brush
> >up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops
who
> >deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that
lost
> >*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
> >assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful
about
> >pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing
> >through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you
feel
> >it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG
> >look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were
> >given in that conflict.
>
> I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that
> I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the
> Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four
> years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery
> numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection
> such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college.

First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation was
for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that "haven"
provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of AC
Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well.

>
> The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft
> notification.

I believe the other services did as well.

The training requirements were exceptionally low and the
> maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled
> members was virtually non-existant in many units.

Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly how...?

>
> This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army
> Guard units that were activated and served with honor.

Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking in
that quality, by your description?

And, it should
> be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much
> higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training
> schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments.

Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either, right?

>
> By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
> specialists,

Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a
good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.

had operational air defense responsibilities and
> conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot
> of SEA deployments.

Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that
system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted
level of the ANG?

>
> An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who
> points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of
> an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to
> deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five
> years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more
> easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home.

So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is related
to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those *enlisted*
ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home?

You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to
bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more professional,
and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the ARNG"
crap.

Brooks

>
> http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E146%257E,00.html
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:52:25 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
>> >> While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
>> >> AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
>> >> maintaining operational readiness.
>> >
>> >What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to
>brush
>> >up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops
>who
>> >deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that
>lost
>> >*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
>> >assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful
>about
>> >pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing
>> >through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you
>feel
>> >it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG
>> >look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were
>> >given in that conflict.
>>
>> I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that
>> I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the
>> Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four
>> years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery
>> numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection
>> such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college.
>
>First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation was
>for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that "haven"
>provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of AC
>Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well.

I think you need to relax a bit. The fact is that the great majority
of ARNG units during the Vietnam war were a sanctuary for folks who
didn't want to get drafted into the active duty Army. The large
proportion were minimally trained back-fill units.

It was official policy during the Johnson administration that Reserve
and Guard units were not called up. The budgeting priority was to
equip active duty forces and that meant large numbers of NG and
Reserve units (all components) were under-equipped or fitted with
obsolete or obsolescent equipment.

There is no doubt that Guard and Reserve personnel were called up, the
proportion of Army Guard and Reserve personnel that were called or
were even vulnerable was exceptionally low.
>
>>
>> The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft
>> notification.
>
>I believe the other services did as well.

That is true. No disagreement there.
>
>The training requirements were exceptionally low and the
>> maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled
>> members was virtually non-existant in many units.
>
>Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly how...?

It compares to the difference between rated aircrew (remember the
discussion has been about GWB's service) and basic trainee grads, most
of whom didn't even complete combat arms qualification. Their units
were low priority and the poorly equipped.
>
>>
>> This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army
>> Guard units that were activated and served with honor.
>
>Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking in
>that quality, by your description?

Don't go looking between the lines or under rocks for insult. There is
none intended. The sentence says that few Army Guard units got the
call. It does not state or imply that those who didn't get activated
were any less honorable nor does it suggest that not all that were
called were honorable.
>
>And, it should
>> be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much
>> higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training
>> schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments.
>
>Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either, right?

What's that smell....red herring?

Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. Doesn't relate to what we were
talking about.
>
>>
>> By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
>> specialists,
>
>Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a
>good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
>reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
>full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.

I simply stated that since flying ANG units were often tasked with
active Air Defense Command missions, they did have lots of full-timers
and lots of training opportunity. ARNG units, with poor equipment,
parts of combat support units, and low priority did not have a lot of
full-timers, didn't have a lot of training opportunity, and didn't
maintain a high state of readiness.
>
>had operational air defense responsibilities and
>> conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot
>> of SEA deployments.
>
>Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that
>system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted
>level of the ANG?

Yes, I've heard of Nike Hercules. When I was growing up in Chicago,
the lakefront hosted a large number of Nike Ajax installations manned
by Reserve units. Where were all of these Hercules units in '66-'73?
How many states had them? I'm not sure it relates to the large number
of ARNG personnel that had low levels of mission tasking. But, I'm
available to be convinced.
>
>>
>> An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who
>> points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of
>> an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to
>> deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five
>> years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more
>> easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home.
>
>So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is related
>to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those *enlisted*
>ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home?

We are still talking about GWB's service. Another herring on the
table.

Did you go to the link and read the article? It is balanced and
addresses both Bush and Kerry's service. It makes some good points and
suggests the issue shouldn't be "mine is bigger than yours" but what
the candidates bring to the country for leadership potential.
>
>You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to
>bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more professional,
>and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the ARNG"
>crap.
>
>Brooks

I didn't say that, so don't interpret. I said that during the period
of the '60s and up until the end of the war, the ARNG suffered from a
lack of funding and mission in a lot of states. It was, as a matter of
policy, not going to be deployed to the war.

Don't seek to be offended. If I wish to do so, you won't have to dig
deep to find the insults. They'll be right up top.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message

>>
>> By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
>> specialists,
>
>Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a
>good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
>reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
>full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.

A maintainer who only does his monthlies
and 2 weeks is nowhere near as skilled as one who does it full time. When the
ANG flies aircraft during the week the part timers are not there to fix them.
Just what would you do with an aircraft flown on Saturday that has a
malfunction that will take 4 days to fix? That's why the full timers are there.
I have seen 3 day repairs turn into 5 day repairs because they kept changing
the persons doing the job.

This is not an attempt to slam the Guard's maintainers, but 64 days a year is
not enough to keep your skills up.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron]

>A maintainer who only does his monthlies
>and 2 weeks is nowhere near as skilled as one who does it full time. When the
>ANG flies aircraft during the week the part timers are not there to fix them.
>Just what would you do with an aircraft flown on Saturday that has a
>malfunction that will take 4 days to fix? That's why the full timers are
>there.
>I have seen 3 day repairs turn into 5 day repairs because they kept changing
>the persons doing the job.
>
>This is not an attempt to slam the Guard's maintainers, but 64 days a year is
>not enough to keep your skills up.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

Well you can compare the rates of aircraft having mishaps and mechanicals, of
the ANG and active duty, and you might be surprised. Guard F-16 mishap rates I
believe are quite a bit lower than active duty.

Guard pilots probably do not fly 64 days in a year too, except the full timers
and "guard bums"




Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(B2431) writes:
>>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
>>> specialists,
>>
>>Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a
>>good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
>>reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
>>full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.
>
> A maintainer who only does his monthlies
> and 2 weeks is nowhere near as skilled as one who does it full time. When the
> ANG flies aircraft during the week the part timers are not there to fix them.
> Just what would you do with an aircraft flown on Saturday that has a
> malfunction that will take 4 days to fix? That's why the full timers are there.
> I have seen 3 day repairs turn into 5 day repairs because they kept changing
> the persons doing the job.
>
> This is not an attempt to slam the Guard's maintainers, but 64 days a year is
> not enough to keep your skills up.

If that were the only time you were applying those skills, that's
true. From what I've seen though, in units that require a high level
of tech skills, like a flying Squadron, or a Combat Engineer unit,
that the maintainers & operators are folks who are also doing it in
civilian life. Since Guard units also have a lower turnover in
personnel, and, usually, equipment, their folks tend to be more
familiar with the particuar quirks of a particular system than the
Regulars, on average. Which isn't to say that things can be drawn
out, or the job gets passed around. Of course, Guard and Reserve
units often tend to be on the dirty side of the Supply Stick, as well,
either because they are operating older equipment, or one-off stuff
that there isn't enough of a demand for in Regualr units (Our Guard
and Reserve Engineer units all got a batch of Unimogs about a decade
back that they haven't really used. They're aren't enough of them to
be particularly maintainable, and theu're too small for most of our
engineering tasks, and too large to make good Tonka trucks. Or, for
that matter, the New Mexico (It think, it might have been Arizona)
Army National Guard ended up with the U.S. Roland prototypes.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
> >> specialists,
> >
> >Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have
a
> >good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
> >reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
> >full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.
>
> A maintainer who only does his monthlies
> and 2 weeks is nowhere near as skilled as one who does it full time. When
the
> ANG flies aircraft during the week the part timers are not there to fix
them.
> Just what would you do with an aircraft flown on Saturday that has a
> malfunction that will take 4 days to fix? That's why the full timers are
there.
> I have seen 3 day repairs turn into 5 day repairs because they kept
changing
> the persons doing the job.

And the Army Guard also has a larger contingent of FTM personnel to handle
aviation maintenance. Beyond that you would have been comparing apples and
oranges in terms of trying to claim that the ANG was more professional
because they had more FTM personnel than the ARNG units. An infantry company
of that era did not need a bevy of FTM personnel in order to maintain its
level of professionalism--the one, two, or three FTM personnel it typically
did have were sufficient (I say were because the advent of more advanced and
heavier systems for that former leg infantry company, now mounted in the
rather complex M2 Bradleys, has resulted in a greater need for FTM
maintenance support in the OMS shops).

>
> This is not an attempt to slam the Guard's maintainers, but 64 days a year
is
> not enough to keep your skills up.

But when your equipment was likely limited to two or three deuce and a halfs
and a few M151 jeeps, those few FTM maintainers that were available at that
time, backed by the M-Day folks, were indeed sufficient.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:52:25 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
> >> >> While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
> >> >> AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
> >> >> maintaining operational readiness.
> >> >
> >> >What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to
> >brush
> >> >up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops
> >who
> >> >deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that
> >lost
> >> >*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
> >> >assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful
> >about
> >> >pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up
traveliing
> >> >through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you
> >feel
> >> >it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the
ANG
> >> >look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they
were
> >> >given in that conflict.
> >>
> >> I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that
> >> I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the
> >> Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four
> >> years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery
> >> numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection
> >> such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college.
> >
> >First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation
was
> >for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that
"haven"
> >provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of
AC
> >Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well.
>
> I think you need to relax a bit. The fact is that the great majority
> of ARNG units during the Vietnam war were a sanctuary for folks who
> didn't want to get drafted into the active duty Army. The large
> proportion were minimally trained back-fill units.

Your comments could just as well apply to *all* of the reserve components,
not just the ARNG, so why single the ARNG out? And that "sanctuary" had its
share of combat vets who returned to join the Guard, not to mention those
Guardsmen who had been serving for years before Vietnam was even a blip on
the radar screen (and were therefore not dodging anything). Why you do this,
I can't fathom--what is your point in making such claims? And what is a
"minimally trained back-fill unit"? Never heard of one myself.

>
> It was official policy during the Johnson administration that Reserve
> and Guard units were not called up.

Until Johnson changed his mind in 68 and called up some 23K Guardsmen,
another 6K USAR troops, 4K USNR Seabees, and an unknown number of USAFR
personnel (from what I have found, four tac fighter groups and an airlift
wing)--somewhere in the neighborhood of around 40K reservists, altogether.

The budgeting priority was to
> equip active duty forces and that meant large numbers of NG and
> Reserve units (all components) were under-equipped or fitted with
> obsolete or obsolescent equipment.

Now that part you have right, to at least some extent. But the ARNG arty
units that were called up and deployed to Vietnam did have the same
equipment that their AC counterparts had at the time, as did a large part of
the ARNG's arty force at the time. The same can be said for the engineer
units.

>
> There is no doubt that Guard and Reserve personnel were called up, the
> proportion of Army Guard and Reserve personnel that were called or
> were even vulnerable was exceptionally low.

Lower than it should have been (had the JCS had their way earlier), yes. But
the fact remains that thousands were called up, and a large part of those
that were found themselves rather quickly located in either Vietnam or Korea
(which at the time was a rather hot spot, at least for the ground troops in
the northern part of the ROK where firefights with the infiltrating NK's
were a not uncommon event). By all accounts the Guard units that deployed,
both ANG *and* ARNG, acquited themselves quite well. The only sore point on
the ARNG side was the fate of the higher level units (the mobilized infantry
brigade(s)), which did indeed find themselves broken up as sources of
individual replacements. Two reasons for this--the short duration of the
call-up period did not allow a lot of time for higher echelon collective
training (and as you did some time with the old 4th ID, you know what I am
talking about--even the AC units have a problem getting in enough collective
training at the BDE and higher levels; then MG Paul Funk, commanding an AC
armored division out of Europe during ODS, lamented the fact that his
division's brigades had virtually *no* collective training experience at
that level before they set foot in Saudi Arabia). And two, the shortage of
replacements in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive and resultant US
counteractions.

> >
> >>
> >> The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft
> >> notification.
> >
> >I believe the other services did as well.
>
> That is true. No disagreement there.

So what was the point of the statement?

> >
> >The training requirements were exceptionally low and the
> >> maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled
> >> members was virtually non-existant in many units.
> >
> >Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly
how...?
>
> It compares to the difference between rated aircrew (remember the
> discussion has been about GWB's service) and basic trainee grads, most
> of whom didn't even complete combat arms qualification. Their units
> were low priority and the poorly equipped.

Where do you get the idea that ARNG troops did not complete their AIT's?

> >
> >>
> >> This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army
> >> Guard units that were activated and served with honor.
> >
> >Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking
in
> >that quality, by your description?
>
> Don't go looking between the lines or under rocks for insult. There is
> none intended. The sentence says that few Army Guard units got the
> call. It does not state or imply that those who didn't get activated
> were any less honorable nor does it suggest that not all that were
> called were honorable.

If that is the case, fine; but I wonder why you used the term "notorious" in
an effort to set the ARNG aside from the ANG in the comment that caught my
attention in this thread.

> >
> >And, it should
> >> be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much
> >> higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training
> >> schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments.
> >
> >Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either,
right?
>
> What's that smell....red herring?
>
> Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. Doesn't relate to what we were
> talking about.

My point was that those previous Guard units did indeed get activated for
real world requirements, and did indeed perform their assigned missions, so
the alleged wide gap in capabilities (versus contemporary requirements) of
the ARNG then versus the ARNG now escapes me.

> >
> >>
> >> By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
> >> specialists,
> >
> >Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have
a
> >good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
> >reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
> >full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.
>
> I simply stated that since flying ANG units were often tasked with
> active Air Defense Command missions, they did have lots of full-timers
> and lots of training opportunity. ARNG units, with poor equipment,
> parts of combat support units, and low priority did not have a lot of
> full-timers, didn't have a lot of training opportunity, and didn't
> maintain a high state of readiness.

I don't think you can make such a blanket statement. Indeed, some ARNG units
were better, and better equipped and supported, than others--the same is
evident today (witness the FSP program that identified higher priority units
for resources in favor of lower priority units). Which is why the Army and
ARNG initiated the SRF program during that timeframe, to identify those
selected units that were to be given additional resources such that they
would be ready for immediate activation and quick deployment. So what you
REALLY had was the same heirarchy of rich-to-poor that we have always had in
the reserve components, ANG included (note that the ANG F-16 community has
also demonstrated haves/have-nots symptoms rather recently, when some units
had the latest blocks and PGM delivery capabilities while others did not;
again, not a new issue, as it was not all that long ago that IIRC some ANG
units were still flying the F-86 while the first F-4's were going to other
units).

> >
> >had operational air defense responsibilities and
> >> conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot
> >> of SEA deployments.
> >
> >Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that
> >system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted
> >level of the ANG?
>
> Yes, I've heard of Nike Hercules. When I was growing up in Chicago,
> the lakefront hosted a large number of Nike Ajax installations manned
> by Reserve units.

By Guard units, actually; the USAR did not own any missile batteries in
ARADCOM.

> Where were all of these Hercules units in '66-'73?

1964-65 saw the last ARNG Nike Ajax batteries replaced by Nike Hercules. The
ARNG had operated about one-third of the Ajax force (some 50 batteries) in
1960. When the switch to the more capable (and longer ranged) Hercules was
completed in 1965, the ARNG had 48 batteries standing alert, guarding 18
areas under ARADCOM control. It appears the ratio of Guard to AC battereis
remained largely the same, with the ARNG controlling about one third of the
Herc force; as the force drew down, the ARNG represented a growing chunk of
the Herc force. The Hercs left the Guard in 1975, leaving the last four
remaining batteries (AC) to serve in the Miami/Homestead AFB area until the
early eighties.

> How many states had them?

Sixteen. Interesting history of ARADCOM at
http://147.71.210.21/vigilant/Default.htm (and BTW, related to an earlier
thread on the 75mm Skysweeper AAA, this site confirms that the last of those
weapons was retired from its CONUS defense operations in 1960).

I'm not sure it relates to the large number
> of ARNG personnel that had low levels of mission tasking. But, I'm
> available to be convinced.

> >
> >>
> >> An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who
> >> points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of
> >> an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to
> >> deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five
> >> years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more
> >> easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home.
> >
> >So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is
related
> >to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those
*enlisted*
> >ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home?
>
> We are still talking about GWB's service. Another herring on the
> table.

But for some odd reason you think the way to build Bush up is by tearing the
ARNG down, so you post stuff like the above, which does indeed ignore the
fact that most enlisted ANG personnel *also* returned home after completing
their basic and AIT (or whatever the USAF/ANG calls AIT). So the writer
could just as well have said "enlisted in the ANG" as opposed to "enlisted
in the ARNG", OK?

>
> Did you go to the link and read the article? It is balanced and
> addresses both Bush and Kerry's service. It makes some good points and
> suggests the issue shouldn't be "mine is bigger than yours" but what
> the candidates bring to the country for leadership potential.
> >
> >You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to
> >bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more
professional,
> >and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the
ARNG"
> >crap.
> >
> >Brooks
>
> I didn't say that, so don't interpret. I said that during the period
> of the '60s and up until the end of the war, the ARNG suffered from a
> lack of funding and mission in a lot of states.

Lack of funding did not make them "notorious", nor did it make the ARNG a
"haven" for draft dodgers (or at least not anymore than the other resercve
component forces, or in some ways for that matter the USAF and USN, which as
you acknowledged took their share of guys who had received notices).

It was, as a matter of
> policy, not going to be deployed to the war.

That policy being shattered by the 68 call-up.

>
> Don't seek to be offended. If I wish to do so, you won't have to dig
> deep to find the insults. They'll be right up top.

I am not digging. I don't know if you just did not think before you typed,
or what, but you have tried to delineate the ARNG from the other reserve
components, with little success when one considers the points offered. It
served no purpose towards the debate in question.

Brooks

>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:26:21 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. The
>relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975,
>from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was
>drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could
>have had it for the asking at any time.

Ed, if had done so, what would have been the result? Would he have
been transferred to non-flying duty in the ANG (which is essentially
what happened, by all accounts), would he have been transferred to a
different Guard unit, or would he have been transferred to the
inactive reserve (which, again, is essentially what happened for the
last six months of his six-year requirement)?

In the local cocktail party circuit, there are only three of us who
served in the military: one as a draftee, one as draftee who became RA
in order to go to language school, and one who went in as Enlisted
Reserve--to wit, six months active duty followed by a supposed hitch
in the reserves. Not one of the three of us ever attended a reserve
meeting after we got out of the army, though all of us was assigned in
theory to a duty station in case we were called back (at one time, I
was supposed to report to the American consul in Frankfurt--yes,
certainly!).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>> It is a matter of
>>record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
>>where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
>>other things, disciplinary reasons.
>
>Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a
>disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence
>of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment
>(Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed.

This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
the Texas Air Guard.

If Bush had turned up at Denver, they wouldn't have known what to do
with him. This was in all likelihood a coven of clerks in a strip mall
office building, shuffling dusty records and from time to time issuing
a honorable discharge. (Mine had my name spelled wrong.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> It is a matter of
> >>record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
> >>where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
> >>other things, disciplinary reasons.
> >
SNIP
> This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
> websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
> other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
> the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
> tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
> the Texas Air Guard.

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent
could explain.

As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the
separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one
time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign
until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive reserve.
Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974.
>
> If Bush had turned up at Denver, they wouldn't have known what to do
> with him. This was in all likelihood a coven of clerks in a strip mall
> office building, shuffling dusty records and from time to time issuing
> a honorable discharge. (Mine had my name spelled wrong.)
>
No intent to slander, just hasty typing. GWB's *assignment* to ARF is even
now the subject of some discussion. Was it that, as you relate, he "was no
longer available to attend" TANG meetings (but if so, was he nonetheless
accepting payment for his service-time? If he were doing so, he would have
been a "ghost-payroller"); or was there another reason, such as balking on
his flight physical, which led to his grounding (July, '72), i.e., a
sanction for not fulfilling that obligation ( his record does not suggest
much activity for the last two years of his enlistment). As will be
recalled, GWB began to skip drills in (approx) May, '72; did not report for
his flight physical in July, '72; his *records* were transferred to
ARF/ARPC in Sept/Oct '72, when he began to receive ARF points; his
separation is recorded as Nov 21, '74.

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> >> > wrote:
> >Snip
> >
> >> The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
> >> obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
> >> choice not an obligation.
> >
> >The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but
whether
> >GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
> >while not performing is reserve function.
>
> Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL
> TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational
> alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was
> assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of
> conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to
> NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a
> reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft
> available at the time.

How, then, was this situation considered "equivalent training"? As for your
invitatin to read your lips: thank you but no, thank you. I am not yet
prepared to accept you as being some sort of oracle. To repeat, the issue is
whether GWB received pay although he failed to carry out his Reserve
obvligations?

> >
> >> Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
> >> conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
> >> were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
> >> Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
> >> combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.
> >
> >I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my
> >meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted
> >the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have
emphasized
> >that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his
> >type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for
their
> >services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand
> >comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected.
>
> You have an interesting way with words. My service "does not stand
> comparions to that which modern-day units can often be subjected"
> either. That's a meaningless requirement. How can service in the
> present be compared to the unknown of what service might be like in
> the future?

Thank you. You have an interesting way with words, as well. Modern-day NG
units are far more thoroughly integrated into the active forces, and in
general, far better-trained than, say, TANG was, during the time under
discussion. You are merely muddying the waters by mention of "meaningless
requirement" (how does that follow, anyway?). As the Colonel went on to give
context, TANG was rather informal in his day.

> >
> >> There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
> >> operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
> >> inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."
> >
> >Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no
longer
> >in great demand in the war zone.
>
> So, now we are demanding prescience? How does one know when starting a
> two year training program leading inevitably to qualification in a
> combat aircraft that in two years the type will no longer be in great
> demand in the war zone?????

If you will please stick with the issues being addressed, you will easily
understand. Prescience is not required now; nor was it then. (I never
claimed that GWB was prescient, btw. You have no grounds for suggesting that
I have done so.) For goodness' sake, let's try to keep this a civil, adult
discussion and avoid gratuitous insults, etc. And let's stick to issues, OK?

In any event, by the time GWB qualified in F-102s the type was no longer in
great demand, as the Colonel, in his letter, did relate, because as he
remembers it, the F-102 "...could not drop bombs and would have been useless
in Viet Nam". Furthermore, the Colonel relates that a volunteer ANG
program, PALACE ALERT, "...was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved
unsiutable to the war effort..." These are hardly remarks consonant with
yours.

> >
> >> By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
> >> for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
> >> reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
> >> of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
> >> time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.
> >
> >Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to
> >make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have
seen
> >no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG.
>
> Read today's newspaper.

I have done so. Did you read yours, with care? Or did you read it with
blinders on? A 69-yr-old former TANGer claims that he passed the time with
GWB during a period of time in ALA; however, his recollection of events is
out of plumb with the President's own records. Pay records? Not necessarily
useful, as the charge is that GWB went AWOL (or at
least massively reneged on his commitment; if true, the neat pay-records
demonstrate that he was a goldbrick or a ghost-payroller.
> >
> >>
> >> The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
> >> in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
> >> within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.

Interesting but completely irrelevant to the issues uner discussion.

> >
> >I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at
hand:
> >whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was
> >legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller"
who
> >performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to
boot.
>
> The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service.

No, not necessarily. They indicate only whether or not and if so, when he
was paid; they do not tell us whether he actually performed services in
return for the money, or give any certain indication of GWB's whereabouts.

The
> relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975,
> from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was
> drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could
> have had it for the asking at any time.

OK. No indication so far, that I know of, has popped up to suggest that GWB
asked for an early "out" altogether from the reserves.
> >
> >> First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
> >> training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
> >> you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
> >> light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
> >> can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

I never questioned any of that, as it is irrelevant to the issues at hand. I
am looking for answers to explain GWB's absences.
> >
> >The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the
> >intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the
> >issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972)
after
> >going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded
from
> >TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty
> >after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712).
>
> His flight physical omission was at the time of his reassignment to
> Montgomery where he was not going to be on active flying duty.
>
>
> > It is a matter of
> >record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
> >where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
> >other things, disciplinary reasons.
>
> Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a
> disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence
> of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment
> (Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed.

Sigh. A military person may be disciplined, may he not, by punishment or
corrective measures which do not comprehend either physical restraint or
jailing? And so disciplined for infractions calling for neither
court-martial nor Article 15 proceedings.
>
>
> > Neither drills nor attendance were
> >required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in
> >question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official
> >duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three
years
> >(approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no
> >service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years
of
> >his commitment.
>
> Duty is duty. You are either on duty or you are not. If the ARPC
> posting was a duty assignment, then the time would count with TANG.
> Confess now, you're really making this up aren't you?

Why don't you check with TANG to learn for yourself whether ARF/ARPC credits
were so counted by TANG? BTW, I have nothing to confess to you. Your tone,
however, is becoming increasingly smug and offensive. Such is not called
for. Duty, btw, is not always duty; the discussion in fact is about whether
GWB actually fulfilled his duty at a given time, or if not, was he merely
a ghost-payroller for a number of months, ranging from 12 to 18.
> >
> >>
> >> Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
> >> public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
> >> level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
> >> with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.
> >
> >Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are
> >Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to
> >learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had
taken
> >on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a
> >powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's
work
> >with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than
> >standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program
> >seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe
at
> >some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy.
> >Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made
> >that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became
> >concerned.
>
> I am wrong in my statement? Reread it (or have a friend read it to
> you).

Yes, in my opinion, you are wrong. And once again, you have needlessly
resorted to pejorative and offensive language. I sincerely suggest that you
try to reign yourself in. I uinderstrand that you may be emotional about
GWB. However, your increasingly aggressive tone and attempts at sarcasm are
unworthy of a respected military veteran and author.

You agree with me in your response, until you get to the last
> sentence, which indicates that you place great credence in "rumor" and
> "suggestions were persistently made" (don't you just love the
> non-attibution of passive voice??) Now you are "concerned"? Now you
> are the rumor monger and suggester!

Actually, I probably don't agree with you to any great extent. Passive
voioce has nothing to do with it, Ed. I, however, am blessed with sufficient
humility that I routinely qualify any statement which I believe needs
qualification; I learned to do so in grammar school. I "monger" no rumors
and make no suggestions. But I do read things other than internet NGs and
speak with people who, somehow, don't always agree with my point of view.
My concern made its way into a posting on this NG. My objective is to seek
answers so that I might better inform my vote in this year's election. In
2000, it came down, for me to a matter of demonstrated integrity. I gave GWB
some credit for having performed community service, in person, in a Houston
ghetto youth center. As a voter, I have every reason to be "concerned" and I
don't understand how cannot seem to understand that.
> >
> >> Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
> >> aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
> >> imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
> >> office complex. That's its job.
> >
> >ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always
> >encompass eithere physical restraint or custody.
>
> It can also encompass reduction in rank or loss of pay. None of this
> is supported by any credible evidence.

I never suggested that GWB was disciplined via either lost pay or lost
rank; read my post again, please.
>
> >>
> >> That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.
> >
> >
> >Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances
can
> >be revealed by flight physicals.
> >So, when did TANG institute drug-testing?
>
> I wasn't in TANG, but the requirements for a flight phyical are the
> same across components. I was on flight status from July '64 through
> June '87. During those 23 years, I was never tested during a flight
> physical for banned substances. Drug testing was done separately and
> handled independently. The first drug testing I can recall was 1974,
> but it was not done in a flight physical.
>
> The annual physical is scheduled, drug testing was random and "no
> notice." The state of drug test discrimination at that time would make
> it no problem to "clean up" 72 hours before the scheduled physical
> making it virtually useless.
> >
> >
> >> You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
> >> seek answers.
> >
> >Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the
rumors
> >or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware
of
> >them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My
motivation
> >is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President
> >can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I
> >value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be.
>
> You do not apparently sincerely seek answers because you refuse
> adamantly to acknowledge when you are corrected either by someone with
> experience or first-hand knowledge or simply with regard to the logic
> of your rhetoric and subscription to rumor and suggestion.

I decline to accept your corrections because I do not class you with the
Oracle of Delphi; your expreinces are wonderful and I am happy for you. But
just as with the Colonel quoted in the message which began this thread, who
wrote certain passages which were not suported in your reply, you are hardly
infallible. To repeat, I do not "subscribe" to "rumor" and "suggestion". But
why do I need to automatically subscribe to all your opinions as to
questioins on the NG? And why do I not have the right to posit an opinion
with which you do not agree?

>
> >The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
> >> provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
> >> you believe any of them?
> >
> >The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the
> >ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable
is
> >other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
> >issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
> >refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.
>
> See today's newspaper for full service records. Then, since the Guard
> Colonel and I have both served for more than 20 years each as rated AF
> pilots in tactical aircraft type, the (g)ambit of our knowledge
> certainly covers the issue in question.

Have done so. Sorry, but so far, not much light shed (hmm... released on a
holiday weekend, but that's OK, I'm not paranoid ). Nonetheless, you and
Colonel Campenni disagree. Try re-readinig the note which initiated this
thread, quoting a letter to a newspaper editor, again. Both of you very
accomplished men have served with distinction; yet despite the similarities
of your backgrounds, you do not agree on the utility of the F-102 for combat
operations in Viet Nam. One of you must be wrong--which? Which of you has
the ambit of knowledge including the correlation of GWB's service records
with his actual whereabouts? Can you explain why the account by GWB's
contemporary who claims to have made shop-talk with him during the time in
question does not jibe with the "official record"?

>
> Let me ask about your background and ability to credibly refute our
> experience. Where and when did you serve? Guard or active duty? Rated
> or non-rated? Type aircraft qualified? Familiarity with out of career
> field postings? Educational level? Political experience? Affiliations?

In the first place, Ed, I am completely uniterested in "refuting" either you
or your experience. I think you have perhaps inadvertently done that in your
reply to my post, which quoted the Colonel's original letter. That's not
what I seek.

I have never served in any of the US armed forces. And I have never claimed
to have done so. But then again, whether I served is not the issue,
although you appear to be trying to make that the focus of the discussion,
apparently in hopes of winning debating points. Again, let's try to stick to
the actual topic under discussion.

My education (ample), political experience (history of participation), and
affiliations (personal, and private) also are irrelevant to the actual
discussion.

Neither my vote nor my contribution to this thread on the NG is a function
of my having served or not. Furthermore, your service record is completely
useless to an observer in determining whether or not GWB ditched his
commitment.
>
> Nah, you won't go there will you?

See above, Ed.

> >
> >BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article
> >focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been
terribly
> >concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged
> >use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly.
>
> So, mom says she is concerned when the media, political opponents,
> etc, make allegations (please look up the definition of "allegation")
> about drug use. My mom would be concerned as well. So would yours.
> What's the down side of that report? It seems normal and natural. It
> also doesn't indicate that there was any truth to the allegations.

It has been my pleasure to have corresponded with a number of authors over
the years, either via snail-mail or e-mail. In general, these contacts have
been civil, mannerly and polite, even as, for example, an Australian
scholar/referee was pressed for time, but nonetheless responded rationally
and logically to a query I'd sent him. Would that you could be so civilized,
Ed.

[Pete]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >> It is a matter of
> > >>record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October,
1972),
> > >>where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post)
among
> > >>other things, disciplinary reasons.
> > >
> SNIP
> > This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
> > websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
> > other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
> > the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
> > tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
> > the Texas Air Guard.
>
> Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
> clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
> location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
> disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
> don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
> reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
> type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
> understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
> which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
equivalent
> could explain.

ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are
sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who
do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?"
The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement
function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber.

Every major base I've ever been on has some sort of detention facility.
For instance...USAF members are *assigned* to Langley AFB for, among other
reasons, disciplinary reasons. Does that mean every person at Langley has
been sent there for disciplinary reasons? Not a chance.

Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of
wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action?
Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now.

His DD-214 equivalent clearly shows an Honorable Discharge.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable
REASON AND AUTHORITY FOR DISCHARGE: Officer is transferred to to ARPC (ORS),
3800 York St, Denver Colorado. Effective 2 October, 1973

Key word there...DISCHARGE. If he had been *assigned* (as in his physical
body going there) to ARF/ARPC for your supposed disciplinary reason, he
would not have been *discharged* at that time.

Your "among other things" includes normal separation (and transfer to the
inactive reserve). Why the innuendo WRT the additional functions of
ARF/ARPC, Denver? Is there any paper or any person that can say GWB was
*assigned* to Denver for 'disciplinary reasons'?

No...didn't think so.

>
> As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the
> separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one
> time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign
> until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive
reserve.
> Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974.

Original, planned separation date = May 1974
Early discharge in Oct 73 and transfer to the inactive reserve adds an
additional 6 months.
Oct 73 -> May 74 = 6 months
6 month additional commitment in Inactive Reserve = Nov 74.

Simple

Pete
Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >...
> >I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
> >CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
> >guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
> >total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
> >time did NOT go to Vietnam.
>
> ...
>
> How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did
> NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to
> do with anything?

It is generally accepted by most folks who remember those years that
men joined the NG to avoid service in Vietnam. Here and there some
folks on this newsgroup argue that GWB in particular did not choose
the Air National Gurad to avoid being sent to Vietnam. If he had
WANTED to go to Vietnam as a pilot then it would ahve made sense
for him to enlist in the USAF or USN.

So I still stick to the notion that GWB chose the guard to avoid
being sent to Vietnam. That's why those numbers are meaningful.

If GWB did not want to go to Vietnam that's fine with me. My brother
didn't want to go, but his birthday was drawn last in the lottery
for his year. I didn't want to go, and they did not draft anyone
from my year. Neither one of us volunteered.

I see nothing wrong with avoiding service in Vietnam by whatever
legal means. I see nothing wrong with terminating one's tour of
duty in Vietnam by whatever legal means. That was how things
were back then.

> >
> >It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
> >number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
> >Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.
>
> If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the
> Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he
> didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go.
>

If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments
for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)?
I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses.

--

FF

[Buzzer]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:20:29 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> wrote:

>Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
>clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
>location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
>disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
>don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
>reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
>type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
>understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
>which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent
>could explain.

I can't find anything official that being assigned to ARPC is some
type of mark against a persons record. Could you provide some official
source for that thought?

I did find this at the ARPC site, but nothing about it being some type
of punishment..

Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC)
"The Personnel Center’s mission expanded in the 1970s, when the Air
Force made ARPC responsible for all Air National Guard personnel
records. This action happened first for officers in July 1971, and
then for enlisted members in March 1978."

[Ed Rasimus]

On 15 Feb 2004 11:50:02 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
>> On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red
>> Shirt) wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there?
>> >CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National
>> >guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in
>> >total served there? How many National guardsmen during that
>> >time did NOT go to Vietnam.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did
>> NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to
>> do with anything?
>
>It is generally accepted by most folks who remember those years that
>men joined the NG to avoid service in Vietnam. Here and there some
>folks on this newsgroup argue that GWB in particular did not choose
>the Air National Gurad to avoid being sent to Vietnam. If he had
>WANTED to go to Vietnam as a pilot then it would ahve made sense
>for him to enlist in the USAF or USN.

You oversimplify. By 1970 input to USAF pilot training was
contracting. It was harder to get a slot, with priority going to
USAFA, then full four-year ROTC and finally to OTS which was the
"opportunity of last resort" for a college graduate who finally saw
the draft looming on the horizon.

By getting a Guard slot, a lucky individual got a guaranteed pilot
training slot, and probably more important a guarantee of
post-graduation assignment to the aircraft of the state unit. IOW, a
guaranteed fighter slot. Pretty good deal.

Under no circumstances would someone wanting to go to Vietnam as a
pilot ever ENLIST. (Before Kevin jumps me again, that is not a slur
against enlisted folks, but merely a statement that enlistment is not
a route to UPT.)
>
>So I still stick to the notion that GWB chose the guard to avoid
>being sent to Vietnam. That's why those numbers are meaningful.
>
>If GWB did not want to go to Vietnam that's fine with me. My brother
>didn't want to go, but his birthday was drawn last in the lottery
>for his year. I didn't want to go, and they did not draft anyone
>from my year. Neither one of us volunteered.

I didn't even know that I didn't want to go. I wanted to fly fast
jets, and got sucked into the business. Too bad I found out that I
liked it.
>
>I see nothing wrong with avoiding service in Vietnam by whatever
>legal means. I see nothing wrong with terminating one's tour of
>duty in Vietnam by whatever legal means. That was how things
>were back then.

And, conversely, there were an incredible number of USAF and USN
aviators who went again and again, all voluntarily.
>
>> >
>> >It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery
>> >number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the
>> >Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status.
>>
>> If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the
>> Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he
>> didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go.
>>
>
>If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments
>for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)?
>I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses.

Nope. Deferments for college continued throughout the war. You
extended your 2-S deferment if you went to graduate school. You
remained deferred if you went into selected professions such as
teaching--which may account for the pacifist left-wing bias found in
so many educators today.

The "unrest" was simply protesting the war in general and the
obligations of citizenship in particular.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:43:54 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
>> clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
>> location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
>> disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
>> don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
>> reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
>> type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
>> understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
>> which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
>equivalent
>> could explain.
>
>ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are
>sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who
>do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?"
>The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement
>function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber.
>

>Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of
>wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action?
>Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now.
> = Nov 74.
>
>Simple
>
>Pete
>Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable
>

The more I read Mr. Dillard's postings and his repetition without
acknowledgement of the key point refuting his assertions, the more I
think he's working off a script of DNC "talking points."



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Cub Driver]

>Was it that, as you relate, he "was no
>longer available to attend" TANG meetings (but if so, was he nonetheless
>accepting payment for his service-time?

You're just spinning facts into fantasy, and tricking it out with
innuendo. Bush received no payments after July 1973, his last day in
uniform.

Bush's Guard service was exemplary for three years, minimal for
another three. In my website I give him the same grade his Yale
professors did for his course work: a "gentleman's C" -- which in
today's university would translate to a B-plus.

There was nothing dishonorable about any of it. Sure, he got favorable
treatment, as any one of us would do if the opportunity arose. Yes, he
slacked off toward the end, but there were very good reasons for
that--the 111th FIS no longer fielded the plane he had trained to fly.

The facts, as many as are own, are all laid out here:
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

Stop wasting our time with your double-talk about disciplinary units
in Denver. For my part, I'm giving you the old Control-K as of this
afternoon.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Bob McKellar]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

> >If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments
> >for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)?
> >I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses.
>
> Nope. Deferments for college continued throughout the war. You
> extended your 2-S deferment if you went to graduate school. You
> remained deferred if you went into selected professions such as
> teaching--which may account for the pacifist left-wing bias found in
> so many educators today.
>

I beg to differ with the gentleman. In my senior year (1968), routine graduate school deferments ended. I
remember it well because of the widespread panic that little action caused among the sons of the well heeled I
associated with.

I had neither the grades or inclination for graduate school, so I went ahead and applied for Navy OCS. When I
applied, before the change in policy, the recruiters told me, "Just let me know when you want to come take the
tests". After the policy change, the AF and Navy recruiters were swamped with applications from college seniors.
A six month waiting list JUST TO TAKE THE TESTS was very scary to a college senior less than four months from
graduation.

I was accepted, was sworn in on May 1, and opened my mailbox upon my return to school to find my notice to report
for draft physical. I politely declined, but it wasn't much of a victory.

1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964.

BTW, I applied to fly for the Navy (AVROC) during by sophomore year. The docs rejected me, so it's moot.
However, I don't recall that the "issue" of VietNam even entered my thoughts at that time. Teenage stupidity and
lack of situational awareness surely contributed to that omission, but I think I was pretty typical.

Bob McKellar, who nonetheless thinks going into the Navy was the second best thing he ever did, although that
realization took a long time to arrive.

BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of
what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )

[Bob McKellar]

Bob McKellar wrote:

>
> 1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964.

Oops!

1968 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964.

Bob

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of
>what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )
>

I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is
quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony
regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance
was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from
the mission.

If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators.

Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title
still to be determined.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tex Houston]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is
> quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony
> regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance
> was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from
> the mission.
>
> If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators.
>
> Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title
> still to be determined.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus


No ordnance dropped and no ordinance violated?

Tex

[Bob McKellar]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar >
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of
> >what Kerry said. ( See page 181 )
> >
>
> I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is
> quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony
> regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance
> was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from
> the mission.
>
> If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators.
>
> Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title
> still to be determined.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime
accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention
four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader?
( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.)

I showed this passage to my pro military college kid. He was stunned. Then, of course, he had to read the whole
book and started in on some other VN references around the house.

Back to the original GWB topic, I don't blame him for using whatever tools he had available to deal with the draft
problem. The Gore's, Cheney's, Kerry's, Kerrey's, DeLay's, Dean's, Quayle's and even Clinton's all had to pick
their own solutions,

They all could have done worse.

Bob McKellar

[Mike Bandor]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:20:29 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> > wrote:
>
> >Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
> >clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
> >location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
> >disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
> >don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
> >reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor
any
> >type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who
do
> >understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline
(custody)
> >which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
equivalent
> >could explain.
>
> I can't find anything official that being assigned to ARPC is some
> type of mark against a persons record. Could you provide some official
> source for that thought?
>
> I did find this at the ARPC site, but nothing about it being some type
> of punishment..
> [... stuff deleted...]

I think what is happening is that folks are misinterpreting what was
meant by "assigned" to ARPC. Let's take a step back to look at this.

When you are in the military (Air Force, ANG, or AF Reserves in this
case), you have a local office that handles your personnel records, issues,
etc. Currently, that is referred to as a Military Personnel Flight (MPF --
for us old-timers, it used to be CBPO). When you leave the military, those
records are then transferred to another central location. You are
"assigned" (a.k.a handled by) a central office (in this case ARPC or AFPC)
as you no longer have a local MPF to work with. For folks in an inactive
reserve status, ARPC is the "assigned" MPF.

Mike

[Buzzer]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:42:44 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime
>accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention
>four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader?
>( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.)

Maintenance debriefing Ubon, Thailand 1967. Pilot with an amused look
said something along the lines of the footbridge over the small stream
is still there, but I'll bet there are fewer elephants in the
surrounding jungle. That is four f-4s and eight expensive crew
members. Targets were seldom mentioned in debriefing, but the elephant
remark has stayed with me after all these years..

[Jeb Hoge]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...

> > > It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon
> the
> > > outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and
> innuendo
> > > that you base your argument upon.
> >
> > You are so kind. Thanks. To repeat, all I want to have is clear answers.
>
> Why? You won't accept the ones you have been getting, so why should anyone
> bother?

Well... :) As the kids like to say...OWNED! Way to go, Lawrence, your
line of questioning has convinced me beyond a doubt that President
Bush's service was indeed valid and complete.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >Snip
> > >
> > >> The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
> > >> obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
> > >> choice not an obligation.
> > >
> > >The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but
> whether
> > >GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
> > >while not performing is reserve function.
> >
> > Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL
> > TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational
> > alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was
> > assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of
> > conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to
> > NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a
> > reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft
> > available at the time.
>
> How, then, was this situation considered "equivalent training"?

ET is the term used to cover a memeber's attendance at drill outside of the
regularly scheduled drill, and possibly with another unit; it does not mean
that the training he/she conducts is "the same as" or "equal to" the unit's
training.

As for your
> invitatin to read your lips: thank you but no, thank you. I am not yet
> prepared to accept you as being some sort of oracle. To repeat, the issue
is
> whether GWB received pay although he failed to carry out his Reserve
> obvligations?

He has demonstrated a much better grasp of reality in this case than you
have, and his knowledge basein regard to the subject at hand is obviously
leaps and bounds beyond your own, but you continue to argue with him, even
to the point of grasping to that ridiculous "records center is a
disciplinary unit" crap well beyond the point of reasonable debate and after
a number of other folks had also clubbed you between the eyes with a 16-inch
clue wrench.

Brooks

<snip further ranting from the clueless>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:08:45 GMT, Buzzer > wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:42:44 -0500, Bob McKellar >
>wrote:
>
>>Well, I thought I put in enough qualifiers in my statement, but I guess I didn't. I was not making any war crime
>>accusations, just commenting on the stupidity of the whole thing. Risking four expensive aircraft ( not to mention
>>four expensive pilots, who have other additional non monetary values, to say the least ) to attack a road grader?
>>( I guess it was a Weapon of Mud Destruction.)
>
>Maintenance debriefing Ubon, Thailand 1967. Pilot with an amused look
>said something along the lines of the footbridge over the small stream
>is still there, but I'll bet there are fewer elephants in the
>surrounding jungle. That is four f-4s and eight expensive crew
>members. Targets were seldom mentioned in debriefing, but the elephant
>remark has stayed with me after all these years..

Elephants and buffaloes, euphemistically known as tactical military
supply conveyors.

But, to return to the original contention of Bob's--yes, there was an
incredible amount of equipment and highly trained (and occasionally
poorly trained) manpower place at risk for extremely small reward.

The entire operation remains an exercise demonstrating how not to
fight a war.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[John S. Shinal]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>....working off a script of DNC "talking points."

As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
fulfillment of duty ?

I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
like the luck of the draw to me...



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ron]

>From: (John S. Shinal)
>Date: 2/16/2004 2:45 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>....working off a script of DNC "talking points."
>
> As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
>assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
>fulfillment of duty ?
>
> I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
>thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
>like the luck of the draw to me...

Well he was in a Guard unit. There is no dream sheet or assignment process.
If a guard unit accepts you for a pilot slot, you go to UPT, then RTU for that
particular aircraft.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Tex Houston]

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
> assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
> fulfillment of duty ?
>
> I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
> thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
> like the luck of the draw to me...

You may not be aware of how the Air National Guard recruitment works. You
elect to join a specific unit which would allow platform shopping. Want to
fly fighters? Then don't join a tanker outfit. You do not enlist in the
Air National Guard and then be placed in an assignment pool. Doesn't work
that way. The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th Air
Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended wing' with
both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and the
175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air Force
Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate relationship
and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[George Z. Bush]

"John S. Shinal" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> >....working off a script of DNC "talking points."
>
> As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
> assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
> fulfillment of duty ?
>
> I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
> thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
> like the luck of the draw to me...

Seems to me that if I wanted to sign up for any state's ANG, all I'd have to do
to figure out what I'd be trained into would be to take a look at what they were
using, unless they were in the process of phasing in some new equipment that
hadn't shown up yet. Luck of the draw? In USAF, sure.....but in ANG units, a
good bet would be that it'd be in what the state was already using. If it
wasn't a sure thing, it had to be the next best thing to it.

George Z.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:45:51 GMT,
(John S. Shinal) wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>....working off a script of DNC "talking points."
>
> As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
>assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
>fulfillment of duty ?
>
> I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
>thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
>like the luck of the draw to me...
>
Folks who get UPT enroute to a Guard slot are locked into the unit
equipment. No "dream sheet" involved. It's resulted in some shopping
around by prospective trainees for a guard unit that's got the desired
equipment.

Among some folks that I met at fighter lead-in training when I was
instructing were Dino Martin (Dean's son) who was killed flying an F-4
into a mountain in California, and Ross Perot (son of Ross Perot) who
flew F-4s for the TANG.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[D. Strang]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> Folks who get UPT enroute to a Guard slot are locked into the unit
> equipment. No "dream sheet" involved. It's resulted in some shopping
> around by prospective trainees for a guard unit that's got the desired
> equipment.

I know of a couple of enlisted crewdogs who are now pilots because of
the guard. One tried his whole first enlistment to get into the Academy,
then got out and joined the Guard. Another did 10 years active before
transfer to the Guard. They both fly C-130J and are loving it.

They went where they were needed, spent a year in the unit while getting
their Degree and Commission, and then applied for a pilot slot.

If you want to fly, and your parents aren't politicians or know one, then
this is a pretty good way to go :-)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John S. Shinal" > wrote in
message
> ...
> > As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
> > assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
> > fulfillment of duty ?
> >
> > I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
> > thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
> > like the luck of the draw to me...
>
> You may not be aware of how the Air National Guard recruitment works. You
> elect to join a specific unit which would allow platform shopping. Want
to
> fly fighters? Then don't join a tanker outfit. You do not enlist in the
> Air National Guard and then be placed in an assignment pool. Doesn't work
> that way. The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
> much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th Air
> Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended wing'
with
> both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and the
> 175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air Force
> Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate
relationship
> and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.

Are those latter two units actually blended? I thought the 116th was the
first and only as of now.

Brooks

>
> Regards,
>
> Tex Houston
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:45:51 GMT,
> (John S. Shinal) wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >>....working off a script of DNC "talking points."
> >
> > As a voice of reason in this whole tempest - does GWB's
> >assignment to an obsolescent platform have anything to do with this
> >fulfillment of duty ?
> >
> > I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
> >thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
> >like the luck of the draw to me...
> >
> Folks who get UPT enroute to a Guard slot are locked into the unit
> equipment. No "dream sheet" involved. It's resulted in some shopping
> around by prospective trainees for a guard unit that's got the desired
> equipment.
>
> Among some folks that I met at fighter lead-in training when I was
> instructing were Dino Martin (Dean's son) who was killed flying an F-4
> into a mountain in California, and Ross Perot (son of Ross Perot) who
> flew F-4s for the TANG.

Ed, when was Martin in LIFT? I saw a documentary recently on his dad, and it
mentioned the son's accident. I had vague memories of it being in the news
when it happened, but found little on the web about his ANG experience. Made
me kind of curious as to his story (not all that many sons of the rich and
famous saw fit to serve in the military during the early eighties). You know
anything more about this?

Brooks

>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tex Houston]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> > The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
> > much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th
Air
> > Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended wing'
> with
> > both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and
the
> > 175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air Force
> > Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate
> relationship
> > and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.
>
> Are those latter two units actually blended? I thought the 116th was the
> first and only as of now.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Tex Houston


I used the Annual Almanac Issue of Air Force Magazine for my source. Those
are the only tree listed.

Tex

[Tex Houston]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Ed, when was Martin in LIFT? I saw a documentary recently on his dad, and
it
> mentioned the son's accident. I had vague memories of it being in the news
> when it happened, but found little on the web about his ANG experience.
Made
> me kind of curious as to his story (not all that many sons of the rich and
> famous saw fit to serve in the military during the early eighties). You
know
> anything more about this?
>
> Brooks


It was covered in a Dean Martin biography I read in the last couple of
years. Might check with the library and see what may have been published in
that period. I think it was written by one of the other kids.

Tex

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard now fly pretty
> > > much the same equipment as the active USAF do. For instance the 116th
> Air
> > > Control Wing at Robins AFB flys the E-8C and serves in a 'blended
wing'
> > with
> > > both ANG and active duty personnel as does the 124th Wing at Boise and
> the
> > > 175th Wing at Martin State Airport does with the A/OA-10. The Air
Force
> > > Reserve has a like plan where the Reserve Wing has an Associate
> > relationship
> > > and actually flies aircraft of an active duty wing.
> >
> > Are those latter two units actually blended? I thought the 116th was the
> > first and only as of now.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Tex Houston
>
>
> I used the Annual Almanac Issue of Air Force Magazine for my source.
Those
> are the only tree listed.

OK, I found that listing. But nowhere else have I seen anything to indicate
that any new blended wings have actually been created, or even
identified--the Maryland ANG website is also devoid of any mention of this.
Kind of makes me wonder if the AFA either jumped the gun or maybe got its
info wrong.

Brooks
>
> Tex
>
>

[Ron]

>> Among some folks that I met at fighter lead-in training when I was
>> instructing were Dino Martin (Dean's son) who was killed flying an F-4
>> into a mountain in California, and Ross Perot (son of Ross Perot) who
>> flew F-4s for the TANG.

A C-119 retardant tanker later crashed virtually on the exact site as Martins
F-4C crash.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Cub Driver]

How far north of 21 are you guys?

More likely, as a typical college senior with a hangover, he chose the
111th because a) it flew "fighters" and b) it was in Houston. What
more does a 21-year-old have to know?

>> I wasn't aware that anyone's "dream sheet" was ever a sure
>> thing ? Didn't he take what he was told to, i.e. the Deuce ? It sounds
>> like the luck of the draw to me...
>
>Seems to me that if I wanted to sign up for any state's ANG, all I'd have to do
>to figure out what I'd be trained into would be to take a look at what they were
>using, unless they were in the process of phasing in some new equipment that
>hadn't shown up yet. Luck of the draw? In USAF, sure.....but in ANG units, a
>good bet would be that it'd be in what the state was already using. If it
>wasn't a sure thing, it had to be the next best thing to it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[D. Strang]

"Ron" > wrote
>
> A C-119 retardant tanker later crashed virtually on the exact site as Martins
> F-4C crash.

But about 400 knots slower :-) Dino is pretty much a part of that mountain
now. I think they found his jaw bone, and that's what they gave to his dad.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:18:12 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> Among some folks that I met at fighter lead-in training when I was
>> instructing were Dino Martin (Dean's son) who was killed flying an F-4
>> into a mountain in California, and Ross Perot (son of Ross Perot) who
>> flew F-4s for the TANG.
>
>Ed, when was Martin in LIFT? I saw a documentary recently on his dad, and it
>mentioned the son's accident. I had vague memories of it being in the news
>when it happened, but found little on the web about his ANG experience. Made
>me kind of curious as to his story (not all that many sons of the rich and
>famous saw fit to serve in the military during the early eighties). You know
>anything more about this?
>
>Brooks

I was at LIFT from July '81 til June of '85. Dino came through in '83
and Perot in '84. Both were good guys with no attitude issues. Each
was fully qualified, no double standard involved.

Martin's accident occured during a radar trail departure in bad
weather out of March AFB (IIRC).


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mike Marron]

>"D. Strang" > wrote:
>>"Ron" > wrote:

>>A C-119 retardant tanker later crashed virtually on the exact site as Martins
>>F-4C crash.

>But about 400 knots slower :-) Dino is pretty much a part of that mountain
>now. I think they found his jaw bone, and that's what they gave to his dad.

Two or three years ago a friend of mine went straight into a farmer's
tomato field in a "slow" ultralight. I landed next to the crash site
and ran over to help but he was obviously deceased. His lifeless body
literally conformed to the shape of the wreckage as all his blood had
been drained out of his body and every bone had been shattered
immediately upon impact. His remains appeared as if they had been
painted onto the wreckage. Another friend who had experienced
ground combat in Vietnam showed up and said he's never seen a
human being that mangled up even on the battlefield, Suffice to say,
it was a sight that I hope never to see again in this lifetime...


If you're dead, you're dead; regardless if you auger in at 40 kts. or
400.

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:41:13 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> Martin's accident occured during a radar trail departure in bad
> weather out of March AFB (IIRC).

George, I think, not March. There were F-4s at George but not at
Marsh. He flew into the side of Mt San Antonio (Baldy) fairly near
the top, as I recall. It took the recovery crews some time to find
the site, I believe, because there had been no witnesses and they had
to wait for the weather to clear.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:47:20 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:41:13 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>> Martin's accident occured during a radar trail departure in bad
>> weather out of March AFB (IIRC).
>
>George, I think, not March. There were F-4s at George but not at
>Marsh. He flew into the side of Mt San Antonio (Baldy) fairly near
>the top, as I recall. It took the recovery crews some time to find
>the site, I believe, because there had been no witnesses and they had
>to wait for the weather to clear.
>
>Mary
Dino was CANG, not USAF. He wasn't flying out of George.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mary Shafer]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:27:16 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:47:20 -0800, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 06:41:13 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Martin's accident occured during a radar trail departure in bad
> >> weather out of March AFB (IIRC).
> >
> >George, I think, not March. There were F-4s at George but not at
> >Marsh. He flew into the side of Mt San Antonio (Baldy) fairly near
> >the top, as I recall. It took the recovery crews some time to find
> >the site, I believe, because there had been no witnesses and they had
> >to wait for the weather to clear.
> >
> >Mary
> Dino was CANG, not USAF. He wasn't flying out of George.

I thought so, too, but the March site says he was a Reserve officer,
not CANG. However, I now see that this isn't a .mil site, but a .org
site, so maybe it's not as authoritative as I thought it was.

OK, looking at the IMDB, It was San Gorgonio, not San Antonio. Which
definitely says it wasn't George. That leaves March and CANG as
pretty much the only options, just as you said. I probably got
"George" from "Gorgonio".

Just as an aside, Frank Sinatra's mother was killed when her chartered
bizjet (a Lear, I think) hit the other side of San Gorgonio.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:11:49 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:27:16 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

>> Dino was CANG, not USAF. He wasn't flying out of George.
>
>I thought so, too, but the March site says he was a Reserve officer,
>not CANG. However, I now see that this isn't a .mil site, but a .org
>site, so maybe it's not as authoritative as I thought it was.

An officer is either "regular" or "reserve". Typically an ANG officer
would be commissioned in the reserve. It's a complicated throw-back
system, and confusing to those who haven't lived under it. There
really isn't any such thing as a National Guard officer--they are a
reserve component. I guess it just helps to confound the political
questions and enhance those who like to posture about GWB not having a
right to wear the nomex.
>
>OK, looking at the IMDB, It was San Gorgonio, not San Antonio. Which
>definitely says it wasn't George. That leaves March and CANG as
>pretty much the only options, just as you said. I probably got
>"George" from "Gorgonio".
>
>Just as an aside, Frank Sinatra's mother was killed when her chartered
>bizjet (a Lear, I think) hit the other side of San Gorgonio.

Small world, ain't it.

It might also be noted that John Ryan's son, who got jumped over other
graduates to get him an F-4 slot, killed himself in the airplane, and
Ross Perot's son who got an ANG slot, arguably through political
leverage, was a pretty good airplane driver.

As long as there are people of influence, there will be some
accusations (rightly or wrongly) of favoritism. Some get to places
they shouldn't be and some get there fully qualified.


>
>Mary

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:03:44 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> Small world, ain't it.

I can see San Gorgonio from my yard here in Palm Desert. I can also
see it from Lancaster on a clear day. The snow helps, of course, but
it won't be around much longer if we keep having days in the mid-80s.

> As long as there are people of influence, there will be some
> accusations (rightly or wrongly) of favoritism. Some get to places
> they shouldn't be and some get there fully qualified.

Tell me about it. I don't know if you ran into this in the military,
but civil servants get a lot of lectures about ethics. One of the big
deals is the _appearance_ of impropriety being just about as bad as
actual impropriety. It's sometimes very difficult. I'm sure that
McCain, for example, found being the son and grandson of admirals
difficult, for example. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:03:44 -0700, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> I guess it just helps to confound the political
>questions and enhance those who like to posture about GWB not having a
>right to wear the nomex.

I've noticed the same thing with respect to his having been "ordered"
to do makeup drills. (Which is to say: he got orders.) And also with
respect to having been transferred (presumably involuntarily) to a
"disciplinary" unit in Colorado. www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com