GWB and the Air Guard

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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

"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.

"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