Author Topic: President Bush's ANG Service defended..  (Read 1575 times)

Offline Crapgame

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78
      • http://www.we-know-whats-right.blogpsot.com
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« on: February 11, 2004, 09:32:17 PM »
Washington Times

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.

It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

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

The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

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

Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.

Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.

Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.

As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:

First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

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

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

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.

In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.


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

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2004, 10:24:10 PM »
Too bad his Commanding Officers don't remember him being there. And dang that pesky recordkeeper that lost his complete Service Record somewhere in Colorado.:rolleyes:
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2004, 10:37:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm371
Too bad his Commanding Officers don't remember him being there. And dang that pesky recordkeeper that lost his complete Service Record somewhere in Colorado.:rolleyes:


You mean the same commanding officer that just recanted his story that" he didn't remember Bush being there"? The same guy that said he couldn't even remember when he himself had been there?

Lol, and the Dems were bringing up Bushes attendence (citing the base commander's previous lies) on the same day the commander was recanting his story about Bush.

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2004, 10:40:55 PM »
Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge

Quote
The ex-military man who first launched charges during the 2000 presidential campaign that President Bush had gone AWOL from the National Guard has recanted his story.

Quote
But on Wednesday Gen. Turnipseed reversed course, telling NBC News: "I don't know if [Bush] showed up, I don't know if he didn't. I don't remember how often I was even at the base."

Quote
Still, the same day the retired general had withdrawn the allegation, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe was citing Turnipseed's earlier, erroneous account in a bid to keep AWOL charges against Bush afloat.

Offline FUNKED1

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6866
      • http://soldatensender.blogspot.com/
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2004, 10:47:00 PM »
This is SO going to backfire on Kerry.  His well-documented anti-American activities after his discharge are going to piss off a hell of a lot more people than the half-baked charges against Dubya.

Offline BigMax

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2004, 12:05:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm371
Too bad his Commanding Officers don't remember him being there. And dang that pesky recordkeeper that lost his complete Service Record somewhere in Colorado.:rolleyes:


This whole thing is rediculous.... I have 18 years in the military and there are a couple of assumptions being made that just aren't true in the service:
  • COMMANDING OFFICERS - A squadron CO is usually and O5 or higher, depending on the size of the squadron and rarely has more than met his O-1s and 2s.  He probably has from 100 to 300 people working for him at any given time, all of whom rotate at two-year intervals.  Now mention the GUARD & TARs, add another 50 to 100 of them - who no one really gets to know because until a war happens you only see them 2 days a month.  And consider that same CO has been in the service between 15 and 30 years & has had 5 tours in different squadrons...  He has effectively met and worked with literally thousands of people...  Now would you remember 1 guy from 30 years ago?!?!?
  • It seems to me that Democrats and the press alike are quick to voice an opinion without asking for any of the facts.  In fact, most people do.
  • He may or may not have gotten into trouble while he was in, but ultimately he got an honorable discharge. (End of Story)


This whole issue is based on documents that the public scrutinizes and thinks they have a clue as to what is right and wrong in and with the military. When in all actuality they (the documents) are exactly like I'd expect to see, given the circumstances...

To a military man, that piece of paper (Honorable Discharge) says he did what his country asked him to do and that he "stood the watch" when he was asked...  If the American Public questions it, then they question the honorable service of ALL of her military veterans...  I'm guessing that he is experiencing what the Vietnam Vets felt when they returned and the American public turned its back on them.... Shame America.... Shame.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2004, 12:17:59 AM by BigMax »

Offline guttboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2004, 12:30:26 AM »
Well speaking from a guy that has just about the same ammt of time in the USAF I beg to differ on a couple of points BigMax...

Quote
A squadron CO is usually and O5 or higher, depending on the size of the squadron and rarely has more than met his O-1s and 2s. He probably has from 100 to 300 people working for him at any given time, all of whom rotate at two-year intervals.


A flying squadron CO in the USAF is typically an O5 corrrect....however I know of absolutely NO squadron commander that does not know his people...especially his aircrew.  I might buy this point for a Group Commander or Wing Commander but NO WAY a squadron commander.  I might buy this point for a non-flying squadron commander but its still a stretch.

"edited".......for big max.......

Again I differ with you on this point...although you will have the "traditionalist" guardsmen and reservists the Squad Commander knows his folks....I will admit he wont see them as much but still knows them.  

Quote
He has effectively met and worked with literally thousands of people... Now would you remember 1 guy from 30 years ago?!?!?


I agree with you 100% on this point.

Overall I agree with you on your points just the first paragraph I wanted to shed some light on.

Lets face it....most people in this great nation of ours have NEVER been in the military.  Those that have I salute and respect.  In whatever capacity someone has served honorably that deserves our nations respect.  I get a bit upset when I hear folks say that the president was AWOL etc....the man served in the military and just because he did not go to VietNam does not make him less of a man or a patriot.  There are MANY people that NEVER set foot in combat in VietNam.....does that make them any less of a patriot?  NO....It takes all kinds of jobs in the US military to make it run and function...VERY FEW will see actual combat.

Both Senator Kerry and President Bush served in the US Military.  I respect that.  They are also entitled to their opinions, as we all are in the US.  I might not agree with all of their opinions but I do respect them for serving in an honorable fashion.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2004, 01:24:36 AM by guttboy »

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2004, 12:57:55 AM »
Good post BigMax, agree with most of your points. I joined the Nasty Guard prior to my active duty time, and I'm pretty sure no one knew I existed. I'd skip drills (18 and stupid, had better things to do), and no one ever missed me or brought it up. I'd have to say though that I also agree with guttboy to a point, a CO would know his pilots. But this guy that they're basing their claims on has to be old as dirt, so how knows what he remembers? I've been active duty for 14 years, and I honestly couldn't tell you who all my supervisors, COs, etc were during that period....and that's active duty, not reserves where you only see the people once a month.

Offline BigMax

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2004, 01:03:31 AM »
Guttboy...

Dang you're quick! You got it before I editted it... At least some of the points. I rephrased the guard points just for the reason you mentioned... It came out sounding different than I intended and I would appreciate it if you'd ammend your comments with the proper text.  It was never intended to belittle the Guard or TARs - just pointing out that they don't spend any "REAL" time with a unit on a regular basis...

And I was ballparking on numbers as I have not had time research a formal paper, Navy vice AF, making a comparison of similar positions...

But your comments about COs knowing there people is off the mark.  Granted they try, but to say they "do" is very far reaching.  Except in extreme cases, they might know names and have an idea of what type of Airman person X is... As to particulars, no way... Especially when you consider rotations of all personnel and himslef through the different assignments throughout a career...  

Having done the time you specified, you can attest that faces, people and places blend together ultimately into a hodgepodge of memories...  I currently have about 150 that work for me at any given time and I try to know them too... But do I really know them? NO, I don't think so...   And I guess I am looking at KNOW from an in-depth perspective... More than Familiar with, Knows his name (last anyway), knows them by reputation...

I guess I could be off-base, but that is my perception.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2004, 01:12:02 AM by BigMax »

Offline BigMax

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2004, 01:13:57 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Raubvogel
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F


I always thought that Dilligaff had two F's...

Offline Raubvogel

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3882
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2004, 01:16:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by BigMax
I always thought that Dilligaff had two F's...


This is the new Army, we do more with less ;)

Offline guttboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2004, 01:21:36 AM »
Big Max,

I disagree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY on the CO's knowing their people.  I dont know what type of unit you are involved with but I would be willing to bet you $100 that everyone of MY squadron Commanders knows me.    Even now.  I think that in a flying unit the cohesion and comraderie is much higher than that of other units.  When I flew AC130H gunships from 91-98 we had a pretty big squadron of about 200 fliers.  I can honestly tell you I know who my squad buddies are...EVERYONE of them.  Did I party with them on a regular basis....NO not all of them...but I know who they are.  Maybe the Special Operations community is a bit different....I dont know.

I can attest that I CAN name my commanders all the way through my career.  

I do agree that over time things do tend to blend together....Did Bush's CO know him from 30 years ago.....maybe maybe not....if you relayed some stories about the guy then it might come back to him.  Vividly....probably not.  In that "haze" of old age...perhaps.

I guess it just all boils down to the individuals involved.

Raubvogel....I agree as an 18 year old kid on your 2 days a month you ( that is a generic you not you per se ) probably did not make much of an impression on anyone....Hell If I were the CO I prob wouldnt notice as well.  But as a Pilot your CO would know you....If he did not then I would hate to be in that unit.

Will edit my post for ya Big Max....btw....I agree with just about everything you have said and look forward to hearing your thoughts in the other posts:aok

Offline MrLars

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1447
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2004, 04:28:47 AM »
This horse ain't dead yet....here's a bit of what's comming out today...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-11-bush-guard-usat_x.htm

More than a dozen newspapers will be carring Mr. Burketts assertions today and he seems to have some backup to his claim of GWB's 'embarassing' parts of his NG records being roundfiled.

The issue seems to be shifting from missing time to scrubbed records. I wonder if this will bring out debate about GWB's Texas DL being scrubbed also.

One question I have is this.

If GWB trained and flew formation, why hasn't any of his wingmen come forward help his side in this debate? Flying within a few feet ( granted they weren't flying in tight show like formation ) of each other you would think that you would remember the person on your wing and his abilities.

Any ex-military pilots here who can shed some light on the relationship you had with those of your squad whom you flew formation with?

This question doesn't address GWB's alledgedly missing time but I find the almost total lack of people comming forward saying that "I served with the CIC in the TANG or ANG"  interesting. One person that has come forward and claimed to have served with GWB has somewhat of an interesting past.

One last thing, why is it that damn near every pilot from an Air NG unit who is honorably discharged seperates from his duties with the rank of Captian unless disciplinary action is taken that would block his advancement? I am starting to think that while trying to shield GWB from any embarassing info in his military record they have actualy created more problems for him than it was worth.

Offline Cabby44

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 320
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2004, 04:40:12 AM »
^The guy's "recollections" are far too specific for something that allegedly happened 33 years ago.  He "remembers" where he was standing and recalls specific "conversations.

I smell a rat.  A paid rat.....

C.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
President Bush's ANG Service defended..
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2004, 08:50:44 AM »
Guttboy, did you know Doc Murdoch?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!