More lies debunked

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
This has all been out there...the only reason this non story has any legs is because of the main stream media needs a race and a controversy...if this story was the opposite, it would be a foot note....Did you see this much outrage by the media when it came to certified,documented draft dodger Bill Clinton?
not on your life.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
3,738
Tokens
here, here!!!!
bigsmiley.gif


first Iraq, then France
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The White House "Pay Records" Are Not Pay Records

Two days after George Bush promised Tim Russert and the entire world that he would release "everything" about his military records, the White House surprised reporters with two sets of new documents, along with a cover memo by Col. Albert C. Lloyd Jr. (ret.), a Bush supporter and expert on National Guard documents.

(The second set of documents were illegible, which only fueled the frustration of the reporters. The White House promised to post more legible versions on their Web site, but as of the midnight the only place they could be found was on "unofficial" White House site at FoxNews.com.)

The first set of documents included the documents first published by Democrats.com on 2-10-2000 - notably the "untorn document."

(Not surprisingly, McClellan refused to credit Democrats.com for discovering these documents, and instead claimed he was revealing them for the very first time. Since "shame" is one of McClellan's favorite epithets, we can't resist saying "shame on you" to McClellan for committing plagiarism.)

[document image]

Bush's supporters love this document, because it includes two entries that roughly correspond to Bush's time in Alabama during the fall campaign of 1972: Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14.

Of course, these dates do not correspond to the dates he was specifically ordered to report to Col. Turnipseed - Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5. But Bush's supporters don't worry about such details.

But what exactly is this "untorn" document?

The White House is trying to label it as a pay document. But it is not. There isn't a dollar amount anywhere on it. It is clearly labeled "ARF Statement of Points Earned." ARF (Air Reserve Forces) does not pay Guardsmen - that is the job of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). ARF simply tracks their points towards retirement. The "untorn" document is a retirement document, not a pay document.

Apparently, Bush received retirement points during this service year, the 5th of his 6 years. But did he earn them by actually reporting for duty and performing a useful service to defend his country? Or did Bush go AWOL and receive the credits as a gift from a friendly superior officer who wanted to make sure he got an Honorable Discharge - as Democrats.com has argued? That's what every White House reporter wanted to know.

The Smoking Microfiche

If the ARF document above is not a pay record - and it is not - then it cannot answer this simple question. So by a process of elimination, there is only one other record provided by the White House that could be called a "pay" record for the fall of 1972.

This document is below. It has no name, but it appears to be a printed copy of a microfiche. The only description appears below the microfiche in ink, labeled as "1972 - 4th Q."

The top half is difficult to discern, but it could be a pay document of some kind. For example, the upper right corner says "DAILY PAY" and below that 2763, which could be $27.63. But without knowing the name and number of this form, the abbreviated codes it contains, and the agency that produced it, we cannot say for sure.

But McClellan insisted he was releasing "pay" records, so this is the only document provided by the White House that could possibly show whether Bush was "paid" for the 4th quarter of 1972 (September-December), when Bush was allegedly in Alabama.

And though the document is difficult to read, one thing is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt: Bush was not "paid" for any dates in the 4th Quarter of 1972.

[image]

The crucial section is the bottom, where the dates are clearly arrayed. Here is a schematic diagram, leaving out dates without entries to save space. The headings for the columns after day 31 are unclear, so we gave it our best guess.

[chart image]

Here are some assumptions we must make to interpret the data:

1. The "normal" entries occur between days 1-30. 2. Day 31 appears to be a "dual use" column. In months with 31 days, there could be a numeric entry if points were earned on that date. In the months with fewer than 31 days (Feb, Apr, Jun, Sep, Nov), "99" appears to be inserted as a placeholder.

Using these assumptions, we can draw the following conclusions.

1. Bush's last date of "pay" was April 16, 1972. (The only entries after that date are on April 31, Jun 31, Sep 31, and Nov 31. Since those are all 30-day months, and the entries all say 99, we can conclude that these are "placeholder" numbers on the form, not "pay" dates for duty served.) This corresponds with his known service record.

2. Bush was not "paid" on the dates claimed by the White House in the 4th Quarter: October 28-29 or November 11-14.

The bottom line is clear: Bush was never paid for service during his time in Alabama

Verdict: AWOL and Deserter."

Dems.Com

New White House Documents Indicate Bush AWOL For 6 Months In 1972: WP

White House claims newly-released documents prove Bush actively served paid days between May 27, 1972, and May 26, 1973, but do not account for 6 month gap in 1972, nor identifies the nature of the work on the days served, according to the Washington Post. Retired Lt. Col. previously used by Bush campaign claims records prove Bush contention.

"The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve....It showed that he fulfilled his duties," McClellan said. "There are some that have made outrageous accusations, and I think you need to ask those individuals if they want to continue to stand by those outrageous accusations in the face of documentation that clearly demonstrates the president fulfilled his duties."

--Wash. Post, 02.10.04

"I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn't....

there are no records to show that Bush reported for duty during the summer and fall of 1972. Nonetheless, Bush insists he was where he was supposed to be -- "Otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged," Bush told Tim Russert. Please, sir, don't make me laugh....

I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed....

When Bush attempts to drape the flag of today's Guard over the one he was in so long ago, when he warns his critics to remember that "there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq," then he is doing now what he was doing then: hiding behind the ones who were really doing the fighting. It's about time he grew up." --Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 02.10.04

"The records released today -- some of them smudged and hard to read -- showed that Mr. Bush was not paid for National Guard service from December 1972 to February or March 1973, a time in which Mr. Bush lost his active-flight status.

"Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73?" a questioner persisted. "Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirement to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?"

Schedules varied in National Guard and Reserve units in that era. A typical schedule called for two evening meetings of four hours each, plus one all-day meeting, often on a Sunday, each month. In addition, a unit attended a two-week summer camp at an active military post. A unit member who missed more than a few meetings in a year faced the prospect of being called to active duty." --New York Times, 02.10.04

Here are two documents McClellan may have been describing today, including a discussion of them by "Calpundit." --Politex, 02.10.04

QUESTION: The records that you handed out today and other records that exist indicate that the president did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I'm wondering if you could tell us where he was during that period. And also how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MCCLELLAN: The records that you're pointing to, these records are the payroll records. They're the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records, these payroll records reflect...

QUESTION: That wasn't my question. Where was he in December of '72...

MCCLELLAN: These records...

QUESTION: ... February and March of '73? Why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MCCLELLAN: These records I'm holding here clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The president was proud of his service. The president...

QUESTION: I asked a simple question. How about a simple answer?

MCCLELLAN: John, if you'll let me address the question, I'm coming to your answer.

QUESTION: Well, if you would address it, maybe you could.

MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry, John, this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year. And the facts are important for people to know. If you don't want to know the facts, that's fine. But I want to share the facts with you.

QUESTION: I'll ask one more time: Where was he in December of '72, February and March of '73. Why didn't he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972? [The question was never answered. --Politex.] transcript

"Under questioning from increasingly vexed reporters, it becomes clear the White House's pay stubs and other papers aren't terribly convincing proof of anything -- except that these lame scraps of evidence demonstrate a three-month gap -- a period in which now apparently even the White House tacitly admits Guardsman Bush was absent without leave, off working on a Senator's campaign in another state. (Remember, even 31 days of AWOL meets the army's internal administrative standard for " desertion "). The White House also does not dispute that Guardsmen Bush lost his flying status -- status he earned at American expense -- by failing to submit to an army medical examination. And it offers no explanation for why a hard-partying mediocrity like George W. Bush circa 1972 might have been afraid to show up for that." --The Nation, 02.10.04
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
4,123
Tokens
9,087,000 Military personnel served during the Vietnam Era, 8|5|64 thru 5|7|75.

25% were drafted

6,140 Guard/Reserve served in RVN & 101 were KIA

1 out of every 15,329 Guard/Reserve received orders for RVN

Things are different today but I can guarantee you 99% of the brave warriors like Junior were not looking for a fast track to Nam by hiding out in the Texas Air National Guard.

Semper Fi,

Lt. Dan
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
I love the comparisons to Clinton. Pin the Repubs down and they try and blame everything on Clinton.

News flash: Bush dodged the war just like Clinton period. They did it in different manners. Bush called in favors to get jumped up on guard slot list he wasn't qualified for (a la Dan Quayle "I had a few phone calls made") while Americans like Wil and Lt. Dan served. Clinton dodged by manipulating ROTC.

Difference is Bush is belligerent in his supposed defense of America, i.e., "Bring 'em on", "I'm the war president". Funny - he, Cheney and Wolfowitz couldn't find time to fight the Viet Nam war when they were draft age.

Btw, any of you Repubs out there, prior to 9/11 or in his campaign of 2000, point out to me where Bush ever even mentioned Osama, al qaeda and the "war on terror". You can't. If he's such a great defender of the Homeland, don't you think that he would've mentioned that in his campaign for the Presidency?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,180
Messages
13,565,094
Members
100,759
Latest member
68gamebaiartt
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com