[americafirst]

Having been an air-guardsman fighter pilot during the eighties, I can tell you that the author of this article knows nothing about how the Guard actually works.

First of all, it is extraordinarily difficult to qualify in a fighter - not to mention dangerous. The Guard is not a dodge - it is a great way to serve, especially if you have other business interests. Secondly, as soon as they qualify in type, the Guardsman fighter pilot spends most of his time trying to figure out how to get paid as many mandays as possible for as few appearances as possible (i.e., we got paid 4 times for one weekend's work - it's just how the system works). The less BS surrounding your sorties, the better.

When changes in his personal life such as a move or change of job affect his ability to put in the required time to stay current (remember - this is typically a part time job - not in all cases, but often), the Guardsman will try to get on with another unit either in a flying position or a position that will enable him to receive retirement credits and hopefully get paid. Ultimately, you miss too many weekends to get credit for the year and you formally ask to separate.

So the president's on again, off again record is typical of many guardsmen - that's a fact.

[GailA]

There are LINKS in this article to follow, so click on the link and take a gander at Bill Hobbs debunking of this crap.

Was Bush "AWOL"?

As the presidential campaign season heats up, you are sure to hear some Democrats charge that President Bush was, long ago, "AWOL" from his Texas Air National Guard duties - and imply also that he joined the guard to avoid Vietnam. Their allegations simply do not hold water.

Last May I wrote several posts about the "Bush was AWOL" charge. Here are the links. Arm yourself with knowledge. You won't convince the hate-Bush crowd, but there are those in the middle who might not know what to believe. Assuring them of the truth may help assure they vote for George W. Bush in November. And just what are the facts?

Bush voluntarily joined a military unit part of which was at that very moment involved in combat in Vietnam. He learned to fly fighter jets. He served honorably and was well-regarded by his fellow pilots. He put in more than his required time of service. And he was honorably discharged.

Those are the facts.

The hate-Bush crowd likes to point to some missing paperwork and an aging colonel's inability to remember one man out of thousands, and claim it proves Bush served dishonorably and was "absent without leave." But paperwork snafus are as common in the military as guns. And the absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense. The "Bush was AWOL" claim is so thin that the New York Times, hardly a bastion of Bush support, debunked and dismissed it.

You can find the links to all of my blog posts on the "Bush AWOL" lie, here. The earliest, posted May 7, is at the bottom. Scroll up for the most recent posts (including this one).

UPDATE: This post was inspired by this debate at the History Channel's website, in which the Bush-haters are losing in part because their side claims Bush was not honorably discharged, and then post links to documents that say Bush was, in fact, "honorably discharged."