Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Bush AWOL? Democrats Attack...and a Retired Naval Reserve Officer Responds
Hobbs Online ^ | 2/3/0 | William H. "Bill" Hobbs / Steve Houpt

Posted on 02/04/2004 9:22:13 PM PST by Valin

In recent days, Democrats have ratcheted up their attacks on President Bush, using the slanderous lie that Bush was "AWOL" or a "deserter" from his service in the Texas Air National Guard back in the early 1970s.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAulliffe says George W. Bush "never served in our military in our country," although, clearly, Bush did.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, who ought to know better, is telling a lie about Bush's service, claiming "Bush was AWOL and was kicked out of the Alabama National Guard." Neither part of Cleland's statement is true.

And Sen. John Kerry, current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, reportedly has not decided whether or not he'll use the "Bush AWOL" charge in a campaign against President Bush.

The media is now re-examining the story, though, and the Bush-haters are quite happy about it. As this story in today's Washington Post indicates, there is plenty of evidence Bush was not AWOL from his Guard duties. Indeed, one of the foundational pieces of the Bush-haters' lie is the failure of a colonel in Alabama to recall Bush ever being on post.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said yesterday that although no official record has been found, "obviously, you don't get an honorable discharge unless you receive the required points for annual service." He said Bush "specifically remembers" performing some of his duties in Alabama. Bartlett also provided a news clipping from 2000 quoting friends of Bush's from the Alabama Senate campaign saying they recalled Bush leaving for Guard duty on occasion. Bush said in 2000 that he did "show up for drills. I made most monthly meetings, and when I missed them I made them up."

Reached in Montgomery yesterday, Turnipseed stood by his contention that Bush never reported to him. But Turnipseed added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time.

If Turnipseed wasn't there much of the time, he's less likely to have encountered Bush. And if Turnipseed was on post much of the time but now, 30-plus years later, as an old man, doesn't remember being there, well... he is not a reliable witness.

I've extensively documented Bush's service and rebutted the Bush AWOL lie, in a series of posts you can access here. I'm not going to rehash them here except to say the facts are simple: George W. Bush volunteered for service in a military unit a part of which was at that very time involved in combat in Vietnam. He learned how to fly a combat aircraft, was a highly regarded pilot, served more time than his Texas Air National Guard contract required, and was honorably discharged.

This post is to share with you a long email I received from Steve Houpt, a retired member of the U.S. Naval Reserve. I post it here with minimal editing for typos, clarity and presentation, including replacing some acronyms with the complete organization titles.

This is too long to put in your comments section and I have no desire to start a blog. If any of this info is of any use now or in the future, feel free to use it in your blog if you desire, but you have the myth [lies] about Bush’s Air National Guard service very well covered. 1. I have worked at the Naval Reserve Headquarters in New Orleans on two different occasions [1980-1986 and 1989-1992] and have had to deal with reserve attendance in units I was assigned. Changes all the time, but it should be similar from ANG to Naval Reserve to Air Force Reserve. I also am aware of 30 year old paperwork trails. [No computers]. Reserve components have different options when someone does not drill (or is excused). We excused people from obligations all the time depending on situations. I am not aware of "court martialing" anyone. GWB was "transferred" from a unit referred to as a "hardware unit" [flying aircraft] in Texas to a "non hardware unit" in Alabama. Sounds like it was for administrative purposes. Working on a Senate campaign. No airplanes. Sounds like "excused" or "unexcused" absence. We did it all the time and who knows where paperwork is from 30 years ago. And remember, we were in a "paper" system back then.

We would transfer people to non drill units for paper work. I know GWB was under a "6 year obligation", but so what. You have two options if he really was AWOL. You activate him (and that costs active duty money) or you give him unsat. No one has any proof of what actually happened 30 years ago. Every story I have read is based from basically one story and it takes on a life of its own from there.

2. A myth has grown in this country that no Guard or Reserve served in Vietnam. Yes, the Guard was "safer" than being drafted. But we have a "Guard and Reserve" for a reason. If everyone enlisted in the active Army in 1968, we would have had to draft people into the Guard and Reserve. The draft fills ANY vacancies in the armed services. It is not an ARMY draft. It just happens that 99% of those vacancies during Vietnam were in Army infantry units.

Many Guards and Reserves served. My civilian boss from 1989-92, James G. Pirie USNR CAPT [ret], was a Naval Reserve LCDR who was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 while flying an A-4. He was in same Naval program I was in, the Training and Administration of Reserves [TAR] program.

Draft dodgers went to Canada. I avoided the draft by enlisting in the Naval Reserve in 1971 and had to serve three years active duty because I already had my draft notice to report before I was actually sworn in. I did my three years and stayed an extra 23 years on active duty in the Navy TAR program. The draft was how the NAVY, MARINES, AIR FORCE, RESERVES and GUARD stayed at 100% [with few recruiters] and could actually pick and choose.

Tell these Guard and Reserve members why they went the "safe" route:

Colorado ANG - The POW display is on loan from former POW Gobel James, who spent five years at the infamous Hanoi Hilton. Two other Air National Guard pilots, Major Clyde Seiler and Captain Perry Jefferson, are also honored. Seiler, 38, of Aurora, died in March 1969 when his F-100 Super Sabre was shot down during a strafing run in South Vietnam. Like most National Guardsmen, Seiler had a “day job.” He was a pilot for Continental Airlines. Jefferson was 37 when an observation aircraft he was riding in with a forward air controller failed to return from its mission in Vietnam. Jefferson was also assigned to fly F-100s for the Colorado ANG. While he died in April 1969, he was listed as missing in action for nearly 12 years.

The 1960s panel features a painting called “Vietnam Scramble,” with pilots of the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron, CANG, running for their F-100 fighter jets on Phan Rang airbase in Vietnam.

The Air National Guard in Vietnam - Eleven squadrons were called up in January 1968 in response to the seizing of the U.S. Navy ship Pueblo by North Korea, and two tactical fighter squadrons were, the 166th (Ohio) and the 127th (Kansas) were sent to South Korea.

In May 1968 one aeromedical airservice group and two tactical fighter groups were federalized.

Four tactical fighter squadrons - the 120th (Colorado), 174th (Iowa), 188th (New Mexico), and 136th (New York) - deployed to Vietnam. And although not a Guard unit, the Guard can claim credit for a fifth squadron, the 3755th: 85 percent of this tactical fighter squadron's personnel were Air Guard volunteers from New Jersey and the District of Columbia.

More on ANG in Vietnam - In response to the first presidential order, the ANG mobilized 9,343 personnel on 25 January 1968. The President mobilized and additional 1,333 Air Guardsmen on 13 May.

Prior to their return home in April 1969, they flew 24,124 sortie and 38,614 combat hours. Those numbers rose to approximately 30,000 sorties and 50,000 combat hours if the predominantly Air Guard 355th was included. Two ANG fighter squadrons and their F-100Cs were dispatched to Korea in the summer of 1968 to replace the Air Force units that had been rushed there during the Pueblo crisis.

Air Guard volunteers also supported Air Force operations in Southeast Asia. The first sizable ANG airlift involvement began in 1965. They flew regularly to SEA until 1972. Between August 1965 and September, Air Guard domestic and offshore aero medical evacuation flights freed active duty Air Force resources for such missions in SEA. In July 1970, two EC-121 "Super Constellations" from Pennsylvania's 193rd Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron departed their home station for Korea, Thailand. During the next six months, about 60 Guardsmen were rotated through the latter installation on 30 to 60 day tours in Operation "Commando Buzz," Their aircraft served as flying radar stations and airborne control platforms for U.S. air operations in SEA until January 1971.

Navy League - With the decision of the nation's leaders not to commit Reserve units to the war in Vietnam, only a small percentage of the Medals of Honor awarded went to members of the Reserve components: Three Naval Reserve and two Marine Corps Reserve personnel received the award during that long struggle.

Naval Air Reserve Squadron's VAQ-208/308 - These reserve squadrons were not mobilized but “VAQ-308 along with its later formed sister squadron, VAQ-208, established a new precedence by flying combat support missions in S.E. Asia during the Vietnam War with civilian reservists (not recalled to Active Duty) during short leaves of absence from their civilian occupations.”

Army Reserve History - Vietnam Conflict - 5,900 Army Reserve soldiers are mobilized.

Air Force Reserve, 349th - A recall to active duty was again initiated on January 26, 1968 for the Vietnam War, and many hundreds of tons of cargo were carried across the Pacific. Upon deactivation in 1969, the 349th moved to Travis Air Force Base, California, and became the second "associate" Wing in what was then the Military Airlift Command.

Steve Houpt Senior Chief Av Elect Technician [ret] USNR [TAR].


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: ang; awol; bush43; bushrecord; deserter; georgebush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: backhoe; Valin; HenryLeeII

Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in Alabama. Documents from Ellington Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May." Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that required minimal duty and offered no pay. Although that unit's commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31 higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist [in this case, Bush] can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."

Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama.

This seems as though it would pose a problem for W., IF true.

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

41 posted on 02/05/2004 6:22:36 AM PST by End Times Sentinel ("24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gatorbait
Thanks a lot Michael Moore!

Michael Moore is the boob in the DNC's halftime show!

42 posted on 02/05/2004 6:29:13 AM PST by PLOM...NOT!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OneCitizen
Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton?


Because. Next question.
43 posted on 02/05/2004 6:36:47 AM PST by Valin (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gatorbait
Do you really want to get anywhere close to the source for those claims?

No, I just thought a challenge to the troll was appropriate.

44 posted on 02/05/2004 6:37:39 AM PST by .38sw (sniff. sniff. What's that smell?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: .38sw
No, I just thought a challenge to the troll was appropriate.

That it was. Guess my play on words missed the mark..

45 posted on 02/05/2004 6:41:23 AM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OneCitizen
Kerry's only 60; there was a draft throughout the 1950's and 60's. Kerry isn't older than the draft system.

What he is older than is the system where birthdays were given numbers used for call ups, to make the draft fair. My point is that the upper echelons were doing just fine getting out of serving. Senator Kerry wasn't drafted, was he? I'd be surprised if the reason he signed up was to avoid being drafted.

46 posted on 02/05/2004 6:43:10 AM PST by grania ("Won't get fooled again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gatorbait
It's too early in the morning out here on the left coast for me to catch on to word plays, and I haven't even had my first cup of coffee yet.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
47 posted on 02/05/2004 6:49:24 AM PST by .38sw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
The goal is to taint the carrier landing to the point President Bush will be afraid to use the video in his campaign.

I think that the Ground Zero stuff and the picture of The President in contemplation in his office are more powerful.

As to the reason I still say it is to poison Viet Nam as an issue if the main election (so that there will be no discussion of Kerry's giving aid and comfort to the North Viet Namese.

48 posted on 02/05/2004 6:54:46 AM PST by Mike Darancette (Bush Bot by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Re Clinton. It was a problem for me and not the only one. I didn't vote for him. I followed the campaign and this issue among others spelled trouble. I watched Bill Clinton in '92 and I knew the Democrats were headed for trouble. If you research the results of the first 10 or so Democratic primary contests in '92, you'd find Clinton losing all of them. Democratic voters were trying to get the attention of the Democratic establishment to deal with Bill Clinton.
49 posted on 02/05/2004 7:49:34 AM PST by OneCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
The important thing, I think, is that people don't really like being reminded of the Vietnam days. The hardcore Dems think they're hurting the President, but they're hurting themselves. Denigrating NG and Reserve service is not a good idea.
I hope they stick that fat-ass Michael Moore out front often. He was never a soldier or an auto worker for that matter, and outside of Hollywood people know that. He's just a walking turn-off.
Kerry with his fake theatrics and liberal record will go down like Mondale. It's going to be painful to watch.
50 posted on 02/05/2004 10:22:04 AM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
Well .. that's not what Wolfson said. He said, "the republicans started it with the carrier landing".

You don't have to believe me, but I was watching the show and I heard him say it.

But .. if you don't want a discussion on Vietnam, then why are the democrats even brining it up. They're saying we started it, but they are actually the ones who started it with Michael Moore's "deserter" statement. If they didn't want to talk about Vietnam, that was a stupid move.

Also .. this claim that the repubs started it .. is just another glaring example of how the "projection" technique works. The dems have blamed the repubs for bringing it up, when in fact it was the dems who brought it up.
51 posted on 02/05/2004 10:33:35 AM PST by CyberAnt (The Election in 2004 - it's for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
You don't have to believe me,

Oh, I heard it too, from McAliff no less. But the reason stated does not hold water, a debate on the Carrier picture will get, well, the carrier picture being broadcast (for free).

The Dems through Kerry surrogates are causing the AWOL furor so that Kerry can come out, himself, and say, "Lets move ahead and not discuss what happened 30 years ago". Kerry has more baggage over Viet Nam than the President.

OBTW: A RAT sockpuppet cannot say anything that I am bound to take at face value.

52 posted on 02/05/2004 11:14:03 AM PST by Mike Darancette (Bush Bot by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
You're arguing semantics .. and saying the statement from Wolfson doesn't hold water because it doesn't fit with your opinion of why the dems are bringing up this issue.

And .. you didn't hear what Wolfson said (because McAwful did not say that). McAwful said that Bush was AWOL. Wolfson said something else. Wolfson may have said the carrier video was the issue .. when it really wasn't. But that doesn't deny that Wolfson said what he did.

I realize it may be a smokescreen .. but I do believe the dems are really worried about that video. I remember all the hoopla over it initially and McAwful's statement to the RNC that it could not be allowed in Bush's campaign .. and this was way before Kerry was a potential candidate.
53 posted on 02/05/2004 11:47:24 AM PST by CyberAnt (The Election in 2004 - it's for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Valin
I wonder what Saddam thinks about W's military capability?
Might ask the Taliban the same question.
54 posted on 02/05/2004 11:50:56 AM PST by bk1000 (error 404- failed to get tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
...and saying the statement from Wolfson doesn't hold water because it doesn't fit with your opinion of why the dems are bringing up this issue.

Watch and see (I've bookmarked this) Kerry will reprise his 1992 statement about what happened during Viet Nam times should not be a political football.

As to whether Wolfson's statement holds water is not something that can not be easily proved or disproved. They had to have a reason and this was as good as any, IMHO.

55 posted on 02/05/2004 12:29:22 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Bush Bot by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
And .. you didn't hear what Wolfson said (because McAwful did not say that).

I didn't hear Wolfson say anything about the carrier incident but I did hear McAliff say it. But it just doesn't ring true coming when it did.

56 posted on 02/05/2004 1:03:40 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Bush Bot by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
but I do believe the dems are really worried about that video.

Can you blame them?
57 posted on 02/05/2004 9:16:08 PM PST by Valin (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: grania
Senator Kerry didn't have to join; he's older than the draft system. It was a choice.


You know not of what you speak..... He didn't have to join is correct.... but he's not older than the draft system whatever that means....

John Kerry was born on Dec. 11, 1943 and the draft was ended in 1973.... Kerry served from 1966-70. So he was definetly elgible to be drafted .
58 posted on 02/05/2004 9:37:58 PM PST by deport (VA EL ARBUSTO VA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Heck no! It tells all President Bush is and they are not!!
59 posted on 02/05/2004 9:58:39 PM PST by CyberAnt (The Election in 2004 - it's for the SOUL of AMERICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
It's going to be painful to watch.

Not really. I call it pay back.

60 posted on 02/05/2004 10:41:06 PM PST by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson