Posted on 09/08/2004 6:26:40 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud
I listened to KLIF 570 AM this afternoon. During Greg Knap's drive time show. He interviewed Col. William Campenni Ret. He served with President Bush in the Air National Guard and is very clued into the situation. I am looking for a transcript, but for now I will post a summary of my best recall. (Sorry for any spelling or form mistakes...I wanted to get this out).
Campenni pointed out, during the interview, that the Boston Globe story got it wrong. He exposed Korb and the other "analyst" the Globe used , as having no idea of how the Air Guard worked. He stated how Korb was not a Reagan man. He was canned by the Reagan folks and now works for some liberal tank that supports Kerry.
THE FIRST POINT THAT COL. CAMPENNI addressed, discredited the major premise of the Boston Globe article. Campenni pointed out how the Globe used the fiscal year as their time frame for evaluating Bush's Guard points. He pointed out that they were not correct in doing so. Bush was evaluated by the Air Guard based on a year time frame that began on his enlistment date. (I think that is May - May for Bush). That time frame is not the same for every Airman...because some enter service on other months.
By misrepresenting the years of Bush's service (mistating time frames), the Globe manipulated the amount Bush earned for each year. Campenni explained that whether or not Bush showed up was based on the earned points per year. If you are not aware of this system, Airman had to do enough drills to earn 50 points per year. This is how the Globe was able to say that Bush did not serve enough drill times...because they wrongly based it on a fiscal year...and not Bush's enlistment year.
Campenni pointed out that based on the real evaluation of each of Bush's years of service, and not the phony system that the Globe used, Bush had more than enough points for each year.
THIS TOOK CAMPENNI to his next point. Bush did not have to serve any drill time in the state of Mass., as the Globe has claimed. To even go to Graduate School in Mass., Bush had to get early discharge before he could attend. The Guard approved it. The Guard also approved Bush's time to work on the campaign in Alabama, this included the summer months that he had off.
Campenni pointed out, that since Bush was not "transferred" to the 187th in Alabama as the Globe has claimed, he only had to show up in the period he did and complete his drill time. Campenni pointed out that the records the Globe looked at...show that Bush did do his drills. He stated that Bush owed no drill time at the time of his discharge. And because he was discharged, did not have to do further drills. Campenni pointed out that the Globe was wrong in stating that Bush had to do more drills. He said Bush was subject to call up, as was every other recent discharge. {NOTE- At this point, Greg Knap informed that some General had just gone on CNN and said that Bush did drill time, during the Grad Schoo time, with a Guard unit from Colorado. I AM LOOKING FOR THAT INFO- IF ANYONE SAW IT...PLEASE POST ABOUT IT.}
AGAIN- Campenni pointed out that Bush had earned more than his required drill points, and had rightly earned an honorable discharge. He went back and pointed out that the Boston Globe had to misrepresent the Bush's service years, by listing them as a fiscal year, and not the actual year of Bush's service, to falsely claim that he had not completed drill time.
AT THIS POINT CAMPENNI and Knap talked about the evaluation that Bush got that had the phrase "Not Observed" in the report. Campenni stated that the Globe and the AP misrepresented what that meant. He said that it did NOT mean that an Airman had missed drills. He stated it is a standard term that is used when an Airman has moved between two locations...or did not enter service early enough to be Observed for that year.
He further explained that, for a commander to state that he observed an airman, the Airman must have 90 drill days under that commander. Bush had split that year between two locations...Texas and Alabama. Since he was not "transfered" to Alabama and was only there as a courtesy to fill drill time. As a result, the 147th commanders still had to fill out an evaluation. And since Bush's time was split that year...there were not 90 days to observe in Texas.
This is why there is a listing of "Not Observed" AGAIN- The term in no way means that Bush did not perform required drill time for the year.
CAMPENNI NEXT ADDRESSED the lie that "nobody remembers seeing Bush in Alabama".
- He of course spoke of Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun. I think he listed him as a Safety Officer. He mentioned how Calhoun has come public and stated that Bush reported to him.
He pointed out his is why Robert Mintz (the guy from the Texans for {non}Truth ad) did not see Bush. He pointed out that Bush was in an administrative office while doing his drills, and not in the hanger/flight prep areas. He also pointed out that the base is not that small, so it is wrong to claim that one would have seen and remembered every other person there.
-He also mentioned that a Sgt. Copeland, who worked finance and accounting as his billet, has also come forward and stated that he had seen Bush.
Bush would see Copeland when he had to have his drill pay statements forwarded to Texas. Copeland has come public with this.
-He then mentioned the Dentist on the base who said he saw Bush.
-He then mentioned that the Flight Surgeon has stated in the past that he gave Bush a physical. The FS now has some health problems...but his son has come forward and confirmed that the FS did state that he saw Bush.
CAMPENNI MENTIONED that Walter Robinson, who wrote the trash piece, was not a writer for the paper...but the EDITOR. He mentioned how bad it looked that Robinson helped coordinate todays hit piece. It showed bias.
He finished off by addressing the Forme (AND ONCE SHAMED OUT OF OFFICE) Barnes. He pointed out how Barnes has already been discredited and has been exposed has working with the Kerry Campaign.
That is it for the interview. I am looking for a transcript. So for now, all I can offer is a summary.
Greg Knap later followed with a callers who brought up points that backed up Campenni. Knap stated that it was obvious that the lib media networks, Rather, and the AP types must have coordinated this for today. How else would on explain that it was know yesterday that they were all going to go with the (Bogus) Globe story.
Much of what they had mentioned, had been figured out by Freepers today. Jaycost had this thread...really good.. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1209878/posts
This article from ChronWatch had info from Campenni and Calhoun. Spells it out really well. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9259
That's all for now, Brat.
North Texas bump!
Thanks.
Nice try, but when your guy is a lazy gigilo who betrayed his country and hasn't done anything of significance in 20 years in the Senate, facts are not going to be persuasive!
Republicans needs to hammer Kerry'e senate testimony now! Label the bastard for what he is, a traitor ,let all Americans know what Kerry truly stands for.
Here's W's record on an annual basis according to his enlistment date of May 1968:
May 68 - Sept 69
Active duty 226 days
Inactive duty 12 days
Gratuitus 15 days
Sept 69 - Jun 70
Active 313 days
Inactive 12 days
Gratuitus 15 days
Jun 70 - Jun 71
Active 46 days
Inactive 76 days
Gratuitus 15 days
Jun 71 - 72
Active 72 days
Inactive 75 days
Gratuitus 15 days
Jun 72 - May 73
56 points, 50 being minimum.
Therefore he had:
15 days active minimum
24 days inactive minimum
Discharged on 1 Oct 1973 with 672 days active duty, 196 days inactive duty.
ANG members were required to attend 24 days of weekend duty & 15 days of active duty per year.
Most of that came right from that sick BushAwol site & its links like USA toady & Factcheck, I guess they don't think we can read.
Thanks for the recap.
So their own number show them wrong.
That is even more pathetic than what the Globe tried by misepresenting how the years are evaluated.
Ping
That's right ArmyBrat. They're just posting all kinds of stuff on that BushAwol site (& have been for several years). If you take the time to read it & have served in the military you can see a lot of the facts actually support W, it's their opinions that don't.
bttt
Great recap. Thank you.
CNN? They would never report such a thing, they are pro a Kerry no questions asked supporter!
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.