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

To: kattracks
Here's the rub though - can we say W's attendance or non-attendance at NG matters not a whit - "that was 30 years ago! who cares?" - and make this an issue? Not so long ago Clinton's behavior during the Viet Nam war was newsworthy, now we want to say Kerry's was as well; yet I keep hearing nobody should care about GWB's cause it was so long ago. It's the goose and gander thing, y'know? I think we need to be careful.
8 posted on 02/10/2004 9:32:17 PM PST by kiki p
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: kiki p
Bush isn't running on Viet Nam, he's running on the present threats. Kerry is running on Nam--that's all he's running on. It's fair game.
14 posted on 02/10/2004 9:36:34 PM PST by faithincowboys ( Zell Miller is the only DC Democrat not committing treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
President Bush's military record has been proven, it's a non issue the liberal media is making a issue of.
20 posted on 02/10/2004 9:40:56 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
"...yet I keep hearing nobody should care about GWB's cause it was so long ago."

The fact that it was thirty years ago is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that GWB received an Honorable Discharge -- ipso facto proof that he properly completed all his duties. Period. End of story.

In other words, his ANG service is Alabama is not an issue because it's not an issue!

That the media are trying to make an issue of it is despicable. It's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" story.

33 posted on 02/10/2004 9:52:21 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
They proved today that W did fulfill his obligation.

The early out he got was standard procedure in that era. Besides, Kerry ALSO got an early out.

Anyone knows that Bush wouldn't have an honorable discharge if his service hadn't been fulfilled. For pity's sake, he was an officer. Officers don't go awol and walk away with it. That's just insane.
42 posted on 02/10/2004 9:57:30 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
"Can we make this an issue?...W's service...30 years ago"...

I think it is a legitimate issue because he has NEVER recanted his lies to Congress, his support of the commies, and has not made up for it in actions in the Senate.

W. on the other hand did not go to Vietnam, but he has served his country as Commander in Chief very admirably.

vaudine
54 posted on 02/10/2004 10:02:49 PM PST by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
Here's the rub though - can we say W's attendance or non-attendance at NG matters not a whit

Where have you been? Bush's records have been all over the news. He's done nothing wrong. He's a-ok on the issue. He served with honor.

58 posted on 02/10/2004 10:04:15 PM PST by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
I think you need to research the subject a bit more in depth.
And you might want to clarify the "we" who need to be more "carefull".
I did not serve in VietNam. I am only 45 years old.
The war in VietNam in the 1960s-1970s in no way compares to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq today.
Unless you want to factor in the French connections.But if you want to include them, then you have a good grasp of what happened, and would not have posted that "we" and "carefull" tripe, would you?
Troll alert?


62 posted on 02/10/2004 10:05:48 PM PST by sarasmom (No war for oil=Give France/Russia/China etc oil ,and no war-or so Saddam thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
There were two concurrent wars going on in 1970, the VN war, and the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Bush was a warrior in that other war. As an F-102 Delta Dagger pilot, he was trained and prepared to be thrown into that war, if it turned hot. Every time he took off in the notorious F-102 "widow maker," he risked his life in a very tangible way. The jet was atrociously unstable, and about 1/4 of all of them built crashed, killing a great number of F-102 pilots.

You didn't have to go to Viet Nam to risk your life in 1970, defending America. Flying an F-102 also qualified.

70 posted on 02/10/2004 10:09:21 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
YA KNOW... kiki p, is it?

I just took a peek at your recent postings and you have a nasty habit of bringing up leftist type accusations around here, though you try to do so nonchalantly. It's almost as if you were trying to make us look bad deliberately...

108 posted on 02/10/2004 11:04:50 PM PST by Tamzee (EARTH FIRST!!! We'll stripmine the other planets later...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
Bush and I were Lieutenants (Fellow Pilot Comes to Bush's Defense)
The Washington Times Letters to the Editor 2-11-4
Col. William Campenni (ret.)


Posted on 02/11/2004 8:20:44 AM CST by Petronski

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075896/posts
Letters to the Editor


'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


160 posted on 02/11/2004 7:14:45 AM PST by Valin (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: kiki p
It's the goose and gander thing, y'know?

No it's not. Bush did not fight for the other side.

There is a precedent for this kind of behavior, a war hero who changed sides against us.

Does the name Benedict Arnold ring any bells?

172 posted on 02/11/2004 8:02:10 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

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