"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote:
Snip

The colonel remained in the Guard. That was a choice not an
obligation. GWB, was honorably released from the Guard. That was a
choice not an obligation.

The issue is not whether anyone managed an "honorable release", but
whether
GWB managed to actually physically serve his complete tour, or was paid
while not performing is reserve function.

Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL
TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational
alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was
assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of
conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to
NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a
reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft
available at the time.

How, then, was this situation considered "equivalent training"? As for your
invitatin to read your lips: thank you but no, thank you. I am not yet
prepared to accept you as being some sort of oracle. To repeat, the issue is
whether GWB received pay although he failed to carry out his Reserve
obvligations?


Excuse me son, but ANG units deployed regularly to SEA throughout the
conflict. In fact, at the time that GWB entered Guard service, there
were F-102 units deployed operationally in Vietnam and Thailand.
Several F-102s were lost during the war. Other ANG units experience
combat (and losses) in other aircraft types.

I stand corrected to an extent, as I did not clearly enough state my
meaning. The context, however, was supplied by the Colonel, who recounted
the way things were with a specific NG, the TANG. I should have
emphasized
that factor more clearly. In any event, by the time GWB finished his
type-training in the F-102, there was a greatly diminished demand for
their
services with active-duty squadrons, and his service does not withstand
comparison to that to which modern-day units can often be subjected.

You have an interesting way with words. My service "does not stand
comparions to that which modern-day units can often be subjected"
either. That's a meaningless requirement. How can service in the
present be compared to the unknown of what service might be like in
the future?

Thank you. You have an interesting way with words, as well. Modern-day NG
units are far more thoroughly integrated into the active forces, and in
general, far better-trained than, say, TANG was, during the time under
discussion. You are merely muddying the waters by mention of "meaningless
requirement" (how does that follow, anyway?). As the Colonel went on to give
context, TANG was rather informal in his day.


There were only two aircraft types in the entire USAF that were not
operated in SEA, the F-106 and the B-58. Every other aircraft in the
inventory was "able to play a role in the fighting."

Again, by the time GWB qualified in the F-102, that a/c type was no
longer
in great demand in the war zone.

So, now we are demanding prescience? How does one know when starting a
two year training program leading inevitably to qualification in a
combat aircraft that in two years the type will no longer be in great
demand in the war zone?????

If you will please stick with the issues being addressed, you will easily
understand. Prescience is not required now; nor was it then. (I never
claimed that GWB was prescient, btw. You have no grounds for suggesting that
I have done so.) For goodness' sake, let's try to keep this a civil, adult
discussion and avoid gratuitous insults, etc. And let's stick to issues, OK?

In any event, by the time GWB qualified in F-102s the type was no longer in
great demand, as the Colonel, in his letter, did relate, because as he
remembers it, the F-102 "...could not drop bombs and would have been useless
in Viet Nam". Furthermore, the Colonel relates that a volunteer ANG
program, PALACE ALERT, "...was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved
unsiutable to the war effort..." These are hardly remarks consonant with
yours.


By late 1970, the USAF and USN were drawing down training requirements
for aircrews significantly. Production of pilots and navs for AF was
reduced from more than 5000/year to around 3000. (I was the director
of Air Training Command undergrad flying training assignments at the
time.) Releases from service commitments in '72-'74 were common.

Was GWB released early from his service commitment? Or was he required to
make up for missing about six months' time of service, instead? I have
seen
no indication that GWB requested early release from TANG.

Read today's newspaper.

I have done so. Did you read yours, with care? Or did you read it with
blinders on? A 69-yr-old former TANGer claims that he passed the time with
GWB during a period of time in ALA; however, his recollection of events is
out of plumb with the President's own records. Pay records? Not necessarily
useful, as the charge is that GWB went AWOL (or at
least massively reneged on his commitment; if true, the neat pay-records
demonstrate that he was a goldbrick or a ghost-payroller.


The USN training program at Pensacola in late '71 had a blood-letting
in which 400 trainees were released from pilot training, some of them
within two weeks of graduation and receipt of their wings.

Interesting but completely irrelevant to the issues uner discussion.


I can see no connection between that state of affairs and the issue at
hand:
whether GWB actually properly fulfilled his service commitment and was
legally paid for doing so, or not, that is, was GFWB a "ghost payroller"
who
performed no duties yet was credited therefore and still got paid to
boot.

The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service.

No, not necessarily. They indicate only whether or not and if so, when he
was paid; they do not tell us whether he actually performed services in
return for the money, or give any certain indication of GWB's whereabouts.

The
relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975,
from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was
drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could
have had it for the asking at any time.

OK. No indication so far, that I know of, has popped up to suggest that GWB
asked for an early "out" altogether from the reserves.

First, note that UPT takes more than a year. Survival, operational
training and unit check takes another year. During that entire time,
you are on full time active duty and every time you kick the tires and
light the fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it
can kill you--all by itself without help from an enemy.

I never questioned any of that, as it is irrelevant to the issues at hand. I
am looking for answers to explain GWB's absences.

The Colonel made the above perfectly clear. I join those who applaud the
intrepid GWB for completing his training. However, again, that is not the
issue. GWB failed to complete a required flight physical (July, 1972)
after
going operational on the F-102, for which he was suspended and grounded
from
TANG aviating (August, 1972). His records from TSNG show no actual duty
after May,m 1972. (Mastrer Personnel Record, Form 712).

His flight physical omission was at the time of his reassignment to
Montgomery where he was not going to be on active flying duty.


It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October, 1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post) among
other things, disciplinary reasons.

Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a
disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence
of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment
(Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed.

Sigh. A military person may be disciplined, may he not, by punishment or
corrective measures which do not comprehend either physical restraint or
jailing? And so disciplined for infractions calling for neither
court-martial nor Article 15 proceedings.


Neither drills nor attendance were
required, however. GWB accumulated only ARF points during the time in
question. As far as I know, ARF duty is not counted by TANG as "official
duty" with TANG. So it appears that GWB did serve faithfully for three
years
(approx), then less than 30 days during a fourth year, and apparently no
service (ARF duties not being counted by TANG) during the last two years
of
his commitment.

Duty is duty. You are either on duty or you are not. If the ARPC
posting was a duty assignment, then the time would count with TANG.
Confess now, you're really making this up aren't you?

Why don't you check with TANG to learn for yourself whether ARF/ARPC credits
were so counted by TANG? BTW, I have nothing to confess to you. Your tone,
however, is becoming increasingly smug and offensive. Such is not called
for. Duty, btw, is not always duty; the discussion in fact is about whether
GWB actually fulfilled his duty at a given time, or if not, was he merely
a ghost-payroller for a number of months, ranging from 12 to 18.


Note also that public service and volunteerism is a prerequisite for
public office. Virtually everyone seeking a career either in high
level executive jobs or elective office will volunteer. GWB's service
with Project PULL tells you nothing beyond that.

Believe me when I tell you this, Mr. Rasimus, but with respect, you are
Wrong. During the election campaign of 2000, I, for one, was impressed to
learn that the son of a wealthy Texas oilman/war hero/ambassador had
taken
on volunteer duty in the ghetto portion of Houston. You may recall that a
powerful element of that election was the question of Integrity. GWB's
work
with PULL at a minority youth center suggested to me something more than
standard volunteerism, as his work location and the intent of the program
seemed to me to indicate a willingness to give of oneself--even if maybe
at
some personal risk--something lacking, perhaps, in the other guy.
Consequently, when rumors surfaced and suggestions were persistently made
that this community service was not quite what it seemed, I became
concerned.

I am wrong in my statement? Reread it (or have a friend read it to
you).

Yes, in my opinion, you are wrong. And once again, you have needlessly
resorted to pejorative and offensive language. I sincerely suggest that you
try to reign yourself in. I uinderstrand that you may be emotional about
GWB. However, your increasingly aggressive tone and attempts at sarcasm are
unworthy of a respected military veteran and author.

You agree with me in your response, until you get to the last
sentence, which indicates that you place great credence in "rumor" and
"suggestions were persistently made" (don't you just love the
non-attibution of passive voice??) Now you are "concerned"? Now you
are the rumor monger and suggester!

Actually, I probably don't agree with you to any great extent. Passive
voioce has nothing to do with it, Ed. I, however, am blessed with sufficient
humility that I routinely qualify any statement which I believe needs
qualification; I learned to do so in grammar school. I "monger" no rumors
and make no suggestions. But I do read things other than internet NGs and
speak with people who, somehow, don't always agree with my point of view.
My concern made its way into a posting on this NG. My objective is to seek
answers so that I might better inform my vote in this year's election. In
2000, it came down, for me to a matter of demonstrated integrity. I gave GWB
some credit for having performed community service, in person, in a Houston
ghetto youth center. As a voter, I have every reason to be "concerned" and I
don't understand how cannot seem to understand that.

Gimme a break. Every base I served on in 23 years of military tactical
aviation had a corrections facility. That doesn't mean I was
imprisoned. ARPC is primarily a PERSONNEL headquarters. It is a huge
office complex. That's its job.

ONE of its jobs, yes. Recall, however, that Discipline does not always
encompass eithere physical restraint or custody.

It can also encompass reduction in rank or loss of pay. None of this
is supported by any credible evidence.

I never suggested that GWB was disciplined via either lost pay or lost
rank; read my post again, please.


That physical was 1972. Mandatory drug testing was instituted in '74.


Was that in the NGuards or in the active USAF? Use of banned substances
can
be revealed by flight physicals.
So, when did TANG institute drug-testing?

I wasn't in TANG, but the requirements for a flight phyical are the
same across components. I was on flight status from July '64 through
June '87. During those 23 years, I was never tested during a flight
physical for banned substances. Drug testing was done separately and
handled independently. The first drug testing I can recall was 1974,
but it was not done in a flight physical.

The annual physical is scheduled, drug testing was random and "no
notice." The state of drug test discrimination at that time would make
it no problem to "clean up" 72 hours before the scheduled physical
making it virtually useless.


You seek more to distribute innuendo and suggestion than really to
seek answers.

Again, with respect, Mr Rasimus, Wrong. I have not created any of the
rumors
or made up any of the suggestions that are extant. I have become aware
of
them and have posted to the newsgroup with reference to them. My
motivation
is that I seek answers; and as I stated in my earlier post, the President
can and should refute his critics by supplying convincing explanations. I
value my vote, inconsequential as it alone might be.

You do not apparently sincerely seek answers because you refuse
adamantly to acknowledge when you are corrected either by someone with
experience or first-hand knowledge or simply with regard to the logic
of your rhetoric and subscription to rumor and suggestion.

I decline to accept your corrections because I do not class you with the
Oracle of Delphi; your expreinces are wonderful and I am happy for you. But
just as with the Colonel quoted in the message which began this thread, who
wrote certain passages which were not suported in your reply, you are hardly
infallible. To repeat, I do not "subscribe" to "rumor" and "suggestion". But
why do I need to automatically subscribe to all your opinions as to
questioins on the NG? And why do I not have the right to posit an opinion
with which you do not agree?


The Guard Colonel who knows what he's talking about
provided you with answers. I've just provided you with answers. Will
you believe any of them?

The Guard Colonel, just as with you, can only provide answers within the
ambit of his knowledge. Whether the answers are complete and believable
is
other issues. Again, I can only reiterate that Mr Bush can clear up all
issues by providing a full accounting of his service at the time and by
refuting the rumors about his use of cocaine.

See today's newspaper for full service records. Then, since the Guard
Colonel and I have both served for more than 20 years each as rated AF
pilots in tactical aircraft type, the (g)ambit of our knowledge
certainly covers the issue in question.

Have done so. Sorry, but so far, not much light shed (hmm... released on a
holiday weekend, but that's OK, I'm not paranoid ). Nonetheless, you and
Colonel Campenni disagree. Try re-readinig the note which initiated this
thread, quoting a letter to a newspaper editor, again. Both of you very
accomplished men have served with distinction; yet despite the similarities
of your backgrounds, you do not agree on the utility of the F-102 for combat
operations in Viet Nam. One of you must be wrong--which? Which of you has
the ambit of knowledge including the correlation of GWB's service records
with his actual whereabouts? Can you explain why the account by GWB's
contemporary who claims to have made shop-talk with him during the time in
question does not jibe with the "official record"?


Let me ask about your background and ability to credibly refute our
experience. Where and when did you serve? Guard or active duty? Rated
or non-rated? Type aircraft qualified? Familiarity with out of career
field postings? Educational level? Political experience? Affiliations?

In the first place, Ed, I am completely uniterested in "refuting" either you
or your experience. I think you have perhaps inadvertently done that in your
reply to my post, which quoted the Colonel's original letter. That's not
what I seek.

I have never served in any of the US armed forces. And I have never claimed
to have done so. But then again, whether I served is not the issue,
although you appear to be trying to make that the focus of the discussion,
apparently in hopes of winning debating points. Again, let's try to stick to
the actual topic under discussion.

My education (ample), political experience (history of participation), and
affiliations (personal, and private) also are irrelevant to the actual
discussion.

Neither my vote nor my contribution to this thread on the NG is a function
of my having served or not. Furthermore, your service record is completely
useless to an observer in determining whether or not GWB ditched his
commitment.

Nah, you won't go there will you?

See above, Ed.


BTW, IIRC, Newsweek, during November(?) of last year, featured an article
focusing on GWB's mother, in which she expressed that she had been
terribly
concerned over the allegations which had been made over her son's alleged
use of the banned substance. I had no role in that, certainly.

So, mom says she is concerned when the media, political opponents,
etc, make allegations (please look up the definition of "allegation")
about drug use. My mom would be concerned as well. So would yours.
What's the down side of that report? It seems normal and natural. It
also doesn't indicate that there was any truth to the allegations.

It has been my pleasure to have corresponded with a number of authors over
the years, either via snail-mail or e-mail. In general, these contacts have
been civil, mannerly and polite, even as, for example, an Australian
scholar/referee was pressed for time, but nonetheless responded rationally
and logically to a query I'd sent him. Would that you could be so civilized,
Ed.