"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...
SNIP

SNIP

Published February 11, 2004

'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.

SNIP

Not quite; as the Colonel relates below, he "stayed the course" of
the
Guard's transition, whereas GWB did not.

Uhmmm...the quote says during 1970 and 1971; I don't think anyone is
claiming GWB did not indeed serve during that period.

Agreed. The controversy has to do with GWB's activities after that time.
The
Colonel carried on for ears afterward, whereas it has been alleged that
GWB
did not and was nonetheless paid as if he were fulfilling his obligatiion.

We now have a dental record that proves he was in a duty status in Alabama
during the time in question, along with a former unit member (a fellow LT)
who has vouched that he did indeed drill with the 187th; against that we
have the former commander saying he does not recall seeing him (wow, big
surprise--as if O-5's really met, or knew, some LT who showed up to perform
a few moths of ET drills with their unit...) and a lot of increasingly
shrill refusals to accept any of the above from the parties making the
accusations against Bush. Not exactly hard to see which way the *facts* are
leaning at this point.



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.

With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to
today's
ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with
active
service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link
his
service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be
called
to
serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the
Guards
in
the years since the ending of the Cold War.

Balderdash. The first four F-100 groups called up during 1968 were
certified
as combat ready before they were even activated. The three tactical
recon
groups only required around a month after activation to be ready for
deployment. An additional two F-100 squadrons were subsequently called
up
that same year. Other ANG units were also activated, for a total of
about
eleven thousand personnel. Check out the actual history of the ANG
before
you try to make such claims.

Let's try to keep to the topic, which is whether GWB fulfilled his
commitment to serve or not.

If you want to "keep to the topic", why did you waste electrons with your
specious claims about the naturre of the ANG at the time?


SNIP

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.

They were right about that, certainly.

Then one wonders why the military as a whole, and the Army in
particular,
retooled after the war to make sure that no future major combat
operations
would be conducted *without* such mobilization.

No need to wonder. A buck doesn't go as far as it used to. pgrading
reserve
componenets and making them more fo an integral part of the active forces
simply made good fiscal sense, among other things.

You need to read up on Abrams' "Total Army" program. The foundation for that
program was that never again would the Army deploy for major operations
without having the Guard/Reserve along, not because the active component
wanted the Guard per se, but because they wanted to ensure that a widespread
spectrum of communities from across the nation identified with the effort.
And his philosophy has been proven right during both ODS/ODS and during
OEF/OIF.


The proof is in the
pudding--with a large number of reservists and guardsmen currently
mobilized
and deployed, the support for the war continues to remain pretty strong.

Agreed. Most if not all reserve components are now of high-quality. As
planned.

And what was the "quality" of those seven thousand plus ARNG troops who
deployed to Vietnam in 1968? Or those four plus tactical fighter squadrons?
Pretty darned high, using the standards of the day for our military forces,
active and reserve. I have no doubt that the quality of NG/Reserve units has
indeed improved since then--but so has that of the active components.


But furthrmore, it made sense only to
call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

Odd then that a number of units called up by both the Army and Air Force
in
1968 went to environs other than Vietnam.

Based upon their operational readiness, of course. Was TANG ever called up
during those years?

NO, not "based upon their operational readiness". In fact, two of the ANG
units that went to Korea actually *suffered* a reduction in operational
readiness, since their support elements were not deployed with them--their
aircraft OR rates went down alarmingly at one point. The defining factor in
who-went-where was mission requirements. A number of Guard units ended up in
Korea, since the Pueblo crisis had been the final reason for conducting the
mobilization in the first place, and Korea was a rather nasty flashpoint at
the time (there is a reason that 2nd ID and 7th ID troops serving along the
DMZ got to wear their combat patches--firefights were not uncommon).


SNIP

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.

GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do
either
with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is
part
and
parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge
of
cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his
"record"
on
this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an
elected
Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while
GWB's
enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact,
his
separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve
Personnel
Center, Denver, CO).

More innuendo, and nothing to back up any claim that he did not indeed
fulfill his duty requirements.

Not really. There must be a logical reason, for example, for the
discrepancy
in official separation dates.

As Dan Ford has shown quite capably, he did have to make up some drills to
get credit for good years--hardly anything to get wound up about, and not a
completely uncommon experience.

The controversy is furthermore over the
location of and the duties performed by GWB for some time before May,
1972,
because on May 2 of that, the same day, during which GWB is said to have
reported for drill, his superiors (Ellington AFB) concluded that they
could
not render a useful evaluation of GWB because they had not seen him for
several months.

Been there, done that. Had an officer from another state take a new job in
our state. he got permission from his chain of command to perform ET with
our unit (we were in the same division, albeit from different states). He
did so for a matter of some months, until he ended up transferring to our
state and unit. His closeout OER shows up from his old unit, and...they
indicated he had been AWOL. A phone call to the unit resulted in them
scrambling around, then getting back to us and saying, "Ooops, one of our
NCO's dropped the ball and did not process the validation certificates that
you did indeed fax to us for each month of ET." They had to cut a corrected
OER on the guy. In this case the officer was lucky in that they at least did
indeed forward him his copy of the initial OER, so that we could catch the
problem. And before you claim this was an isolated example, I myself found
that the Army had failed to credit me with about five months of IDT and a
full two weeks of AT towards my service time--luckily I was able to scramble
up enough supporting documentation to prove otherwise. To summarize, what
you are presenting here is far from being a strong case against him.


SNIP

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.

What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the
requisite
flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or
was
involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take
the
required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,
included drug-testing.

Drug testing did not enter into the pale until the eighties; where are
you
getting this stuff? And being as he was not with his unit (i.e.,
splitting
with that ALANG outfit) during the time he was scheduled to receive his
physical, it is understandable why he did not get one. Big deal.

Well, possibly yes, a Big Deal. There is still considerable confusion as
to
whether GWB did actually ransfer to AlaANG and what duties he performed,

He did not transfer, he performed ET with them--big difference. And the only
people still denying that he did indeed show up for duty there are in
denial--he had to be in a duty status to get that dental exam, and the
account from his fellow LT who shared lunches with him at the 187th further
proves his presence.

as
well as an apparent timing overlap with his community service with Project
PULL in a youth center in Houston's ghetto. (That service was important to
me in deciding how to cast my vote, as it seemed to show an unusual
willingness to give personally of himself, at perhaps some personal risk,
in
contrast to merely making a donation. I personally gave Mr Bush high marks
for integrity based on the nature of that service).

What? You are condemning him because of when he did some charitable work?
Where is your *evidence*? If he was indeed doing this under the requirements
of a criminal court ruling, you should be able to dig up *something* about
that. Where is it? More smoke and mirrors...


GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a
"sentence"
to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.

Ahh. More "suggestions", huh? Let's see, we have one former President
who
*acknowledged* using illegal narcotics and never receiving any legal
punishment, but methinks you would excuse that rather quickly--but
innuendo
and "suggestions" suffice to condemn GWB, right? Double standard much?

You think wrongly. I have never used or condoned the use of narcotics,
even
of so-called "recreational" drugs. Where did you get the mistaken
impression
that I condemn Pres Bush?

Your comments seem to indicate that, in spite of repeated explanations from
folks who served with him, from folks in this NG who better understand the
Guard and how it operates, etc., you are still clinging to this "he did not
perform his duty in Alabama", compounded by the use of "suggestions" of
alleged drug convictions with no supporting evidence, and now are willing to
crucify the man for having the temerity of performing some civic work during
the same period of time he served in the Guard. Kind of looks like an agenda
to me.



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.

Unfortunately, for some twelve to eighteen months during his
enlistment,
GWB
inexplicably did not fly, although he apparently had taken to military
aviation "like a duck to water" and apparently flew the F-102 with
elan.
In
fact, GQB apparently missed a great many days of required military
reserve
duty during that time.

Which he made up; not unusual, as the writer of the letter, who actually
served in a similar role, indicates; and your expertise in contradicting
his
claims is based upon...?

Based upon the fragments of the (until recent days) incomplete record of
GWB's TANG, AlaANG and ARPC/ARF service. I have made no claim to any
especial "expertise".

Then you should strongly consider listening to the comments from COL
Campenni, the retired contractor from Atlanta who served with Bush in
Alabama during that time you are so worried about, and the explanations from
others more familair with the way the Guard operates.



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.

Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,
among
other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO.

Disciplinary unit my butt. Where do you get these notions? I was briefly
assigned to the Army counterpart to that organization in 1988 following
my
departure from active duty while I was awaiting orders assigning me to
what
became my Guard unit--was I being "disciplined"? Nope. And ge whiz,
guess
what? Just like GWB, the admin buffons lost track of me--six months
after
I
had received my orders and been drilling with my Guard unit, I got a
letter
from ARPERSCEN informing me that I had to report to the nearest USAR
facility to update my records as part of my IRR obligation, and warning
me
of dire consequences if I failed to do so--so much for the infallibility
of
military duty staus tracking.

Agreed. Hence, I believe that the President can and should put an end to
the
controversies by releasing all pertinent documents and letting the public
decide its feelings and beliefs on the issues.

So you agree that it was NOT a "disciplinary unit"? I'd hope so--enough
folks have pointed out that FACT. Now, thirty years later you expect the
military to be able to whisk out a pristine and complete file on some former
1LT that will answer all of the questions that both you and Mr. Kerry's
folks have? Good luck. By this point I would imagine the files on folks from
that period consist of the very minimum of data--they can't store everything
for ever, and there is no way thay can even digitize the mountains of old
paperwork they *do* still retain.


Members of the NG
are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons.
Could
GWB
have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something
else
entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG
toward
required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is
approximately
six
months' later than that given by NGB.

More unsupported innuendo...now it is "among other reasons", huh? Your
claims hold about as much water as those the Kerry camp has been
flinging
about lately.

Thank you for your kind comments. But if you will re-read my earlier post,
you will discover that I used the qualifying phrase, where appropriate,
more
than once. Pleas also recall that discipline can be accomplished without
placing one in custody or otherwise physically restraining him. The
"disciplinary" part comes into play because ARFs can be called to active
duty in the military (theoretically, at least). GWB was not in fact called
up, but the Damoclean Sword was nonetheless there.

IT IS NOT A DISCIPLINARY TOOL. How many folks have to tell you that before
you get it through your skull?



SNIP two paragraphs

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.

Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we
should
continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush
never
took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior
to
the time such was done in the active USAF.

Bullcrap. Provide proof that the ANG instituted drug testing in 1972.
You
are the one wanting to claim the writer, a retired ANG officer, does not
know what he is talking about, so either provide some proof; something
beyond "suggestions", I might add.

I am not the person who made the suggestions or initiated the innuendo.

Bullcrap. Your words--"The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior
to the time such was done in the active USAF." Prove it. Ed has called you
on it, I have called you on it--time to put up or shut up.

Please keep that fact in mind. Why don't you inquire as to whether TANG
institute drug testing in its flight physicals prior to July, 1972, the
time
when GWB failed to report for his flight physical? I am willing, certainly
to accept corrrection on the matter if such is indicated.

It was your ridiculous claim, not ours. You bear the burden of proof. FYI,
when it comes to things like drug testing, the reserve components *follow*,
or at best do so concurrently, the active components in instituting them,
they don't lead. Face it, drug testing was not in the cards at that time.



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.

GWB was suspended (grounded) from flight activity in August, 1972, for
having failed to take his required examination, a suspension which was
officially recorded on September 29 of that year. He began to receive ARF
credits from October of that year. But neither drills nor attendance were
required. GWB's TANG records appear to indicate he performed no actual
duties after May, 1972. ARF "duty" is not considered as official duty by
TANG.

If it counts towards points it is plenty official, regardles of what the
TXANG thinks. And do you have any proof of that?


Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about
1973.
ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for
disciplinary
measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside
of
the
service as well as inside.

Neatly sidestepped the author's refutation of your repeated
"disciplinary
unit" crap, didn't you?

The Colonel did not refute anything I wrote. My post was in response to
his.
Please keep that in mind.

You lose. The good Colonel obviously knows a whale of a lot more about it
than you do--I'll take his word over yours in this matter.

snip


Korea--major activations in the ANG. Berlin Crisis--major activations in
the
ANG. Vietnam--significant activations and deployment to Vietnam (and
Korea,
where things were none too nice in 1968). The facts seem to disprove
your
claims.

I should have made it clear that my comments were in reply to the
Colonel's
own description of TANG during the time he served alongside the future
President. Since that time, of course, there have been fundamental changes
in the readiness levels of and integration of the ANGs into the active
force
structure.

During the good colonels time, ANG folks like him were subject to sitting
alert with nuclear armed AIM-26's and AIR-2's affixed under their aircraft.
ARNG personnel were manning the Nike Herc sites, replete with even larger
nukes, that defended CONUS. And both ARNG and ANG personnel were serving and
dying in Vietnam. Sounds like you need to go back to school in regards to
what the true face of the Guard was during that time.


snip


IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding
from
aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his
assignment
to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--),

There is that "discplinary unit" crap again...

Must you characterize comments with which you can't agree as "crap"? Most
undignified.

Well, it becomes a bit tedious when some clown keeps trying to classify a
services personnel center as a "disciplinary unit" in spite of repeated
corrections from folks who know one hell of a lot more about the facts than
he does.


his community service commitment in
Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between
dates
of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need
not
be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all,
our
(informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
second term.

It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon
the
outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and
innuendo
that you base your argument upon.

You are so kind. Thanks. To repeat, all I want to have is clear answers.

Why? You won't accept the ones you have been getting, so why should anyone
bother?

Brooks