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

SNIP

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

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.


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.

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.


They were right about that, certainly. But furthrmore, it made sense only
to
call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

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.


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).

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.


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.

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.


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. 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.

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.

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). 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. 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.


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.


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

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.


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.

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?

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.

Some have "suggested" that drawing conclusions on what might be and
what could have happened is the exercise of spin doctors.

In any event, a clean copy of at least one redacted file (the partially torn
document) has become available; an ARF document detailing GWB's guard
activity in 1972-1973, which first entry is for October. It does not deal
with either TANG or ANG service, but with ARF. I don't recall having drawn
any conclusions or having attempted to place any sort of "spin" on any
thing.


During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective
sea-change
in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its
preparation
and readiness for active service. The Colonel was perhaps lucky in being
able to stay the course and experience those changes. What some find
troublesome is that GWB suggests that his service was directly comparable
to
today's N-Guardsmens', which clearly it was not. (Nor apparently, was it
equivalent to the Colonel's, as the Colonel demonstrates that he took his
own role seriously and served through thick and thin). In that case, who
slanders whom? Is it appropriate for our President to wrap his service in
the same mantle as that of comtemporary, dedicated guardsmen who have
been
called to active duty, if his own service was not in most ways
comparable?

Show me someone who has survived the training environment of UPT
(where I was an instructor for 4 years), who has handled the multiple
survival courses required of an aircrew (which I am familiar with),
who has qualified in a Century Series SE/SS fighter and performed
operationally, even without combat, and they will have my respect.

No argument here. But does your respect for such a person extend to a period
of time in which no actual service appears to have been performed but for
which the principal nonetheless was paid, and during which time no clear
record of his activities emerged, for such a long time?


SNIP remainder

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?--), 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.

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.

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.

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.