"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"JD" wrote in message
news:nPQWb.15337$jk2.51376@attbi_s53...
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
--
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.


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. The only thing that stood between
earlier/larger call-ups was LBJ's false impression that major reserve
mobilization would hurt support for the war--the JCS had asked for
mobilization well before 1968 and been denied. Politicians are fickle
creatures--LBJ could just have easily done an earlier about-face and
mobilized an even greater number of reserve units.


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. 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.

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.


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.


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.

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?


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...?


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.

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.


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.


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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

Brooks