If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|