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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message ... "Cub Driver" wrote in message news 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. SNIP This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of the Texas Air Guard. Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things, disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody) which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent could explain. ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?" The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber. Every major base I've ever been on has some sort of detention facility. For instance...USAF members are *assigned* to Langley AFB for, among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Does that mean every person at Langley has been sent there for disciplinary reasons? Not a chance. Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action? Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now. His DD-214 equivalent clearly shows an Honorable Discharge. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable REASON AND AUTHORITY FOR DISCHARGE: Officer is transferred to to ARPC (ORS), 3800 York St, Denver Colorado. Effective 2 October, 1973 Key word there...DISCHARGE. If he had been *assigned* (as in his physical body going there) to ARF/ARPC for your supposed disciplinary reason, he would not have been *discharged* at that time. Your "among other things" includes normal separation (and transfer to the inactive reserve). Why the innuendo WRT the additional functions of ARF/ARPC, Denver? Is there any paper or any person that can say GWB was *assigned* to Denver for 'disciplinary reasons'? No...didn't think so. As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive reserve. Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974. Original, planned separation date = May 1974 Early discharge in Oct 73 and transfer to the inactive reserve adds an additional 6 months. Oct 73 - May 74 = 6 months 6 month additional commitment in Inactive Reserve = Nov 74. Simple Pete Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: ... I don't think anyone disputes that. But how many were there? CNN today (feel free to correct this) said that 8,000 National guardsmen served in Vietnam in total. How many Americans in total served there? How many National guardsmen during that time did NOT go to Vietnam. ... How many did NOT go? How many Americans did NOT go? How many men did NOT go? How many members of Congress did NOT go? What has that got to do with anything? It is generally accepted by most folks who remember those years that men joined the NG to avoid service in Vietnam. Here and there some folks on this newsgroup argue that GWB in particular did not choose the Air National Gurad to avoid being sent to Vietnam. If he had WANTED to go to Vietnam as a pilot then it would ahve made sense for him to enlist in the USAF or USN. So I still stick to the notion that GWB chose the guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. That's why those numbers are meaningful. If GWB did not want to go to Vietnam that's fine with me. My brother didn't want to go, but his birthday was drawn last in the lottery for his year. I didn't want to go, and they did not draft anyone from my year. Neither one of us volunteered. I see nothing wrong with avoiding service in Vietnam by whatever legal means. I see nothing wrong with terminating one's tour of duty in Vietnam by whatever legal means. That was how things were back then. It remains a fact that a man who was 1-A and had a low lottery number was a lot less likely to go to Vietnam if he joined the Guard than if he didn't, unless he could get CO status. If a man was 1-A with a low lottery number he didn't need to join the Guard. If a man were in college, he didn't go. If he were married, he didn't go. If he did drugs and admitted it, he didn't go. If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)? I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses. -- FF |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:20:29 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote: Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things, disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody) which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent could explain. I can't find anything official that being assigned to ARPC is some type of mark against a persons record. Could you provide some official source for that thought? I did find this at the ARPC site, but nothing about it being some type of punishment.. Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) "The Personnel Center’s mission expanded in the 1970s, when the Air Force made ARPC responsible for all Air National Guard personnel records. This action happened first for officers in July 1971, and then for enlisted members in March 1978." |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 19:43:54 GMT, "Pete" wrote:
"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message ... Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things, disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody) which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army equivalent could explain. ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?" The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber. Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action? Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now. = Nov 74. Simple Pete Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable The more I read Mr. Dillard's postings and his repetition without acknowledgement of the key point refuting his assertions, the more I think he's working off a script of DNC "talking points." Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Was it that, as you relate, he "was no longer available to attend" TANG meetings (but if so, was he nonetheless accepting payment for his service-time? You're just spinning facts into fantasy, and tricking it out with innuendo. Bush received no payments after July 1973, his last day in uniform. Bush's Guard service was exemplary for three years, minimal for another three. In my website I give him the same grade his Yale professors did for his course work: a "gentleman's C" -- which in today's university would translate to a B-plus. There was nothing dishonorable about any of it. Sure, he got favorable treatment, as any one of us would do if the opportunity arose. Yes, he slacked off toward the end, but there were very good reasons for that--the 111th FIS no longer fielded the plane he had trained to fly. The facts, as many as are own, are all laid out he www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm Stop wasting our time with your double-talk about disciplinary units in Denver. For my part, I'm giving you the old Control-K as of this afternoon. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote: snip If he aws gay and admitted it he didn;t go. But weren't defferments for college eventually discontinued (with existing ones grandfathered)? I thought that was the basis for the 'unrest' on the college campuses. Nope. Deferments for college continued throughout the war. You extended your 2-S deferment if you went to graduate school. You remained deferred if you went into selected professions such as teaching--which may account for the pacifist left-wing bias found in so many educators today. I beg to differ with the gentleman. In my senior year (1968), routine graduate school deferments ended. I remember it well because of the widespread panic that little action caused among the sons of the well heeled I associated with. I had neither the grades or inclination for graduate school, so I went ahead and applied for Navy OCS. When I applied, before the change in policy, the recruiters told me, "Just let me know when you want to come take the tests". After the policy change, the AF and Navy recruiters were swamped with applications from college seniors. A six month waiting list JUST TO TAKE THE TESTS was very scary to a college senior less than four months from graduation. I was accepted, was sworn in on May 1, and opened my mailbox upon my return to school to find my notice to report for draft physical. I politely declined, but it wasn't much of a victory. 1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964. BTW, I applied to fly for the Navy (AVROC) during by sophomore year. The docs rejected me, so it's moot. However, I don't recall that the "issue" of VietNam even entered my thoughts at that time. Teenage stupidity and lack of situational awareness surely contributed to that omission, but I think I was pretty typical. Bob McKellar, who nonetheless thinks going into the Navy was the second best thing he ever did, although that realization took a long time to arrive. BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of what Kerry said. ( See page 181 ) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Bob McKellar wrote: 1966 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964. Oops! 1968 was very different from 1966 and even more different from 1964. Bob |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:53:20 -0500, Bob McKellar
wrote: BTW, Ed, I found parts of your excellent book a more telling indictment of some aspects of the war than a lot of what Kerry said. ( See page 181 ) I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from the mission. If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators. Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title still to be determined. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... I'm not sure that the MiG hunting excursion into rural S. China is quite the level of indictment that the Senator's anti-war testimony regarding blanket atrocities by US ground troops implies. No ordinance was expended, no one died and no unsupportable accusations arose from the mission. If anything, it merely indicates the nature of tactical aviators. Regardless, more to come this fall. Again from Smithsonian with title still to be determined. Ed Rasimus No ordnance dropped and no ordinance violated? Tex |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|