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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. 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. I don't have a number to refute that, but I'm fairly confident that the number of guardsmen over the ten years of conflict that served in Vietnam would greatly exceed 8,000. This sounds more like the number of casualties that were ARNG to me. One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG. While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and maintaining operational readiness. Explain that remark about being notorious? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On 13 Feb 2004 11:44:10 -0800, (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote in message . .. .. 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 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. I don't have a number to refute that, but I'm fairly confident that the number of guardsmen over the ten years of conflict that served in Vietnam would greatly exceed 8,000. One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG. While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and maintaining operational readiness. What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost *eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were given in that conflict. Brooks snip stuff I agree with |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... Or went to law school Not after February 1968. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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, 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). 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? 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG. While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and maintaining operational readiness. What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost *eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were given in that conflict. I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college. The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft notification. The training requirements were exceptionally low and the maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled members was virtually non-existant in many units. This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army Guard units that were activated and served with honor. And, it should be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments. By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time specialists, had operational air defense responsibilities and conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot of SEA deployments. An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...6%257E,00.html Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:07:18 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:23:11 -0500, "Lawrence Dillard" wrote: Snip 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. Can you read my lips. During two full years of training, GWB was FULL TIME active duty. During the next 18 months he pulled operational alert in the TANG. During the last six months before release, he was assigned to Montgomery at Dannelly Field which was in the process of conversion from RF-84s to RF-4Cs. His assignment there was to NON-FLYING duties (he wasn't qualified in the Phantom nor trained as a reconnaisance pilot.) The unit in transition did not have aircraft available at the time. 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. You have an interesting way with words. My service "does not stand comparions to that which modern-day units can often be subjected" either. That's a meaningless requirement. How can service in the present be compared to the unknown of what service might be like in the future? 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. So, now we are demanding prescience? How does one know when starting a two year training program leading inevitably to qualification in a combat aircraft that in two years the type will no longer be in great demand in the war zone????? 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. Read today's newspaper. 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. The pay records indicate his whereabouts throughout his service. The relevance of my statement is that during the period from 1970 to 1975, from the start of "Vietnamization" the requirement for pilots was drastically reduced. Had GWB wanted out of his commitment, he could have had it for the asking at any time. 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). His flight physical omission was at the time of his reassignment to Montgomery where he was not going to be on active flying duty. 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. Please recognize the ARPC is neither a correctional facility or a disciplinary barracks. If sent for discipline, there would be evidence of either court-martial proceedings or non-judicial punishment (Article 15). Neither of these have been revealed. 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. Duty is duty. You are either on duty or you are not. If the ARPC posting was a duty assignment, then the time would count with TANG. Confess now, you're really making this up aren't you? 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. I am wrong in my statement? Reread it (or have a friend read it to you). You agree with me in your response, until you get to the last sentence, which indicates that you place great credence in "rumor" and "suggestions were persistently made" (don't you just love the non-attibution of passive voice??) Now you are "concerned"? Now you are the rumor monger and suggester! 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. It can also encompass reduction in rank or loss of pay. None of this is supported by any credible evidence. 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? I wasn't in TANG, but the requirements for a flight phyical are the same across components. I was on flight status from July '64 through June '87. During those 23 years, I was never tested during a flight physical for banned substances. Drug testing was done separately and handled independently. The first drug testing I can recall was 1974, but it was not done in a flight physical. The annual physical is scheduled, drug testing was random and "no notice." The state of drug test discrimination at that time would make it no problem to "clean up" 72 hours before the scheduled physical making it virtually useless. 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. You do not apparently sincerely seek answers because you refuse adamantly to acknowledge when you are corrected either by someone with experience or first-hand knowledge or simply with regard to the logic of your rhetoric and subscription to rumor and suggestion. 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. See today's newspaper for full service records. Then, since the Guard Colonel and I have both served for more than 20 years each as rated AF pilots in tactical aircraft type, the (g)ambit of our knowledge certainly covers the issue in question. Let me ask about your background and ability to credibly refute our experience. Where and when did you serve? Guard or active duty? Rated or non-rated? Type aircraft qualified? Familiarity with out of career field postings? Educational level? Political experience? Affiliations? Nah, you won't go there will you? 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. So, mom says she is concerned when the media, political opponents, etc, make allegations (please look up the definition of "allegation") about drug use. My mom would be concerned as well. So would yours. What's the down side of that report? It seems normal and natural. It also doesn't indicate that there was any truth to the allegations. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG. While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and maintaining operational readiness. What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to brush up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops who deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that lost *eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful about pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you feel it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were given in that conflict. I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college. First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation was for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that "haven" provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of AC Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well. The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft notification. I believe the other services did as well. The training requirements were exceptionally low and the maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled members was virtually non-existant in many units. Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly how...? This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army Guard units that were activated and served with honor. Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking in that quality, by your description? And, it should be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments. Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either, right? By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time specialists, Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water. had operational air defense responsibilities and conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot of SEA deployments. Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted level of the ANG? An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home. So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is related to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those *enlisted* ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home? You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more professional, and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the ARNG" crap. Brooks http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...6%257E,00.html Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" Smithsonian Institution Press ISBN #1-58834-103-8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|