A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GWB and the Air Guard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 12th 04, 08:51 PM
JD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default GWB and the Air Guard

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Letters to the Editor
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. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris
and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of
the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of
fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
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. 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.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS,
Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was
focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear
bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in
Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace
Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to
the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was
advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not
have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was
winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
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.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting
active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt.
Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air
Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were
shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or
the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because
there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
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 2˝ 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.
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.
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.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard,
as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I
later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs
until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment.
Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the
active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little
use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a
pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would
require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely
option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative
post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was
unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged.
Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to
"pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him
because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the
unit combat ready.
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.
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.
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.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar
games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who
knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North
Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in
showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the
first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of
Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they
were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen --
then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to
serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that
Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators
and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are
starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster
strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to
slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5


  #3  
Old February 12th 04, 10:09 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
----

Letters to the Editor
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. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris
and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of
the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of
fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
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. 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.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS,
Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It

was
focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear
bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in
Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called

Palace
Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to
the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but

was
advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not
have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program

was
winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
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.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of

exiting
active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt.
Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the

Air
Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were
shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force

or
the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because
there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.
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 2˝ 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.
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.
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.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard,
as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I
later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career

affairs
until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment.
Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on

the
active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has

little
use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a
pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would
require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely
option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor

administrative
post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was
unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged.
Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to
"pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him
because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the
unit combat ready.
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.
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.
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.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar
games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who
knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North
Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in
showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the
first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan

and
Iraq.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of
Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they
were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and

citizen --
then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him

to
serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would

that
Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague

senators
and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are
starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before

disaster
strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want

to
slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5




  #4  
Old February 12th 04, 10:33 PM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.


Thanks for the heads up. I'm glued to FOX newschannel every night
anyway from 8:00 to 10:00 pm starting with O'Reilly and then Hannity &
Colmes which follows immediately.

But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.



  #5  
Old February 12th 04, 11:39 PM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Marron wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.


Thanks for the heads up. I'm glued to FOX newschannel every night
anyway from 8:00 to 10:00 pm starting with O'Reilly and then Hannity &
Colmes which follows immediately.

But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.

Tell us about it, Tarver. Or was it Mazor, or Dweebbel. ****-eating bogus.

Grantland
  #6  
Old February 12th 04, 11:56 PM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Grantland) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


Col CAMPENNI will be appearing on Hannity and Coombs tonight dealing with
this issue. I sincerely urge everyone interested to watch this.


Thanks for the heads up. I'm glued to FOX newschannel every night
anyway from 8:00 to 10:00 pm starting with O'Reilly and then Hannity &
Colmes which follows immediately.


But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.


Tell us about it, Tarver. Or was it Mazor, or Dweebbel. ****-eating bogus.


Oh yeah, and after we clean up the Middle East situation, perhaps
your rotten-to-the-core homeland of South Africa (which competes with
civil war-torn Colombia for the dubious distinction of being the
world’s most crime-ridden country) should be next...




  #7  
Old February 13th 04, 08:23 AM
Lawrence Dillard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SNIP

Published February 11, 2004

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
1971.

SNIP

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

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.

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. But furthrmore, it made sense only to
call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.

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).

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 2˝ 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado"

to
which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in

Denver
is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a

specific
unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm
"being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or
court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt.

Bush's
performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in
The Washington Post in 2000.


Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about 1973.
ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for disciplinary
measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of the
service as well as inside.

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. 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?

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.



  #8  
Old February 13th 04, 04:04 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #9  
Old February 13th 04, 04:28 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
--
SNIP

Published February 11, 2004

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter
Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to
1971.

SNIP

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


Uhmmm...the quote says during 1970 and 1971; I don't think anyone is
claiming GWB did not indeed serve during that period.


It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left

and
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping

his
military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard
during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air
National Guardsmen are finding out today.


With respect, the ANGs of that time mostly bore no resemblance to today's
ANG's, especially in terms of preparation, and in integration with active
service components; I find it a bit disingenuous of GWB to try to link his
service in an air-defense cadre, which was highly unlikely to be called to
serve in Viet Nam, with those men and women who have served in the Guards

in
the years since the ending of the Cold War.


Balderdash. The first four F-100 groups called up during 1968 were certified
as combat ready before they were even activated. The three tactical recon
groups only required around a month after activation to be ready for
deployment. An additional two F-100 squadrons were subsequently called up
that same year. Other ANG units were also activated, for a total of about
eleven thousand personnel. Check out the actual history of the ANG before
you try to make such claims. The only thing that stood between
earlier/larger call-ups was LBJ's false impression that major reserve
mobilization would hurt support for the war--the JCS had asked for
mobilization well before 1968 and been denied. Politicians are fickle
creatures--LBJ could just have easily done an earlier about-face and
mobilized an even greater number of reserve units.


If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did
not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense

Robert
S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the

Guard
and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee
only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole
community's attention.


They were right about that, certainly.


Then one wonders why the military as a whole, and the Army in particular,
retooled after the war to make sure that no future major combat operations
would be conducted *without* such mobilization. The proof is in the
pudding--with a large number of reservists and guardsmen currently mobilized
and deployed, the support for the war continues to remain pretty strong.

But furthrmore, it made sense only to
call up units likely to be able to play a role in the fighting.


Odd then that a number of units called up by both the Army and Air Force in
1968 went to environs other than Vietnam.


SNIP


If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG
squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and
conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change

in
the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training
squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots

be
available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time

traditional
reservists with outside employment.


GWB's being excused from service, it has been claimed, had not to do

either
with career obligations or with career conflicts. It apparently is part

and
parcel of persistent claims/rumors that GWB was arrested on a charge of
cocaine posession in his home state (during 1972); however, his "record"

on
this issue has allegedly been expunged due to the intervention of an

elected
Texas judge who owed the Bush family a favor. In any event, while GWB's
enlistment was originally intended to end on a May 26, 1974 date of
separation, (per the National Guard Bureau, Arlington, VA), in fact, his
separation was Nov. 21, 1974 (per the headquartrs, Air Reserve Personnel
Center, Denver, CO).


More innuendo, and nothing to back up any claim that he did not indeed
fulfill his duty requirements.


SNIP

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the
environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a
reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months'

basic
training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two
weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr.

McNamara
were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge

for
many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to

avoid
the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew
members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty

meant
up
to 2˝ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability

of
mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as

Lt.
Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going
through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival
training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to

nine
months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he

was
even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure
weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to

which
you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam.

Avoiding
service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.


What makes things look bad or GWB is that after undergoing the requisite
flight training for an air-defense mission, he opted out of flying (or was
involuntarily grounded by Texas Air National Guard) by failing to take the
required annual flight physical; this physical, for the first time,

included
drug-testing.


Drug testing did not enter into the pale until the eighties; where are you
getting this stuff? And being as he was not with his unit (i.e., splitting
with that ALANG outfit) during the time he was scheduled to receive his
physical, it is understandable why he did not get one. Big deal.

GWB has acknowledged that he worked with Houston-based Project
PULL during 1972, leading to suggestions that this was in fact a

"sentence"
to community service in relation to his arrest/expungement.


Ahh. More "suggestions", huh? Let's see, we have one former President who
*acknowledged* using illegal narcotics and never receiving any legal
punishment, but methinks you would excuse that rather quickly--but innuendo
and "suggestions" suffice to condemn GWB, right? Double standard much?


The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation

at
any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such

pilots
were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our
Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt.

Bush's
tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing

F-102s
was risking one's life.


Unfortunately, for some twelve to eighteen months during his enlistment,

GWB
inexplicably did not fly, although he apparently had taken to military
aviation "like a duck to water" and apparently flew the F-102 with elan.

In
fact, GQB apparently missed a great many days of required military reserve
duty during that time.


Which he made up; not unusual, as the writer of the letter, who actually
served in a similar role, indicates; and your expertise in contradicting his
claims is based upon...?


Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry
McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt.

Bush
abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or
authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was
excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and
later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.


Our President appears to have been assigned to to ARPC (which served,

among
other things, as a disciplinary unit), out of Denver, CO.


Disciplinary unit my butt. Where do you get these notions? I was briefly
assigned to the Army counterpart to that organization in 1988 following my
departure from active duty while I was awaiting orders assigning me to what
became my Guard unit--was I being "disciplined"? Nope. And ge whiz, guess
what? Just like GWB, the admin buffons lost track of me--six months after I
had received my orders and been drilling with my Guard unit, I got a letter
from ARPERSCEN informing me that I had to report to the nearest USAR
facility to update my records as part of my IRR obligation, and warning me
of dire consequences if I failed to do so--so much for the infallibility of
military duty staus tracking.

Members of the NG
are assigned there, for among other reasons, disciplinary reasons. Could

GWB
have had dual contemporaneous assignments? O r was he doing something else
entirely? As I understand it, ARPC-time was/is not counted by TANG toward
required duty. Hence, the separation date given by ARPC is approximately

six
months' later than that given by NGB.


More unsupported innuendo...now it is "among other reasons", huh? Your
claims hold about as much water as those the Kerry camp has been flinging
about lately.


SNIP two paragraphs

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt.

Bush
twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report

for
a
required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the
exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit

in
Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in
reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled

for
their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's
weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the

Reserves,
it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety

of
reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the
individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the
physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by

the
Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special

part
of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use

because
of
its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not
confront a drug user.


Problem is, for those of us who are trying to determine whether we should
continue to support the President, that for whatever reason, Lt Bush never
took his required physical exam, scheduling conflict or otherwise
notwithstanding. The ANGs appear to have instituted drug-testing prior to
the time such was done in the active USAF.


Bullcrap. Provide proof that the ANG instituted drug testing in 1972. You
are the one wanting to claim the writer, a retired ANG officer, does not
know what he is talking about, so either provide some proof; something
beyond "suggestions", I might add.


Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado"

to
which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in

Denver
is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a

specific
unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess

I'm
"being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any
discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or
wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction

or
court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt.

Bush's
performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed

in
The Washington Post in 2000.


Some have suggested that GWB's records have been redacted, since about

1973.
ARPC does serve as the repository for the paper regarding transfers to
inactive reserve status, such as GWB, for retirements, and for

disciplinary
measures; presumably, "discipline" can encompass infractions outside of

the
service as well as inside.


Neatly sidestepped the author's refutation of your repeated "disciplinary
unit" crap, didn't you?


Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible
slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career
parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a

guardsman,
I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense

of
the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such
people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I
served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died

in
crashes flying air-defense missions.


During the Colonel's tenure in the Guard, there was a collective

sea-change
in the ambit of responsibilities and in the seriousness of its preparation
and readiness for active service.


Korea--major activations in the ANG. Berlin Crisis--major activations in the
ANG. Vietnam--significant activations and deployment to Vietnam (and Korea,
where things were none too nice in 1968). The facts seem to disprove your
claims.

snip


IMHO, President Bush should refute his critics, which he can do by
explaining convincingly about the overlapping timing of his grounding from
aviation duties--i.e., why he faied to take his physical--, his assignment
to APRC (discipline unit--why so?--),


There is that "discplinary unit" crap again...

his community service commitment in
Houston (again, why so?--); and the six months' discontinuity between

dates
of separation from his duties listed by the NGB and the ARPC. One need not
be a desperate left-winger to want to have clear answers. After all, our
(informed?) votes in nine months will determine whether he will have a
second term.


It does not appear that you are very well informed at all, based upon the
outright incorrect statements and dependence upon suggestions and innuendo
that you base your argument upon.

Brooks






  #10  
Old February 13th 04, 08:31 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Marron wrote in message . ..

But I gotta say, this whole business regarding GWB's Air Guard records
misses the whole point with regards to him vs. Kerry. Dubya gets my
vote in November because unlike Kerry, Dubya plans on finishing what
the cowardly terrorists started on 9/11. And if that means cleaning up
the cesspool that is the entire Middle East region. then so be it.


Invading Afghanistan, the nation that harbored more Al Queda members
incljuding bin Laden, than any other was a good start.

Invading Iraq, the nation that harbored fewer than any other Arab
nation, perhaps NONE, had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept 11,
2001. Indeed, the evidence is that those attacks delayed the war
with Iraq by a year.

There were a lot of good reasons to invade Iraq but the attacks of
Sept 11, 2001 were not among them. The resources we have tied
down in the occupation of Iraq are not available to hunt down Al
Queda.

If, as you say, "Dubya plans on finishing what the cowardly
terrorists started on 9/11." he'd better get back to it soon
because he may have less than a year left to get the job done,
and it's a job he put on hold for over a year ago.

--

FF
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.