|
Dubya and the National Guard
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
From the National Review
| quote: |
February 19, 2004, 8:55 a.m.
Dubya’s Wing Men
The lessons of Vietnam were different for Bush and Kerry.
Why are the president's supporters so defensive whenever the President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard comes up? Does the fact that John Kerry fought in Vietnam, and George Bush didn't, make Kerry a better wartime leader?
Some of the hyper-libs are saying that Bush's service in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron was the equivalent of draft dodging. They're also saying — and the too willing media are buying — the idea that Senator Kerry's combat experience would have to make him a better wartime president than Bush. Both points are false. The real issue is what did each of them learn in the Vietnam days, and how those lessons shape their present-day thinking.
First, let's dispense with the idea that Bush was some sort of chicken hawk, hiding in the National Guard while others risked their lives. According to four of the pilots who flew with him, then-Lieutenant George W. Bush was a better-than-average pilot who did a dangerous job very well.
If all you know about flying fighters was learned watching Tom Cruise in Top Gun, you can be forgiven for thinking it's nothing but reckless fun, hard drinking, and a steady stream of beautiful girls. (That's only what the jet jocks want you to believe). The reality is that it's a hazardous business that will kill you — long before any enemy gets the chance to — if you aren't up to the job. My college roommate, retired Air Force Colonel Ed Atkins, flew fighters for 20 years. Ed told me, "Anybody who thinks that flying fighters is not exhausting physically, demanding intellectually, and tough emotionally just has no clue about the complexity of air combat." He added, "I've flown check rides as everything from a second lieutenant to a colonel. The [flight examiner] doesn't give a damn if your dad was George H.W. Bush, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jesus or Moses. The only question is, 'can you hack the mission?'" And it's harder to do in some aircraft than others. Dubya had the right stuff.
Retired Col. Bill Campenni was one of President Bush's squadron mates. The Texas ANG had the F-102, and probably wished it didn't. According to Campenni, "The F-102 was underpowered and, unlike modern fighters, had a split front view through the canopy. It literally had a bar down the center, so you'd have one eye on each side of the bar. It also had a built in altimeter error of up to 500 feet, which made it interesting when you were at 500 feet out over the ocean at night." Flying and training in the '102 was a dangerous job that required a lot of smarts and flying skill.
Bob Harmon is another of Bush's former squadron mates. At the time, Harmon was an instructor pilot. He remembers Bush as a "young, affable guy" and an above-average pilot, very good for his level of experience. "We flew together two or three times a month." It was dangerous duty. Harmon said that a couple of pilots were killed in F-102 accidents while Bush was there.
The first American jet fighters to be deployed to Vietnam were F-102s of the 509th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. When Lt. Bush signed up for fighters and joined the 111th FIS, he stood ready to deploy to Vietnam, as did every other Air National Guard pilot. In fact, he tried to volunteer for Vietnam.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience didn't prevent Bush — along with Bradley — from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace Alert." "There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam.
Joe Glavin, another member of Dubya's squadron said, "There were always a core of the guys who were the "in guys" and [Bush] was in the middle of it...George's difference was that we all knew that his daddy was rich and that he was smarter than the rest of us." Smarter? "I don't understand where [people saying Dubya is a dummy] comes from." Glavin explained that because their squadron was an active duty squadron, they always had two aircraft — armed and fueled — standing on the taxiway on what is called "plus five" alert. From the time the horn blows, until the time the aircraft was wheels-up on takeoff had to be five minutes or less.
Glavin said, "When we had to sit alerts, there were two pilots, and two crew chiefs that sat out in the alert barn. George was like everybody else, except while George was over in a corner reading somebody's autobiography, the rest of us were watching Hee Haw."
Glavin remembers Bush as a pilot who had learned good judgment, not a Hollywood hot dog. He told me of one night when the two were on alert and were scrambled to run a practice intercept over the Gulf of Mexico. Bush went out long and high, and turned back at supersonic speed. Glavin also went supersonic and then his radio failed. At that point, the two F-102s were approaching each other at a combined speed of about 1,800 miles an hour. At 20 miles — about 45 seconds before the paths would cross — Bush broke off the intercept. "We went to debrief with the controller and the controller said to George, why'd you break off the intercept? George said something to the effect of '[here] we're coming at each other at 1,800 miles an hour and he doesn't have a radio and you expect me to just sit there?' He said, 'we're not doin' that.'"
When you fly fighters with any squadron, you're literally betting your life on your pals' flying skills, just as they are betting it all on yours. Bush's old squadron-mates have the same confidence in him now they had when they flew with him. Bradley said, "I've always thought he was an intelligent, likeable, level-headed person." According to Glavin, "George was a smart man, an excellent pilot, and I'd fly with him again tomorrow, and I will vote for him in November." Which is about as high as praise gets among the jet jocks.
The media — by focusing only on Kerry's Vietnam service and Bush's lack of combat time — is blowing a smokescreen to cover a far more important issue than who served where and when. In the 2004 election, we're not choosing someone to pick up a gun and go at the enemy himself. We're choosing someone who can lead the nation in time of war.
Kerry is a puzzle: once a warrior, now distrustful of his nation's power and position in the world. He had a soda-straw-wide view of a war that Americans still don't agree should have been fought. He came back from it to condemn the war and those who fought it even though some were still being beaten and tortured in North Vietnamese prison camps. He abandoned them for the company of Hanoi Jane to propel himself into politics. Cong. Sam Johnson, who was held prisoner by the North Vietnamese for seven years, was asked about the picture of Kerry sitting near Jane Fonda at an antiwar demonstration. He told the Washington Times, "Seeing this picture of Kerry with her at antiwar demonstrations in the United States just makes me want to throw up." There is no such revulsion of George Bush among the best of judges: the Vietnam-era military, and those who now go in harm's way.
The distrust and doubt Kerry learned in Vietnam now colors everything he sees. When John Kerry looks at terrorism he sees a threat we can deal with without going to war. In the Middle East he sees only a Vietnam-like quagmire. Kerry doesn't believe America can win this war, and lacks the confidence in America to lead it through the conflict.
President Bush is no combat hero, but he served bravely and well in the Vietnam era. His service gave him confidence in his nation and its motives that John Kerry lacks. What Bush has and Kerry doesn't is the critical difference in character between a president who can lead a nation through a war, and one who cannot. |
|
|
|
| Yoepus |
| yup good article, interesting perspective, and I would hav eto agree with it too. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| Vietnam was a poorly mismanagaged conflict for over a decade, while people from Kerry's line of politics continually mismanaged the stituation. This article is right on the money. Because Kerry is now a member of that stream of thinking, he has become part of the "peace at any cost" crowd. Unfortunately, for the future of America, the cost is often too high and military action may sometimes be a better alternative. Bush is not handicapped by the same lack of vision held by Kerry. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Alright, Conservatives. I was gonna let this slide, but I've heard enough.
I'm sorry but this article is a bunch of strawmen crap. There may be a certain group of individuals trying to compare Kerry's record to that of Bush, but that isin't the real f$cking issue on the table here, and you and this idiot Repug. author damn well knows it.
It is about credibility and accountability. Bush has continually dodged giving direct evidence to his whereabouts in that Texas Air National Guard, which was full of a bunch of little ninnies with political ties and "pull" that didn't want to get their asses shot off in the war. And so far Bush's best evidence are spotty records, unsure eyewitnesses, a dental record, and a pay stub. Wow, talk about concrete stuff.
Let's try and forget about the fact that the piece of scored a 25 on his f$cking entrance exam, yet was somehow allowed in. Must have been his real charm and quick wit, I suppose. And then we have to forget that he went to Alabama WITHOUT AIR FORCE PERMISSION:
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunher...ion/7932511.htm
And then people in Alabama seemingly have a hard time recalling if he was even there:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/p...&partner=GOOGLE
I really like this quote from Bush. Boy he really did some memorable work there:
| quote: | | For his part, Mr. Bush has never offered any detailed descriptions of what jobs he did at the 187th. "I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes," he told reporters in 2000. |
These guys were looking forward to meeting him too:
http://www.memphisflyer.com/content...2837&onthefly=1
And then of course the little fails to take a physical in '72, and was suspended for flying. What a f$cking hero.
Besides, this whole thing stinks like a frickin' cover-up from the start. First this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/n...&partner=GOOGLE
And then this:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...n_bush_accuser/
I don't buy it whatsoever. There are major holes in his story. He has much to explain as far as I'm concerned. Not only does he have to account better when he was in Alabama, but where the f$ck was he when he supposedly went back to Texas?
Political analysts feel this is a non-issue. To me this is a serious issue, because it says much about this piece of sh$t's character. It falls in complete line with a number of his attempts to cover up his ass or delay things to the point of them becoming non-issues (9/11 committee, Kenny Boy giving Cheney having an Energy orgy, smearjob of Valerie Plame, etc.). It is nothing shy of draft dodging, plain and simple. The wonderfully priviledged Bush got to go to his country club while my dad nearly got his ass shot off halfway across the globe in a complete bull war. Sorry, but his memory is going to have to be a little better to convince me on this one.
| quote: | Published on Thursday, February 19, 2004 by The Nation
What Bush's Guard File Reveals
by David Corn
Okay, we were wrong--the we being those who called on Bush to honor his promise to release his entire Air National Guard records in the hope it would clarify the mysteries surrounding the last eighteen months of his service. After trying to back away from that promise, the Bush White House finally did relent. Last Friday, it handed out packets of hundreds of pages of Bush's Air National Guard file. Yet these records contained not a single sheet that that can be used to resolve the controversy. In fact, the file only reinforces the existing questions.
To recap, here are the three key issues.
* In May 1972, Bush moved from Texas to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. He still had two years left on his Guard obligation. He requested permission to continue his Guard training in Alabama. But did he show up?
* Sometime after the November 1972 election, he returned to Houston. But his immediate supervisors at Ellington Air Base in Houston--his home base--noted in a May 2, 1973, annual performance review that Bush "has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. After that report, he put in several intensive stints of duty. But had Bush ignored his Guard responsibilities for months once he was back in Houston?
* In September 1972, he was grounded for failing to take a flight physical. Why did he not go through this simple step to preserve his flying status?
The new records provide answers to none of this. Although they detail much of his first years in the Air National Guard--his assignments, his training, his drills--they contain no specific references to duty he might have done in Alabama or Houston in the May 1972 to May 1973 period. Let's look at the three pieces:
Alabama On May 24, 1972, Bush filed out a form requesting a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama. But according to this application, he was already in Alabama at work on that Senate campaign. On May 26, the commander of the 9921st wrote Bush to tell him that his application had been accepted. This suggests that Bush moved to Alabama before he had arranged for any Guard reassignment. Was that SOP?
In any event, two months later, on July 21, 1972, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver nixed the reassignment, noting that Bush, "an obligated Reservist" could only be "assigned to a specific Ready Reserve Position." Bush, the ARPC said, "is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
There are no records indicating Bush did a stitch of work for the 9921st. Even the pay sheet summaries and attendance point records that the White House released earlier do not contain a single entry for the entire May to mid-October 1972 period.
After Bush's reassignment was turned down, he waited six weeks to request another assignment. On September 5, he requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tac Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October, and November." He quickly received approval to do so. He was told that the "Unit Training Assembly schedule" for the 187th called for drills on October 7-8 and November 4-5 and that he should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the base commander. During the 2000 campaign, Turnipseed said that Bush had never reported in. He repeated that assertion recently, but then noted he was not completely certain. The Bush records do not list any service on the days of these training assembly drills. The pay sheet summaries note that Bush was paid for two days of service on October 28 and 29. But they do not specify what service was performed or where. After doing no work for the Guard from April through early September, did Bush wait another six weeks before reporting for duty?
An unnamed Republican close to Bush did point reporters to a former Alabama Air National Guard officer who had served at the Dannelly Air Base (the home of the 187th) who claimed he had seen Bush report for duty eight to ten times between May and October 1972. But Bush's file shows that Bush did not even apply for reassignment to the 187th until September. And those pay sheet summaries only suggest Bush put in two days of service late in October. His file records contradict this person's account.
Houston For the stretch from early January 1973 to early May 1973, the pay sheet summaries indicate eight days of possible service: January 4-6 and 8-10 and April 7-8. The summaries also note days of possible service on May 1-3. Presumably, the April and May service occurred at Ellington. But there is nothing-- nothing--in the files that correspond to these days. Moreover, if Bush did put in time in April and early May 1973, why did his immediate superiors--who were buddies of his--sign a form on May 2 saying that Bush had not been seen at Ellington for a year? (Both men are deceased.) Could this mean that the pay sheet summaries are not accurate? These records--and a one-page document indicating he received a dental examination at an Alabama air base in early January 1973--are the key pieces of evidence for the Bush White House's argument that Bush served during the missing year.
Most of the AWOL controversy has focused on Bush's months in Alabama. But the question of whether he shirked his Guard responsibilities upon his return to Texas is as significant. Perhaps it is possible that his Guard file did not reflect his service in Alabama because he was doing temporary duty away from his home base. But why would his main file--which is loaded with information pertaining to his duty at Ellington before May 1972--have nothing in it about his activity at Ellington in the first four months of 1973? This gap is as suspicious as the Alabama hole.
The flight physical Bush's file also provides no explanation for the flight physical that did not happen. The White House did allow reporters to look at medical records that were in Bush's Guard files. But the journalists were not permitted to leave with copies. Apparently these records contained nothing unusual. In 2000, the Bush campaign said that Bush did not take a flight physical because he was living in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. But personal physicians did not administer flight exams; military surgeons did. More recently, the White House has said that because Bush was no longer flying fighter interceptor jets he had no reason to undergo a physical. Some military experts have found that explanation unpersuasive; others have called it reasonable. But why the shift in stories?
So the fog of Bush's Guard service remains. The file is no help. Bill Burkett, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard did tell various newspapers recently that in 1997 he was in a National Guard office and overheard Joseph Allbaugh, then chief of staff for Governor George W. Bush, inform another officer that he needed to make sure there was nothing embarrassing in Bush's Guard file. Burkett recalled he later spotted items from Bush's file in the trash. Allbaugh and the White House denied these allegations. Is it possible that Allbaugh--or anyone else--could have rigged files in both the Texas office and the main repository in Denver? Suspicious minds can look at the released file and wonder why an absence in good record keeping happens to match the time period in question.
Still, the story of Bush's missing year is unresolved. It may never be settled. Unless more records somehow materialize, or convincing witnesses come forward. And if the Bush White House has played this episode to a who-will-ever-know tie, perhaps that is, in the end, a win for the former Air National Guard first lieutenant with a file full of riddles. |
|
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And so far Bush's best evidence are spotty records, unsure eyewitnesses, a dental record, and a pay stub. Wow, talk about concrete stuff. |
If there are spotty records, it's not his fault. It's the National Guard's. The President has released ALL of his records, plus what he was able to obtain from his archived files.
And the only unsure eyewitness was the one who said that he wasn't there. It was revealed a week ago that he's in the early stages of Alzheimers. Since then, two people have come forward who are "sure" about their stories, one of which was corroborated by the ex-wife of one of the reservists.
But nevertheless, you have missed the entire point of this article. Regardless of where you think Bush was for 6 months, he still served 5.5 years, spending hours flying a death-trap known as the "Widowmaker." He has as Vietnam experience. Kerry also has a Vietnam experience. But even that's not the point here.
The basic gist: In these times, we need someone who can be a leader, even if it means going to war. Kerry's views are cause for worry, as he is hampered by his experiences that were a result of misguided American policies. |
|
|
| occrider |
NEWSFLASH: Bush missing some national guard meetings and scoring poorly on a test 30 years ago HAS NO RELEVANCE to what’s going on today!!!
NEWSFLASH: Kerry campaigning against a war and siding with popular opinion 30 years ago HAS NO RELEVANCE to what’s going on today!!!
Please this is getting pathetic. Why don’t we pull up each of their report cards to see if any of them skipped bio class and form our opinions based on that? Or why don’t we throw Clinton and Bush in jail for breaking the law and taking drugs when they were in their 20’s??? People change over the course of 30 years. I only hope none of you are ever put in the situation where you’re being held accountable for irrelevant transgressions when you were in your 20’s 30 years from now.
Only in politics :rolleyes: … |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Vietnam was a poorly mismanagaged conflict for over a decade, while people from Kerry's line of politics continually mismanaged the stituation. This article is right on the money. Because Kerry is now a member of that stream of thinking, he has become part of the "peace at any cost" crowd. Unfortunately, for the future of America, the cost is often too high and military action may sometimes be a better alternative. Bush is not handicapped by the same lack of vision held by Kerry. |
So at what point did his peace at any cost genetic disorder kick in when he signed the congressional bill allowing the President to go to war as a last resort? There's no indication at all that Kerry was a "peace-nik" since he wasn't campaigning for peace at ANY cost. If he wanted peace at any cost he wouldn't have signed up for two tours of duty. He actually experienced the situation, looked at the costs, looked at the potential benefits, and concluded the costs outweighed the benefits. If Vietnam was a conflict that was poorly mismanaged by the political and military branches as you say, why is it mismangment of the situation to realise that the war is being mismanagement and to recommend that the war be stopped? I see nothing wrong with that nor why he should be faulted for such judgment. Especially since he experienced the situation first hand. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So at what point did his peace at any cost genetic disorder kick in when he signed the congressional bill allowing the President to go to war as a last resort? |
Perhaps the point where he realized he wanted to run for President? He may have voted for the war; he voted against funding it. He voted against the first Gulf War, arguably a more "clear" time to intervene militarily, and gave a speech on the Senate floor that proclaimed to the world that America and Americans were unprepared to fight.
Prior to that, he voted against development of every major weapons system in use today. (Patriot, Tomahawk 2nd gen., Abrams modernization). And my personal favorite - the vote to reduce CIA human intelligence operations by $1 billion the year after the (first) World Trade Center attack. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
The basic gist: In these times, we need someone who can be a leader, even if it means going to war. Kerry's views are cause for worry, as he is hampered by his experiences that were a result of misguided American policies. |
So because Kerry went to war, fought for his country, and when he came back he saw what everyone else saw - a misguided fruitless battle that was killing thousands of our soldiers, this makes him hampered by his experiences?
I'm sorry, but I find this quite a stretch to mark against someone. I really don't personally feel a comparison of war experiences are necessary in this campaign between the two. But if there is a comparison, you've got one guy who didn't go to war and is having trouble explaining where he was (and, SURPRISE, felt the war was worth fighting up to the bitter end), and you have another guy who was actually there, actually put his ass on the line to save his men/friends, saw other friends' guts being blown out, and once it was all said and done he felt strongly AGAINST that bull war. And wow, I wonder how he and the vast majority of Vietnam vets could harbor such negative feelings toward the war and their stupid politicians for putting them there in the first place?
I guess if the comparison is made, I'll take the latter. |
|
|
|
|
