George Bush AWOL?

[eisely 13]

The op ed piece posted below is by far the best response I have seen to the scurrilous accusations made about George Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

________________________

 

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

 

 

[buffalo2 14]

Thanks for sharing this Eisely

[VentureScoutNY 10]

Very interesting to know that information. If only the press wasn't so anti-Bush, the American public could know the truth...

[Mike F 10]

eisely,

Where did you get this excellent piece?

I can hear fighters from Ellington Field's 147th (still in operation today) taking off over my house as I type (really). This one should definitely be in the local papers, if not national!

 

-mike

[eisely 13]

This was an op ed piece in The Washington Times on February 11.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Unlike some others, I try not to make too many overtly partisan comments in this forum. So I'll just say:

 

What goes around, comes around.

[scoutingagain 20]

Both George W. Bush and John Kerry were sons of relatively wealthy families. Both graduated from Yale. George W. Bush volunteered to serve his country in the military in the Air National Guard. Perhaps he was inspired by his father. I don't know enough to make a judgement regarding his service. I know some have asked questions and Mr. Bush is trying to answer those questions.

 

I checked www.johnkerry.com and could find no references to Mr. Bush's service record or questions regarding his service. Doesn't mean it's not there, I just didn't find it. I did find the following:

 

"John Kerry volunteered for service in the Navy during the Vietnam War, where he served as skipper of a swift boat that patrolled the Mekong Delta. Lt. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Combat V, three Purple Hearts, the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, three Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medals, and the Combat Action Ribbon. He is a cofounder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. In the United States Senate, he has led the fight to investigate the fate of POW/MIAs in Vietnam, treat and compensate victims of Agent Orange and study the cause of war-related illnesses in Gulf War veterans. "

 

I'm sure if there is something in the above that is inaccurate, somewhere there is a Republican that will be happy to point it out.

 

SA

[Fat Old Guy 11]

What I continue to find interesting is that when Clinton's lies to avoid the draft came to light, his supporters said, "Viet Nam was a long time ago. We need to move past that."

 

It seems that isn't their philosophy when it isn't their guy being questioned.

 

As for Kerry, he's letting everyone else do the questioning.

 

 

[scoutingagain 20]

FOG,

 

I agree with you. Last time around the Democrats had not much better evidence of military service for their guy than GWB so they didn't make it an issue. This time they will.

 

The OpEd piece specifically acused Kerry of making it an issue. I figured if that were so something would be on his website.

 

I have no doubt both sides will sling more stuff at their opponent before the election. The dirtier the accusation, the source will be further removed from the actual candidate. After several losses I suspect the Democrats have learned quite abit about campaigning from the Republicans. I'm not expecting the high road from either side based on past campaigns.

 

SA

[NJCubScouter 1389]

FOG,

 

Now you're just making stuff up.

 

And anyway, the issue is not what Democrats said, but what Republicans said. Listening to conservative talk radio and reading Internet forums, I heard or saw Clinton called a "draft dodger" approximately 10 million times. (OK, maybe 1 million.) In fact I STILL hear it and he has been out of office for 3 years. About 2 nights ago I heard one of the nationally syndicated Republican radio commentators (Laura Ingraham) say, "Can you believe the Democrats are talking about this, IT WAS SO LONG AGO!) I almost fell out of my chair laughing, which would have been unfortunate given that I was driving at the time. So long ago? It seems like the rules change when a Republican is being questioned.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" I heard or saw Clinton called a "draft dodger" approximately 10 million times. (OK, maybe 1 million.) In fact I STILL hear it and he has been out of office for 3 years."

 

Well, he is a draft dodger. He admits to lying to the ROTC commander to evade the draft. W, on the other, may have manipulated the system but he did it legally but let's look at some other things.

 

W was an officer in the ANG. That requires a college degree and he didn't join the ANG until after he was out of college (Yale, class of '68). As I recall, not too many men who were already out of college were drafted. How did W evade the draft from 64 through 68? So it really doesn't look like he joined the Guard to evade the draft, does it?

 

As for changing the rule, the Dems are the hypocrites. They whine that people bring up the war but then bring it up themselves. If you don't like your neighbor spitting on your sidewalk, do go spitting on his.

 

 

 

 

[scoutingagain 20]

I figured it would not take long for Republicans to respond with their own allegations. In the paper this morning there are allegations that Kerry had an affair with an intern and somewhere a 30+ year old photograph of Kerry in the same frame as Jane Fonda has shown up. The Democrats for their part continue to pick apart any little inconsistancy they can find in GWB's military record and yes the Republicans now sound like the Democrats did when Clinton ran.

 

The Republicans have also prepared the electorate with the warning that the Democrats are preparing to wage one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent memory. I guess they have learned something from the Republicans.

 

I expect a continued campaign by both sides avoiding discussion of issues and continued accusations.

 

My personal opinion is if the Republicans really thought character counted John McCain would have been their nominee 4 years ago. But I guess they figured if the North Vietnamese couldn't get him to dance he wouldn't dance for the Republican National Committee either.

 

I expect a continued campaign by both sides avoiding discussion of issues and continued accusations.

 

In the end many of us will be disgusted with either candidate and end up holding our nose again in the voting booth.

 

SA

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"John McCain would have been their nominee 4 years ago."

 

I've been told by both Senators and staffers that McCain is a small minded and vindictive person. Evidently, if you oppose McCain on any issue, you have become his enemy and will set out to damage or destroy you. He really would have made an interesting Prez.

 

 

[WHEELER 10]

George Bush is AWOL!

 

What about the Constitution?

 

George Bush has shown total disregard for the Constitution. He campaigned on being the "Educational President". Yet, the Constitution does not delegate this job to the federal government. Education is not the purview of the federal government.

 

Both Bill Clinton and George Bush took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States yet neither does. Words have no meaning and laws have no meaning.

 

What is an oath? Empty words. In all of his education at Yale, George Bush never learned that this is a Republic. He uses the word democracy. What is his Yale degree in history worth, not the paper it is printed on.

 

An oath is only as good as the man behind it.

 

Law is only good as the man behind it.

 

When I say politics and its effect in the Boy Scout program, do we have any concept of "The rule of Law".

 

A scout is Trustworthy yet neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush can do this.

 

In America today, there is no rule of law. There is no standard.

 

Original intent vs Living Constitution.

 

Original intent of the Boy Scouts vs a living progressive idea of the Boy Scouts.

 

Culture defines Politics.

[eisely 13]

IMHO John McCain is an admirable person and a mediocre senator. The only piece of legislation of which I am aware that has his name on it is the McCain Feingold act that restricts free speech and enhances incumbency. Apparently this was, in his mind, his penance for his involvement in the Lincoln Savings scandal back in the 80's. In some respects it is fair to characterize John McCain as the Republicans' Howard Dean: emotional, highly opinionated, outspoken, and ineffective. John McCain was absolutely correct on one issue though when he referred to then President Clinton's foreign policy as "feckless".

 

I read McCain's book four years ago. I highly commend it to anyone who wants to learn about quaint old fashioned ideas such as sacrifice and patriotism.