Thanks to Geoffrey who pointed me to this tidbit. It's a letter to the editor written by COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired), U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard, Herndon, Va.5
"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 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
There's more go read the rest.
"Oh, yeah? Anybody can write a letter to the editor! Why haven't I heard of this so-called retired flyer before?"
(How'm I doin'?)
I've just decided, in the last fifteen minutes or so, that it's time to demand the people making the accusations prove what they're claiming.
With all the stuff that's come out, that reasonable people would accept as supporting that Bush served as he was required to do, it is no longer necessary for Bush and Bush supporters to try to disprove the accusations.
Now it's on the Bush-bashers. Prove the Campenni letter is fake. Prove the pay stubs are meaningless. Prove that you're not the foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy wackos you increasingly appear to be, to an increasing majority of the American people.
(Oops. Karl Rove is going to kill me for that last one.)
I've been feeling the same way. We demand that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. This should be no different.
Innocent till proven guilty.
The next lefty that makes the charge on this site - had better be able to prove it.
Exactly!
AWOL is not an opinion. It is a crime, that is punishable under the UCMJ.
So, either prove it in a court of law are STFU!
I sent that very article to liberal friend of mine (yes, believe it or not it is possible to be a conservative and have liberal friends), and they immediately shot back, "Oh yeah! Well Bush hardly flew his last two years in the guard. Why was that? That makes no sense, since it is so expensive to train pilots."
Arrrgggghhhh!!!!
He obviously didn't even read the article. That, and a whole lot of other things are explained in the article.
It will never be enough QOAE. Never.
I know. I'm working on an Evil Plan to end it.
We demand that prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. This should be no different. Innocent till proven guilty. The next lefty that makes the charge on this site - had better be able to prove it.
Well...you're dealing with reporters and journalists, not lawyers. Maybe this is the first time you'd prefer less of the former and more of the latter?
Another problem is that the White House isn't feeding the press enough to eat; they get cranky when they're hungry, you know?
For example, there's this, from Josh Marshall's always excellent Talking Points Memo:
Guys, if I were you, I'd let thing this go. The story is so complicated that you aren't going to solve it anytime soon. Let someone else do the heavy lifting. It'll all blow over in a couple of days.
Then again...
I am letting it go.
I'm done with it. I have issued Rosemary's Doctrine above.
As has already been established, all the records can't be released because, was is common today and was even more common 30 years ago, many of them no longer exist.
It is also fairly apparent that Bush shouldn't have even done this much. Every piece of evidence that backs him up is just further picked apart--the story has already gone well past the "reasonable man" standard that would be required in a civil suit, let alone the "reasonable doubt" category.
And I love the reasoning which says, "just admit you're a liar, then I won't be mad at you anymore." And if he's not lying? "Well, prove that you're not a liar."
There's no point in this anymore. Reasonable people have their answers. The man served honorably, volunteered for a unit that was fairly frequently called up to fly missions over Vietnam, and piloted one of the most dangerous planes to pilot that was ever put in the air. He served at a time when there was a glut of pilots, and when it was not uncommon to take time off for professional affairs so long as you came back and mde up the hours. And in which a lot of guys were let out early because there were cutbacks in the Guard.
In other words, there is nothing here, and the only people who are saying, "this raises further questions" are those desperately scrabbling for something to make cheap shots with.
It demeans people like Marshall, it really does. No sense of honor, no sense of decency, no sense of fairness. Just: "Get him!"
It's long been known, for instance, that in the late spring of 1973, Bush's commanding officers in Texas reported that they couldn't write an evaluation of him because "he has not been observed" at the base in Houston.
Actually, that's incorrect. The officer in charge of that evaluation could not write the evaluation because Bush "had not been observed". "Observed", in the case of an evaluation, means "personally observed in the course of the duties required for evaluation by the officer writing the report". This same officer COULD have observed Bush digging ditches, peeling potatoes or mowing lawns, but he would not have been able to write an evaluation on his REQUIRED skills.
In other words, "not observed" does not mean "not there". (Nor does it mean he WAS there.)
Indeed, I had a lieutenant that worked for me that received a not observed comment by a rater because the rater hadn't been in the job long enough to make a qualified judgement (I think the reg is 90 days). That was active duty Army in the late '90s. Not a big deal.
Here's some debunking of the Campenni letter:
http://tinyurl.com/2o675
Adam, that limp-wristed, pissant attempt at debunking doesn't even rate on the sneer-o-meter.
Your nitwit friend doesn't pick a single hole in Campenni's story, except that Bush did serve during the Nixon administration. This does not invalidate his observation that the folks in the White House decided who got mobilized, and who didn't.
The only other thing that your partner in slime came up with (besides a series of sneers and sarcastic remarks that resembled reason and evidence not at all) was a letter from a liberal vet, who doesn't like Bush, and just repeats the same tired old lies.
Now, I don't know if you are aware of this, but disputations of fact involve, well facts. One can also include things like evidence, or reason, as well.
I would strongly suggest using these methods. Unless, of course, you are bound and determined to hang Bush no matter what; in which case lies, disinformation, half-truths, and constantly shifting standards will do just fine for you.
Adam,
Here's what I said to Hesiod:
Following this URL was a waste of my time. I expected something useful. I got nada.
Hesoid, you can't even bother to link to supporting documentation for your unsupported assertions. True debunking doesn't consist of repeatedly saying 'He's lying'.
Can someone as partisan and anti-Bush as yourself debunk the Campenni letter? If a writer uses too much hyperbole, screaming and hand-waving he loses me, unless he can pass himself off as charming and irascible on occasion. Self-deprecation and humor also help but frequent bouts of calm and reason are the best. You, OTOH, produce posts peppered with obscenities and insult. Show a little milk of human kindness to those with whom you disagree. You aren't the Taliban.
Next time I visit I hope you've produced a well supported argument. When you do you can be very interesting and useful. Otherwise, this site is only good because of your excellent commenters (with the possible exception of me, you decide).
Yours,
Wince
That was debunking?
To quote your "debunker":
BWahHAAHAHAhahahHAHA
What's even funnier about this whole Campenni thing is he says he served with Bush in 1970-71, which isn't even the "missing time" period in question (72-73). So his words, however supportive of the President, do nothing to bolster Bush's service record during the controversial time.
What the hell needs to be bolstered? It's right there in black and white. Write to the press office, maybe they'll release it in pop up book form for you.
I thought the point of his letter was to explain what was going on at TANG. How things worked, etc.
He has a perspective that you and I don't have. He was there. He knows the system and had reasonable explainations on why Bush wasn't AWOL.
You may continue to believe what you want. If you are unwilling to accept reasonable explainations, that says more about you than Bush.
Either way, I don't care anymore. I accept what has been said and for me it's over. Just don't start crying foul when Kerry gets attacked about his activity during the 70's.
We will continue to defend both Bush and Kerry against vile smears. We will not allow criminal accusations to flourish on this blog without proof anymore.
Rosemary & Dean:
Could we start a fundraising drive to enable you and Dean to buy a network (ABC, CBS or NBC) and institute this policy there?
For the record, I'm not accusing Bush of anything. But when they are only releasing his records in dribs and drabs, and the records and timelines seem often to contradict each other (the Alabama dental exam for one), I think those aren't "reasonable explanations." Whether it's a coverup or not, who knows, but in politics, perception is reality.
I meant that the Col's letter provided reasonable explainations of how things work in TANG.
Personally, I think the administration should not have released diddly. No matter how much they find it will never be enough. Ever.
Just like with Clinton. Never enough. We still hear the nonsense about Vince Foster.
Never enough.