NationStates Jolt Archive

Wednesday, February 11, 2004
A fellow flyer on Bush's National Guard record
Retired Colonel William Campenni, who was a Lieutenant with President Bush in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Texas Air National Guard is speaking up through a letter to the Washington Times about the questioning of Bush's record.



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...

There was one big exception to [the] 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.
...
[A]s 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.
...
[T]here 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.

--The Washington Times



Not that the Dems would let pesky things like facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.


http://robbernard.com/archives/000892.html

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

Of course it is :roll: It does'nt conform to your thinking :wink:

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

Wow, for once you didn't C&P, you posted your opinion!!

February 13, 2004
Atlanta Businessman Vouches for Bush's National Guard Record
The Associated Press is reporting that Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun, who is now the president of an Atlanta insulation company, has vouched for the questioned whereabouts of President George W. Bush during his National Guard Service in Alabama. Calhoun states that he remembers Bush being on site for at least six different occasions.

http://atlanta.about/b/a/065045.htm

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

Of course it is :roll: It does'nt conform to your thinking :wink:

do you belong to the cult of the sun young moon?

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

Of course it is :roll: It does'nt conform to your thinking :wink:

do you belong to the cult of the sun young moon?

Do you eat the cream of sum yung gai?

February 13, 2004
Atlanta Businessman Vouches for Bush's National Guard Record
The Associated Press is reporting that Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun, who is now the president of an Atlanta insulation company, has vouched for the questioned whereabouts of President George W. Bush during his National Guard Service in Alabama. Calhoun states that he remembers Bush being on site for at least six different occasions.

http://atlanta.about/b/a/065045.htm

thats funny cause I read from people in the military how Bush cleaned up his military records in 1997--guess it all boils down to who you want to believe-those Atlanta Businessmen who want to curry favor with the President to get special favors or those in the Military who never recalled ever seeing Bush and have nothing to gain by saying so

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

Of course it is :roll: It does'nt conform to your thinking :wink:

do you belong to the cult of the sun young moon?

Do you eat the cream of sum yung gai?

Uhm... somehow none of this sounds right...

The Washington Times is a moonie owned paper that has zero credibility--your post is dismissed

Of course it is :roll: It does'nt conform to your thinking :wink:

do you belong to the cult of the sun young moon?

Do you eat the cream of sum yung gai?

hellz no :lol:

That Atlanta bussinessman SERVED with Bush :wink:

That Atlanta bussinessman SERVED with Bush :wink:
Ew! Sounds too gamey!

That Atlanta bussinessman SERVED with Bush :wink:

did they share knee pads in the skulls?

Yep... according to Calhoun "He sat in my office most of the time - he would read," Calhoun said. "He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."

Except that this pilot supposedly sat around reading manuals for what? The Guard in Alabama flew aircraft diferent than those that GW was qualified to fly (Alabama flew the F4 rather than the F102 GW was flying in Texas), not to mention that these incidents happened after GW had missed his physical and been suspended from air ops - which is to say that he had been stripped of his wings.

So he was reading manuals for planes he either wasn't qualified for, or that he wasn't allowed to fly anyway? But no.... according to Calhoun he was reading about "your aircraft he was flying"... that he wasn't flying....

Sounds.... odd. Especially for a guy that can't even be bothered to read the newspaper.

But hey - if you're buying the story - if sitting around an office reading magazines about things he wasn't going to do qualifies as serving your country... then every patient in every dentists office is henceforth a veteran!

-Z-

That Atlanta bussinessman SERVED with Bush :wink:

did they share knee pads in the skulls?

yes, :idea: and as junior members they gave each other ass massages after the senior members had had their way.

That Atlanta bussinessman SERVED with Bush :wink:

did they share knee pads in the skulls?

yes, :idea: and as junior members they gave each other ass massages after the senior members had had their way.

Im sure Bush was on the bottom--I mean the name just gives it all away

Struckman,

It is a sad that that Democrats now equate "credible" with "Democratic." We are forever indebted to people like William Campenni who are so devoted to the truth. Unfortunately, we seem to be outnumbered--if not in general, at least in the press. We can only hope that people are buying the New York Times for its recipes and not the "news."

Anyway, now that we know George W. Bush is a patriotic American (which we already knew), let's get to the real issues. At least Bush is willing to tell make up his mind on those, unlike Senator Unmentionable.

Ronald G. Newara
President, The Democratic Republic of Allapin Mayeer

Struckman,

It is a sad that that Democrats now equate "credible" with "Democratic." We are forever indebted to people like William Campenni who are so devoted to the truth. Unfortunately, we seem to be outnumbered--if not in general, at least in the press. We can only hope that people are buying the New York Times for its recipes and not the "news."

Anyway, now that we know George W. Bush is a patriotic American (which we already knew), let's get to the real issues. At least Bush is willing to tell make up his mind on those, unlike Senator Unmentionable.

Ronald G. Newara
President, The Democratic Republic of Allapin Mayeer

Yeah hes so "Patriotic" he steals all our rights and calls it Patriot Acts

Lets not foregt that even Bush admitted to being very drunk, and abusing other substances around this time....so its no wonder that he was grounded.

Yeah hes so "Patriotic" he steals all our rights and calls it Patriot Acts

Oh, so now the only rights you had were to get out library books without having people know which ones they were, and to be held w/o charge? Only two rights? You must be living in Iraq under Saddam (thank God he's out of there, no thanks to Senator Unmentionable).

I'll be the first to say that those two parts of the Patriot Act need to go. But it annoys the heck out of me when you Dems just write off the whole 340-some pages because of it. Honestly, are you really opposed to hiring more arabic linguists or increasing the budget of law enforcemnet agenices. Those provisions are the real backbone of the act...but you probably haven't read the act like I have. You probably just pass on what you hear from other Dems.

Wow! If you think President Bush can't run a country because he might have been drunk 30-some years ago, you must hate Andrew Jackson!

Wow! If you think President Bush can't run a country because he might have been drunk 30-some years ago, you must hate Andrew Jackson!

Hey, it's kind of funny how people say Kerry shouldn't be elected for protesting a war 30 years ago! Same difference?

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

To what?

Yeah. Bush also assassinated Ho Chi Minh and Hitler in their secret liar just outside Lubbock, Texas. Documents found in the bunker proved all democrats to be commie, pinko, lying sonsabitches who hate America. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!1111

Yeah hes so "Patriotic" he steals all our rights and calls it Patriot Acts

Oh, so now the only rights you had were to get out library books without having people know which ones they were, and to be held w/o charge? Only two rights? You must be living in Iraq under Saddam (thank God he's out of there, no thanks to Senator Unmentionable).

I'll be the first to say that those two parts of the Patriot Act need to go. But it annoys the heck out of me when you Dems just write off the whole 340-some pages because of it. Honestly, are you really opposed to hiring more arabic linguists or increasing the budget of law enforcemnet agenices. Those provisions are the real backbone of the act...but you probably haven't read the act like I have. You probably just pass on what you hear from other Dems.

well he wants to pass more too

Hey, it's kind of funny how people say Kerry shouldn't be elected for protesting a war 30 years ago! Same difference?

Actually, I don't give a damn about what he did 30 years ago. And I don't think anyone should. I would be happy if everyone would just worry about the issues that matter. And I wish Senator Unmentionable would make up his mind on at least one issue so we'd know what he actually feels about something. And I wish all you Dems would wake up and vote for the best candidate, not just the one with the "D" after his name on C-SPAN.

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

Yeah. Bush also assassinated Ho Chi Minh and Hitler in their secret liar just outside Lubbock, Texas. Documents found in the bunker proved all democrats to be commie, pinko, lying sonsabitches who hate America. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!1111

Did I miss something?!

February 18, 2004, 8:40 a.m.
Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed
byork@nationalreview.com



EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"



In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.

Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.


FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.


THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."

On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."


THE UNENDING ATTACK
Despite the evidence, Democrats have continued to accuse the president of shirking his duty during his Guard career. "He went to Alabama for one year," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said on ABC on February 1. "He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL, it doesn't matter." After Bush made his Guard records public, McAuliffe released a statement saying the documents "create more questions than answers." Other Democrats, as well as an energetic team of liberal columnists and bloggers, echoed McAuliffe's comments.

Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story.

It also seems likely that some of Bush's adversaries used the Guard issue as a way to get at other questions about the president. The Guard record was said to have a bearing on Bush's credibility, on the war in Iraq, on his fitness to lead. In addition, some journalists were nearly obsessed with forcing the president to release medical records from his time in the Guard because they hoped those records might reveal some evidence of drug use. The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexcep tional and contained nothing about drug use.

While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.

Now the evidence is public; anyone who is interested in learning about Bush's service can do so. In the end, the president had the facts on his side. But he also had the good fortune to have the allegiance of men who feel so intensely about the Guard and their service that they wanted to speak out even if the White House didn't seem to care. Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like a draft dodger."


http://nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

February 18, 2004, 8:40 a.m.
Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed
byork@nationalreview.com



EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"



In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.

Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.


FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.


THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.

The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."

The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."

On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."


THE UNENDING ATTACK
Despite the evidence, Democrats have continued to accuse the president of shirking his duty during his Guard career. "He went to Alabama for one year," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said on ABC on February 1. "He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL, it doesn't matter." After Bush made his Guard records public, McAuliffe released a statement saying the documents "create more questions than answers." Other Democrats, as well as an energetic team of liberal columnists and bloggers, echoed McAuliffe's comments.

Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story.

It also seems likely that some of Bush's adversaries used the Guard issue as a way to get at other questions about the president. The Guard record was said to have a bearing on Bush's credibility, on the war in Iraq, on his fitness to lead. In addition, some journalists were nearly obsessed with forcing the president to release medical records from his time in the Guard because they hoped those records might reveal some evidence of drug use. The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexcep tional and contained nothing about drug use.

While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.

Now the evidence is public; anyone who is interested in learning about Bush's service can do so. In the end, the president had the facts on his side. But he also had the good fortune to have the allegiance of men who feel so intensely about the Guard and their service that they wanted to speak out even if the White House didn't seem to care. Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like a draft dodger."


http://nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

The National Review is part of the Hate media--of course theyll lie for Bush

ChristOurSavior,

The post is appreciated. Unfortunately, I plan to get a job and retire from it by 65 so I can have a nice post-retirement life filled with hawaiian shirts and golf outings. I.e., that is a loooooooong article. Too long for six minutes after midnight.

Just curious. Has anyone ever heard "Genius of Love" by the Tom Tom Club?

The National Review is part of the Hate media--of course theyll lie for Bush

Seems like no matter how much evidence is in favor of Bush you call it a lie,maybe you should question the mainstream media's coverage of this seeing that they are nothing but left-wing propaganda.

I'd better get to bed now. I leave you with a bit of Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

Good night!

Hey, it's kind of funny how people say Kerry shouldn't be elected for protesting a war 30 years ago! Same difference?

Actually, I don't give a damn about what he did 30 years ago. And I don't think anyone should. I would be happy if everyone would just worry about the issues that matter. And I wish Senator Unmentionable would make up his mind on at least one issue so we'd know what he actually feels about something. And I wish all you Dems would wake up and vote for the best candidate, not just the one with the "D" after his name on C-SPAN.

You want a response..you got it.

Do I hate a man who lived two hundred years ago?
Sure..why not?
After all..hes the one who once said.."The only good injun..is a DEAD one..and Im dedicated to the idea of a lot of dead indians."

As for Bush...
He admits that he spent quite a bit of time drunken and derelict of his duties.
He has the worst resume of any president ever.
Taken more time off than any other President EVER
Has the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression.
Has spent BILLIONS on his personal agenda in Iraq..wich top military analysts prove, has WORSENED the "war on terror"...
Is responsible for economic downturn, due to gross military spending.
Has shady connections to Suadi Arabian royalty , wich has been proven to support terrorism.
Has connections to Bin Laden family, that has NOT disowned Osama.
has made corrupt deals with Haliburton to personally profit from Iraq, and Afghasnistan.

You need more little man?
I 'll give you all kinds of reasons if you want them.
But..you can call John Kerry "Senator Unmentionable" if you want to...I cant stop you.
It makes you look very uninformed, and rather childish..but hey...knock yourself out.
You call a Silver Star medal awardee who TRULY served his country "Unmentionable?"
You got some nerve.
You Conservatives constantly harp on his "flip-flopping"...I suspect you dont even know what your saying...but if youre REALLy that curious...why dont you go here:
www.Johnkerry.com
and see for yourself where he stands and where he doesnt.

Bush is in NO position to start mudslinging in THIS campaign.

Oh, by the way, ChristOurSavior, I don't disapprove of what you say. You're one of the few people in here with a solid head on your shoulders.

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

*takes a big ol' drag and hands it to Red.*

You Conservatives constantly harp on his "flip-flopping"...I suspect you dont even know what your saying...but if youre REALLy that curious...why dont you go here:
www.Johnkerry.com
and see for yourself where he stands and where he doesnt.


Okay. I'll go to www.JohnKerry.com. Now you go to www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/

Sure, mine is trying to push its agenda. But no less than yours.

John Kerry looks cool, but I'm from Texas so I'll vote for Bush. My reason is as good as any debate because you have to realize, it doesn't matter who is President.....the media runs this country regardless. That's why I watch as little news as I possibly can.

You Conservatives constantly harp on his "flip-flopping"...I suspect you dont even know what your saying...but if youre REALLy that curious...why dont you go here:
www.Johnkerry.com
and see for yourself where he stands and where he doesnt.


Okay. I'll go to www.JohnKerry.com. Now you go to www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/

Sure, mine is trying to push its agenda. But no less than yours.

Thats all you got?

Fine....I'll go check out that site....I suggest you do the same.
I have serious doubts about the validity of a site about Kerry thats sponsored by the G.O.P

John Kerry looks cool, but I'm from Texas so I'll vote for Bush. My reason is as good as any debate because you have to realize, it doesn't matter who is President.....the media runs this country regardless. That's why I watch as little news as I possibly can.

Maybe you should think about it a little more. By no means should you change you mind and vote for J*** K****--that would be a disaster. But if the media does run it, it's only because people like you who let them do it.

John Kerry looks cool, but I'm from Texas so I'll vote for Bush. My reason is as good as any debate because you have to realize, it doesn't matter who is President.....the media runs this country regardless. That's why I watch as little news as I possibly can.

Maybe you should think about it a little more. By no means should you change you mind and vote for J*** K****--that would be a disaster. But if the media does run it, it's only because people like you who let them do it.

Yah god forbid he should make an informed decision huh?

John Kerry looks cool, but I'm from Texas so I'll vote for Bush. My reason is as good as any debate because you have to realize, it doesn't matter who is President.....the media runs this country regardless. That's why I watch as little news as I possibly can.

Maybe you should think about it a little more. By no means should you change you mind and vote for J*** K****--that would be a disaster. But if the media does run it, it's only because people like you who let them do it.No, it's because some people think everything they see on TV must be true. I just watch TV for entertainment.

Best way to mess up the media is to not tune in to their broadcasts. :D

When the stations see that what people watch most on TV is entertainment, they won't put so many freaking newscasts on air.

Oh, so now an informed decision means one that is based on what you read in the New York Times? I hardly think so.

...but I can see that neither of us is going to change our mind. I'll ask God to forgive you, don't worry! So I really am going to bed.

Oh, so now an informed decision means one that is based on what you read in the New York Times? I hardly think so.

...but I can see that neither of us is going to change our mind. I'll ask God to forgive you, don't worry! So I really am going to bed.

save your "faith" for someone who needs it.

Enh, both sides have at least semi-credible arguments, but both sides als are very selective about what evidence they will hear, or what sources are 'credible'. worse though, is the convenient ignoring of ideas or facts that disagree with the individuals personal beliefs. The worst of all, however is when it just resorts to petty name calling, or simply attacking the other person in order to promote oneself. Facts, all of them, not just the ones that are convenient, and information should be more important than creating an adverse characature of your opponent (that may or may not be accurate) in debates. But what do I know, that's just my opinion.

The National Review is part of the Hate media--of course theyll lie for Bush

Seems like no matter how much evidence is in favor of Bush you call it a lie,maybe you should question the mainstream media's coverage of this seeing that they are nothing but left-wing propaganda.

Left wing biased media? In the US? You've got be kidding. Anything that is owned and ran by large coropations isn't left wing. I've heard of Fox News and how it reports "what a great man Bush is". From what I've seen of US media is right wing to all hell. Dosen't support unions or healthcare and doesn't keep the vast majority of US citzens properly informed as to what is actually happening outside of the US. They support Isreal full tilt.

For those of you who love Bush - In most of the world he is seen as the most dangerous man around, a much greater threat to world peace than any tin pot formly supported by the US, such as Saddam Hussien.

Left wing biased media? In the US? You've got be kidding. Anything that is owned and ran by large coropations isn't left wing. I've heard of Fox News and how it reports "what a great man Bush is". From what I've seen of US media is right wing to all hell. Dosen't support unions or healthcare and doesn't keep the vast majority of US citzens properly informed as to what is actually happening outside of the US. They support Isreal full tilt.

So I take it that you are not American?If not how the Hell would you know what the media is like?

For those of you who love Bush - In most of the world he is seen as the most dangerous man around, a much greater threat to world peace than any tin pot formly supported by the US, such as Saddam Hussien.

How so?Please explain.

I can use the internet and we can get Fox News on pay TV, I watch for a laugh sometimes. More importantly I have had friends of mine go the US and tell what it's like. Every single one of them, even those aren't particularly news/current affairs/politically inclined, told me what the media is like there.

Bush being a threat to global peace - Look at opinion polls from South America, Europe and Australia (where I'm from). Recently there was a poll conducted by Ch. 9 here (not exactly a left media outlet) where most responders voted no to the following question "Do you think George Bush has made the world a safer place?". There's plenty of evidence to this but I can't be bothered looking it up. I know opinion polls aren't the most realiable sources, but if you ask most people outside the US they'll probably give you an answer along these lines. Look at his actions as well, invading country after country, threatening to invade other countries and increasing his miltary budget so it equals what the rest of the world spends on it combined. If you weren't a US citizen, I think you'd feel a little nervous too.

The National Review is part of the Hate media--of course theyll lie for Bush

Seems like no matter how much evidence is in favor of Bush you call it a lie,maybe you should question the mainstream media's coverage of this seeing that they are nothing but left-wing propaganda.

Al Franken has exposed to me in his book the very long record of lies of the rightwing to the point that anything that comes out of the rightwing medias mouth is pure garbage--if the National Review told me that the sky was up Id be inclined to doubt them--rightys have a toxic agenda and they dont speak for the people--their liars for parasitcal plutocrats and let the pluotcrats who hate the people read them and believe their own made up fantasys and lies

I saw a show on Nostradamuses predictions on TV tonite and they went over all his usual predictions we all heard about before (i.e. Hitler=Hister). One interesting quotation of Nostradamus was when he made an anagram linking the names Osama and Bush--very chilling indeed

Oh, by the way, ChristOurSavior, I don't disapprove of what you say. You're one of the few people in here with a solid head on your shoulders.

you just say that cause he believes the same lies you do

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

*takes a big ol' drag and hands it to Red.*

HAIL :P

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

*takes a big ol' drag and hands it to Red.*

HAIL :P

Dude, share the wealth, huh?

Let Bush speak for himself for once.

John Kerry looks cool, but I'm from Texas so I'll vote for Bush. My reason is as good as any debate because you have to realize, it doesn't matter who is President.....the media runs this country regardless. That's why I watch as little news as I possibly can.

Maybe you should think about it a little more. By no means should you change you mind and vote for J*** K****--that would be a disaster. But if the media does run it, it's only because people like you who let them do it.

A vote for Bush is a vote for the bin Ladens

Oh, so now an informed decision means one that is based on what you read in the New York Times? I hardly think so.

...but I can see that neither of us is going to change our mind. I'll ask God to forgive you, don't worry! So I really am going to bed.

ask God to forgive Bush instead--he needs it more

Enh, both sides have at least semi-credible arguments, but both sides als are very selective about what evidence they will hear, or what sources are 'credible'. worse though, is the convenient ignoring of ideas or facts that disagree with the individuals personal beliefs. The worst of all, however is when it just resorts to petty name calling, or simply attacking the other person in order to promote oneself. Facts, all of them, not just the ones that are convenient, and information should be more important than creating an adverse characature of your opponent (that may or may not be accurate) in debates. But what do I know, that's just my opinion.


I agree but how can we believe the rightwing hate media with their history of lies?

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

*takes a big ol' drag and hands it to Red.*

HAIL :P

Dude, share the wealth, huh?

*passes the rocket to Sdaeriji, the little thats left of it :D

Let Bush speak for himself for once.

everytime he does he exposes himself as the fool that he is

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

*takes a big ol' drag and hands it to Red.*

HAIL :P

Dude, share the wealth, huh?

*passes the rocket to Sdaeriji, the little thats left of it :D

*clips it and puffs away*

...now put down your joint and type a response, BackwoodsSquatches!

Pass it to me insted Squatches

*takes a big ol' drag and hands it to Red.*

HAIL :P

Dude, share the wealth, huh?

*passes the rocket to Sdaeriji, the little thats left of it :D

*clips it and puffs away*

no exhaling :o

Al Franken has exposed to me in his book the very long record of lies of the rightwing to the point that anything that comes out of the rightwing medias mouth is pure garbage--

You believe Al Franken????That guy has NO credibility,the only lies you should'nt believe are the ones form that Lying Lier.If you want to believe the worst comic that has ever walked this Earth than be my guest.

if the National Review told me that the sky was up Id be inclined to doubt them--

But you don't doubt Al Franken?

rightys have a toxic agenda and they dont speak for the people--their liars for parasitcal plutocrats and let the pluotcrats who hate the people read them and believe their own made up fantasys and lies

Explain how Republicans have a toxic agenda?I guess people that believe you should stand on your own feet and not rely on the Government are Evil :roll:

Al Franken has exposed to me in his book the very long record of lies of the rightwing to the point that anything that comes out of the rightwing medias mouth is pure garbage--

You believe Al Franken????That guy has NO credibility,the only lies you should'nt believe are the ones form that Lying Lier.If you want to believe the worst comic that has ever walked this Earth than be my guest.

if the National Review told me that the sky was up Id be inclined to doubt them--

But you don't doubt Al Franken?

rightys have a toxic agenda and they dont speak for the people--their liars for parasitcal plutocrats and let the pluotcrats who hate the people read them and believe their own made up fantasys and lies

Explain how Republicans have a toxic agenda?I guess people that believe you should stand on your own feet and not rely on the Government are Evil :roll:

then why dont they let halliburton stand on their own two feet and stop relying on the bodies of dead soldiers to make their trillions

The National Review is part of the Hate media--of course theyll lie for Bush

Seems like no matter how much evidence is in favor of Bush you call it a lie,maybe you should question the mainstream media's coverage of this seeing that they are nothing but left-wing propaganda.

Left wing biased media? In the US? You've got be kidding. Anything that is owned and ran by large coropations isn't left wing. I've heard of Fox News and how it reports "what a great man Bush is". From what I've seen of US media is right wing to all hell. Dosen't support unions or healthcare and doesn't keep the vast majority of US citzens properly informed as to what is actually happening outside of the US. They support Isreal full tilt.

For those of you who love Bush - In most of the world he is seen as the most dangerous man around, a much greater threat to world peace than any tin pot formly supported by the US, such as Saddam Hussien.You're just afraid of the US in general. You like when we have Democrats in office because they are traitors.

Yep... according to Calhoun "He sat in my office most of the time - he would read," Calhoun said. "He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing for pilots."

Except that this pilot supposedly sat around reading manuals for what? The Guard in Alabama flew aircraft diferent than those that GW was qualified to fly (Alabama flew the F4 rather than the F102 GW was flying in Texas), not to mention that these incidents happened after GW had missed his physical and been suspended from air ops - which is to say that he had been stripped of his wings.

So he was reading manuals for planes he either wasn't qualified for, or that he wasn't allowed to fly anyway? But no.... according to Calhoun he was reading about "your aircraft he was flying"... that he wasn't flying....

Sounds.... odd. Especially for a guy that can't even be bothered to read the newspaper.

But hey - if you're buying the story - if sitting around an office reading magazines about things he wasn't going to do qualifies as serving your country... then every patient in every dentists office is henceforth a veteran!

-Z-

Wasn't this around the time Dubya was flying on something other than jet fuel?