Vindicating George W.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Vindicating George W.

By Col. William Campenni

(The following is a Letter to the Editor in the Washington Times)

'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...

...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... 

...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... 

...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... 

...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  

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

[Tigermike 3,426]

Huuuuummmmm the truth. Now the democrats will vilify COL. CAMPENNI.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Dems on Col. Campenni: I hate Bush. lol

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Follow up story: Campenni says Bush put in for Vietnam service, but was denied...

Ex-pilot says Bush put in for Vietnam

Bush volunteered for combat, was rejected, ex-guardsman says   

BY PETER BACQUE

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Feb 13, 2004

A former senior Virginia Air National Guard commander, who served with George W. Bush in the Texas Air Guard, says Bush volunteered for Vietnam combat service but was turned down because he did not have the required flight experience...

...According to Campenni, Bush inquired about participating in a volunteer program called Palace Alert that used Air National Guard pilots flying in the F-102 Delta Dagger interceptor jet in Vietnam.

The Air Guard advised Bush he did not have the desired 500 hours of flight time as a pilot to qualify for Palace Alert duty, and, in any event, the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers...

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satel...s=1045855934842

[Tiger Al 0]

I think it's great that this guy served with Bush in Texas in 1972. The only problem is that Bush was AWOL while he was supposed to be in Alabama from '72-'73.

It's also nice for Bush to volunteer for something he wasn't yet qualified to do. It can be frustrating, though. I've volunteered to be a doctor many times, but they won't let me do it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Good ol' Al...never strays from the talking points.

[Tigermike 3,426]

I've volunteered to be a doctor many times, but they won't let me do it.

You also once volunteered to be open minded but were turned down by Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle and John Kerry.

[Tiger Al 0]

Good ol' Al...never strays from the talking points.

Facts is facts, sir.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

They aren't facts. They are insinuations. Arguing from silence. Learn the difference.

[Tiger Al 0]

They aren't facts. They are insinuations. Arguing from silence. Learn the difference.

Sorry. Again, the paperwork, and Bush's story, puts him out of Texas May, 1972-May, 1973. This is when he was supposed to be in the guard unit in Alabama. Bush is the only one who remembers him showing up for duty, although he hasn't a clue what he might've done. He did work on Red Blount's senate campaign. Didn't show up for his guard duty or his flight physical.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Actually, according to Gen. Calhoun, he did report for duty in Alabama, so it isn't just Bush that says it:

...John B. "Bill" Calhoun said he commanded Bush and that Bush attended four to six weekend drills at Dannelly Field in Montgomery. He said Bush was with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Alabama in 1972.

The drills consisted of eight-hour shifts Saturdays and Sundays, Calhoun said.

We didn't have the planes that he could fly," Calhoun said. "But he studied his manuals, he read flying safety regulations, accident reports -- things pilots do quite often when they are not getting ready to fly or if they don't have other duties."

When Bush first arrived, he said he was living in Montgomery and working on the Senate campaign, Calhoun said.

Calhoun said he learned from another person that Bush was the son of George H.W. Bush, who at the time was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Calhoun said he asked the younger Bush if he planned to pursue a political career, and he said, "I don't know, probably."

The retired general said he is not surprised that more servicemen haven't come forward to talk about Bush's time at the base because they're a lot older and may have died, or retired and "gone on with their lives."

Calhoun said he does not have any photographs or documents to prove Bush showed up for duty, but his ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembered Calhoun's account.

"Bill did come home [from the base] and told me that Bush was there," she said "I think what stuck in my head was that he was helping on the Senate campaign.

"What I do know about Bill is that whatever he says is the truth," she added. "This issue came up in the 2000 election. ... Bill did mention in 2000 that he contacted someone and said, 'If you need me to come forward, I will.' And they said, 'We're hoping that won't be necessary.'" ...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/...ords/index.html

And according to the letter I posted to start this thread, there is a perfectly good explanation for the flight physical issue:

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...

    

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.

Of course, the only possible explanations that fit your template are the ones that have a more sinister insinuation attached. Not that I'm surprised.

[Tiger Al 0]

Titan, he was there for a year. Four to six weekend drills covers, well, four to six months.

Unfortunately, about the physical, the active duty military doesn't work under the same constructs as the guard. They had flight surgeons at Maxwell everyday. He could've gone in and done it at his leisure, not on one particular weekend.

Assuming for the moment I'm wrong, when asked about this before Bush claimed that his physician was in Houston and he was unable to travel back to Houston to get the physical. Bush would've known that his family doctor couldn't have given him the physical because it has to be done by a military flight surgeon. Why lie when the truth is simpler? Second, he never flew again because he never got the physicals done. They weren't just put off for a month or two. He never got it done.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

hey al:

this is so important to you because of why again?

[Tiger Al 0]

hey al:

this is so important to you because of why again?

You know why!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

lol

it seems to me that even if all you think is true is actually true, your point is moot now....

[Tiger Al 0]

lol

it seems to me that even if all you think is true is actually true, your point is moot now....

CT, I like you. You seem level-headed, but, how can you say that if Guardgate were 100% true that it would be a moot point? Really think about it. I'm not saying that what the guy did 30 years ago should necessarily be held against him. Do I think that it was wrong for him to be bumped to the front of the line because his father had the political clout to get it done? Maybe. But at the same time, who wouldn't take it if you could? Was it wrong for him to back out of his commitment by going to Alabama and then losing his flight status, cheating his state and his country out of the time, effort and money it cost to train him? Probably. Maybe he wasn't that good of a pilot and they could spare him. Is it wrong if drug and alcohol abuse were the reasons he lost his flight status? Yes. But, hell, I was irresponsible in my mid-twenties, too. People can change. I did.

All those things point to a person who acts recklessly, probably because he never had an appreciation for how tough things can be for people with no special privilege. He realized he was just pissing his life away and so he stopped engaging in self-destructive behavior.

The problem now, as I see it, is that when confronted with his past his tendency has been to lie. In the 2000 campaign he was asked about some DUI's he'd gotten. At first he denied it. It never happened. Then, when it wouldn't go away, he admitted that he'd gotten some. When asked about illegal drug use, he initially denied it. It never happened. When that wouldn't go away, he admitted that he hadn't used drugs since 1974. With the Guardgate story, his story has been full of inconsistencies. He said he didn't fly in Alabama because they didn't have F-102's but the commander of that unit said they did have some. Says he couldn't get his physical because he couldn't go home. He even said on 'Meet the Press' that his military records had been open in 2000 when they weren't. Only a small portion were available.

So, here's why I don't think it's a moot point at all. He promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House because he thought it was missing. When did lying become honorable? Where's the integrity in going on national television and denying things you know to be true? If this is 100% true, then haven't we traded one form of dishonor for another? If America is supposed to trust him, how can we if he's more worried about his image than being honest?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

wow, TA.

i'm not sure what to say, except that my idea of why it bothered you was wrong.

his supposed lying is what bothers you about all this?

that is such an undemocratic response.

[channonc 466]

Al, I feel the exact same way you do. I think that if he had just come clean and said from the beginning, I didn't attend the things I was supposed to, but I made them up later and that's why I got an honorable discharge, I think all of this would go away. But lying about something that clear cut makes journalists think there is more out there to be had.

I think Bush would have a lot more respect if he had come clean about some of this stuff from the beginning. I think people would be willing to trust him more.

[CCTAU 3,369]

You guys are getting sucked up into a vacuum that probably was set up many years ago. This is a meaningless venture. NOBODY except a few spewers even give a damn. So ,basically, the focus from the demons has been this. Bush can live with this its meaningless. So now, he has wasted YOUR time a resource on a menaingless subject. Mission accomplished!

[Grumps 3,706]

CT, I like you. You seem level-headed, but, how can you say that if Guardgate were 100% true that it would be a moot point? Really think about it. I'm not saying that what the guy did 30 years ago should necessarily be held against him. Do I think that it was wrong for him to be bumped to the front of the line because his father had the political clout to get it done? Maybe. But at the same time, who wouldn't take it if you could? Was it wrong for him to back out of his commitment by going to Alabama and then losing his flight status, cheating his state and his country out of the time, effort and money it cost to train him? Probably. Maybe he wasn't that good of a pilot and they could spare him. Is it wrong if drug and alcohol abuse were the reasons he lost his flight status? Yes. But, hell, I was irresponsible in my mid-twenties, too. People can change. I did.

All those things point to a person who acts recklessly, probably because he never had an appreciation for how tough things can be for people with no special privilege. He realized he was just pissing his life away and so he stopped engaging in self-destructive behavior.

The problem now, as I see it, is that when confronted with his past his tendency has been to lie. In the 2000 campaign he was asked about some DUI's he'd gotten. At first he denied it. It never happened. Then, when it wouldn't go away, he admitted that he'd gotten some. When asked about illegal drug use, he initially denied it. It never happened. When that wouldn't go away, he admitted that he hadn't used drugs since 1974. With the Guardgate story, his story has been full of inconsistencies. He said he didn't fly in Alabama because they didn't have F-102's but the commander of that unit said they did have some. Says he couldn't get his physical because he couldn't go home. He even said on 'Meet the Press' that his military records had been open in 2000 when they weren't. Only a small portion were available.

So, here's why I don't think it's a moot point at all. He promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House because he thought it was missing. When did lying become honorable? Where's the integrity in going on national television and denying things you know to be true? If this is 100% true, then haven't we traded one form of dishonor for another? If America is supposed to trust him, how can we if he's more worried about his image than being honest?

TigerAl, apparently I have been reading you wrong. All this time I just thought you were the typical liberal lets-give-everything-to-everyone-without-working-for-it democrat. But this post of yours makes me think even less of you.

There have been multiple explanations of why Bush wasn't often seen during "Guardgate" (as you like to call it). I don't really see why they are so hard for you to understand. Did Bush go to Vietnam? No. Is he glad he didn't go? I don't know, but if he is smart, then yes. Is he a war hero? No. Is there any proof whatsoever that he did something illegal or unethical to get out of going to Vietnam. NO!!!

Did you come up with the "Is it wrong if drug and alcohol abuse were the reasons he lost his flight status?" quote all on your own? How classy is that? There have been multiple explanations, most of which make very good sense if you know how efficient the National Guard system is. Yet you have determined that all of this is a cover-up for his drug and alcohol abuse.

The next thing we know, you will post a thread that says "PUBLISHED REPORT SAYS THAT BUSH WENT AWOL DUE TO DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE" Then, as your source you will cite your own previous post.

Campaign for the candidate(s) of your choice, and campaign against Bush or anyone else to your heart's content, but have enough class not to completely fabricate a libelous explantion for something that has already been fairly well accounted for.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

A letter to the editor in the Washington Times-- a publication owned by Reverend Moon who, unbenownst to most God-fearin' party faithful, consistently carries the Republican party line.

A few facts for the uniformed as well as the delusional:

Bush pulled strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard. Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed this. He jumped ahead of 500 others. He scored the lowest score one could and be a pilot- 25. He was then trained at taxpayer expense to fly-- a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars. By most accounts he was a good pilot for 4 years. Then he requested to go to Alabama to have a non-flying position to WORK IN A CAMPAIGN. He was denied. He went anyway. He failed to take his medical exam to fly. VERY UNUSUAL. But instead of facing punishment, his request to take duty in Alabama was then approved. There are two explanations for this, neither good. One, he simply decided unilaterally that despite agreeing to a six-year flying commitment, he simply wasn't going to do it. Or, he knew he would fail the drug test. Which one do you guys prefer? How can a fighting force allow individuals to make such decisions? Do you think any of you could have gotten away with it? He totally fails to meet his obligation to fly, he claims by choice, to work in a campaign. Contrary to Campeni's crap, there was no chance of Dubya being called up to Viet Nam. You can count on one hand the guard units called up it Viet Nam. You can count with no fingers how many F-102 pilots were called up. It wasn't flown in Viet Nam. Dubya admitted in the 90s he did not want to go to Viet Nam. When he signed up he specified he didn't want overseas duty.

With the Viet Nam war still going strong, Bush got out to go to school. No guard units in MA? Meanwhile, the current commander-in-chief extends the war-time duty of troops putting the lives at risk and orders troops who have completed their full commitment, even those who have put in 20 or more years on active duty, to remain in the service. Merely ironic, or downright disgusting? Completed your twenty by showing up every damn day? Tough. Your stuck. All on the orders of someone who failed to fulfull his commitment in numerous ways. Moral authority? Get real.

The lies are spinning so fast and you guys are doing all you can to keep the bs flowing. If any Dem had the same track record Rush would be talking about it 24-7 and Repugs would be calling for an investigation.

By the way, Campbell remembered Bush a little too well. He saw him in Alabama months before even Bush claims to have reported for duty. OOPs.

The truth folks. Deal with it.

[Grumps 3,706]

Thanks TexasTiger for setting me straight (feel sarcasm here)

Could you by any chance provide for us any info supporting any of your claims, including the ownership of the Washington Post, they seem to have left it off their history timeline Link

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Thanks TexasTiger for setting me straight (feel sarcasm here)

Could you by any chance provide for us any info supporting any of your claims, including the ownership of the Washington Post, they seem to have left it off their history timeline  Link

Washington Times, not Post. Brush up on your reading skills (feel no sarcasm here).

Here's your link

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2004...25636-2824r.htm

Moon owns the Washington Times and recently bought UPI as well as many other publications. The Washington Times is probably the most quoted conservative "newspaper" in the USA.

What other of my "claims" have you not been able to find support for? I'll be glad to help, if necessary.

[Grumps 3,706]

A letter to the editor in the Washington Times-- a publication owned by Reverend Moon who, unbenownst to most God-fearin' party faithful, consistently carries the Republican party line.

A few facts for the uniformed as well as the delusional:

Bush pulled strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard. Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed this. He jumped ahead of 500 others. He scored the lowest score one could and be a pilot- 25. He was then trained at taxpayer expense to fly-- a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars. By most accounts he was a good pilot for 4 years. Then he requested to go to Alabama to have a non-flying position to WORK IN A CAMPAIGN. He was denied. He went anyway. He failed to take his medical exam to fly. VERY UNUSUAL. But instead of facing punishment, his request to take duty in Alabama was then approved. There are two explanations for this, neither good. One, he simply decided unilaterally that despite agreeing to a six-year flying commitment, he simply wasn't going to do it. Or, he knew he would fail the drug test. Which one do you guys prefer? How can a fighting force allow individuals to make such decisions? Do you think any of you could have gotten away with it? He totally fails to meet his obligation to fly, he claims by choice, to work in a campaign. Contrary to Campeni's crap, there was no chance of Dubya being called up to Viet Nam. You can count on one hand the guard units called up it Viet Nam. You can count with no fingers how many F-102 pilots were called up. It wasn't flown in Viet Nam. Dubya admitted in the 90s he did not want to go to Viet Nam. When he signed up he specified he didn't want overseas duty.

With the Viet Nam war still going strong, Bush got out to go to school. No guard units in MA? Meanwhile, the current commander-in-chief extends the war-time duty of troops putting the lives at risk and orders troops who have completed their full commitment, even those who have put in 20 or more years on active duty, to remain in the service. Merely ironic, or downright disgusting? Completed your twenty by showing up every damn day? Tough. Your stuck. All on the orders of someone who failed to fulfull his commitment in numerous ways. Moral authority? Get real.

The lies are spinning so fast and you guys are doing all you can to keep the bs flowing. If any Dem had the same track record Rush would be talking about it 24-7 and Repugs would be calling for an investigation.

By the way, Campbell remembered Bush a little too well. He saw him in Alabama months before even Bush claims to have reported for duty. OOPs.

The truth folks. Deal with it.

TexasTiger, thanks for setting me straight on newspaper ownership. I was wrong. It was actually my comprehension skills rather than my reading skills that were/are defective.

Here are the other claims that I would love to see links for:

"Or, he knew he would fail the drug test."

TigerAl implies that drug and alcohol abuse may have caused Bush to lose his flight status and you offer that as one of two options for his not having a flight physical. Out of the myriad of possibilities it seems unusual that you two find this most likely.

"All on the orders of someone who failed to fulfull his commitment in numerous ways."

What commitment did he fail to fulfill? If he did not meet the requirement of the U.S Govt it seems that they would know that and have taken action years ago. Understand that I am not saying that Bush did not join the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. He probably did. He probably did almost nothing to fulfill his obligation to Uncle Sam while he was assigned to the AL Natl Guard. Nonetheless I have seen no evidence that he did not fulfill his obligation.

While I consider myself to be conservative on many issues, I am not a huge Bush supporter. I have been embarrassed by several things he has done while in office. That is why I don't understand you guys bashing him for being a slacker in the National Guard. Bash him for the economy. Bash him for Iraq. Bash him for wanting to go to Mars when many things on Earth suck badly. These are important issues. The National Guard in 1972 is really not very important, unless there is PROOF that he did not fulfill his duty to the US govt.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

A letter to the editor in the Washington Times-- a publication owned by Reverend Moon who, unbenownst to most God-fearin' party faithful, consistently carries the Republican party line.

A few facts for the uniformed as well as the delusional:

Bush pulled strings to get into the Texas Air National Guard.  Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed this.  He jumped ahead of 500 others.  He scored the lowest score one could and be a pilot- 25.  He was then trained at taxpayer expense to fly-- a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars.  By most accounts he was a good pilot for 4 years.  Then he requested to go to Alabama to have a non-flying position to WORK IN A CAMPAIGN.  He was denied.  He went anyway.  He failed to take his medical exam to fly.  VERY UNUSUAL.  But instead of facing punishment, his request to take duty in Alabama was then approved.  There are two explanations for this, neither good.  One, he simply decided unilaterally that despite agreeing to a six-year flying commitment, he simply wasn't going to do it.  Or, he knew he would fail the drug test.  Which one do you guys prefer?  How can a fighting force allow individuals to make such decisions?  Do you think any of you could have gotten away with it?  He totally fails to meet his obligation to fly, he claims by choice, to work in a campaign.  Contrary to Campeni's crap, there was no chance of Dubya being called up to Viet Nam.  You can count on one hand the guard units called up it Viet Nam.  You can count with no fingers how many F-102 pilots were called up.  It wasn't flown in Viet Nam.  Dubya admitted in the 90s he did not want to go to Viet Nam.  When he signed up he specified he didn't want overseas duty.

With the Viet Nam war still going strong, Bush got out to go to school.  No guard units in MA?  Meanwhile, the current commander-in-chief extends the war-time duty of troops putting the lives at risk and orders troops who have completed their full commitment, even those who have put in 20 or more years on active duty, to remain in the service.  Merely ironic, or downright disgusting?  Completed your twenty by showing up every damn day?  Tough.  Your stuck.  All on the orders of someone who failed to fulfull his commitment in numerous ways.  Moral authority?  Get real.

The lies are spinning so fast and you guys are doing all you can to keep the bs flowing.  If any Dem had the same track record Rush would be talking about it 24-7 and Repugs would be calling for an investigation.

By the way, Campbell remembered Bush a little too well.  He saw him in Alabama months before even Bush claims to have reported for duty.  OOPs.

The truth folks.  Deal with it.

TexasTiger, thanks for setting me straight on newspaper ownership. I was wrong. It was actually my comprehension skills rather than my reading skills that were/are defective.

Here are the other claims that I would love to see links for:

"Or, he knew he would fail the drug test."

TigerAl implies that drug and alcohol abuse may have caused Bush to lose his flight status and you offer that as one of two options for his not having a flight physical. Out of the myriad of possibilities it seems unusual that you two find this most likely.

"All on the orders of someone who failed to fulfull his commitment in numerous ways."

What commitment did he fail to fulfill? If he did not meet the requirement of the U.S Govt it seems that they would know that and have taken action years ago. Understand that I am not saying that Bush did not join the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam. He probably did. He probably did almost nothing to fulfill his obligation to Uncle Sam while he was assigned to the AL Natl Guard. Nonetheless I have seen no evidence that he did not fulfill his obligation.

While I consider myself to be conservative on many issues, I am not a huge Bush supporter. I have been embarrassed by several things he has done while in office. That is why I don't understand you guys bashing him for being a slacker in the National Guard. Bash him for the economy. Bash him for Iraq. Bash him for wanting to go to Mars when many things on Earth suck badly. These are important issues. The National Guard in 1972 is really not very important, unless there is PROOF that he did not fulfill his duty to the US govt.

"Or, he knew he would fail the drug test."

TigerAl implies that drug and alcohol abuse may have caused Bush to lose his flight status and you offer that as one of two options for his not having a flight physical. Out of the myriad of possibilities it seems unusual that you two find this most likely.

I've heard two Bush replies to this question that only generate more questions. The first, is that he couldn't see his personal physician in Houston. They backed off this one, because personal physicians don't provide flight physicals. Now his spokespeople are merely saying that since he wasn't going to fly anymore it wasn't necessary. This gives the impression that either the Guard had decided to relieve him of his flight duty or that it was his perogative to forego his flying obligation so he could work on a campaign a few months in another state. The latter simply doesn't seem credible. Neither is acceptable. My point is that this is a huge question that has not been fully answered. We don't know the reason Bush didn't take his physical, but it is highly unusual and is a valid question that deserves an answer.

The speculation regarding drug usage is there in large part because Bush has refused to address that question publicly. Most links I looked for are now dead, but if you recall in 2000 he would provide cryptic answers that he would have been able to pass the standard of his father's cabinet vetting, i.e. no drug usage for seven years. That would have been in 1989, meaning he was clean at least until 1982. His response to questions regarding earlier drug usage has been that he was irresponsible in his youth.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if he had just admitted long ago that he screwed up, either by taking drugs, going on a bender or whatever, and learned from it. Instead he keeps evading the issue. He claims to be a straight-talker who is forthright and has been anything but.

What commitment did he fail to fulfill?

He avoided Viet Nam by promising to fly for 6 years. Pilot training is very expensive. As Campeni and others have said, American airspace was theoretically protected by the Guard and Reserve. One can't stress the importance of the service and then appear to get out of that important obligation to simply work on a political campaign. He had a commitment to get a flight physical. He failed to do so, never rectified it and did not fly for the last two years. While the war was still being fought, he got out of the last 8 months of his enlistment to go to business school. Why was this even necessary? Many students are in the Guard. Many professionals with full-time jobs are in the Guard. Why would he even have to ask to get out to go to school? And should one do so when you have made a "commitment" to serve? Also, there is no credible PROOF he ever showed up for duty in Alabama when he said he did. There may not be hard proof that he didn't, but there should not be a total absence of documentary proof that he did.

That is why I don't understand you guys bashing him for being a slacker in the National Guard. Bash him for the economy. Bash him for Iraq. Bash him for wanting to go to Mars when many things on Earth suck badly. These are important issues. The National Guard in 1972 is really not very important, unless there is PROOF that he did not fulfill his duty to the US govt.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was responding to posts on this thread that I believe ignore many key facts and principles. The Guard issue is partly about credibility, but it also goes to the Iraq and Afghanistan issue. Over 500 Americans have died. Two more today. Many of these are Guard members who have had their service extended beyond what they were promised. Others are active duty that have fullfilled their obligation, but have not been allowed to leave. He has made incredibly bad judgements and good people have made the ultimate sacrifice while doing their duty. He at least owes it to us and them to be fully forthcoming and honest if he wants to maintain the moral authority to make life and death decisions for those who serve. My father did two tours in Viet Nam and served for 20 years in the Army. I grew up on and around Army bases. I have tremendous respect for those who serve, most who do so without complaint.

Clinton drew a high draft number and opted to take his chances with the draft and to go to Yale Law school instead of Arkansas where he had told the ROTC commandant that he would go to ROTC if he was allowed to complete his Rhodes Scholarship. He was a poor kid with no real strings to pull, and yet he was eviscerated as "draft dodger," including by many people who are bending over backwards to justify what was clearly an effort to avoid Viet Nam by Dubya. I don't really blame people who wanted to avoid Viet Nam. Neither did my Dad. He was a professional soldier and felt an obligation to volunteer for a second tour, but I never heard him criticize those who avoided the war. Of course, Clinton opposed the war and didn't want anyone to go. Bush supported it, as long as someone else fought it. Of course, that is true regarding almost his entire administration. During Viet Nam Cheney had five deferrments and two DUIs. He's one hell of a hawk now. Ditto, Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest of the Neo-cons. Yet, they insist on portraying themselves as more tough, more patriotic and more principled than those who disagree with them. This is not only the most incompetent administration in my life-time, but the most hypocritical as well.

Other important issues? You bet. Only three years ago the economic argument was about what to do with the surplus. Now we have record deficits and just went 7 Trillion dollars in debt. Bush and his Republican Congress has turned us back into living on credit. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans really were fiscal conservatives, but just barely. Its been a damn long time.