Post by Stephen TontoniI've been poking around articles on the internet regarding Bush's
services, and the water is murky to say the least. It seems to me that
writers are putting spin onto what ever facts that they can grasp,
depending on their ideology. Here are a few URL's, supporting both sides
of the controversy, that I pulled up. It's as reliable as we know the
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html
First lsentence: Since you've already covered the Bush family's relationship
to the Nazis... Need I say more.
Post by Stephen Tontonihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy#
Drill_attendance_in_1972_and_1973
Well at least this acknowledges 336 flight hours, which is more than I've
read any leftwing dolt acknowledge.
Post by Stephen Tontonihttp://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1264
That's an unbiased source.
Post by Stephen Tontonihttp://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/york200408261025.asp
This one is good, Turnipseed is really the best source since he was the boss
of the outfit. But as it says he was widely misquoted (read that as
journalist LIED about what he said to make it fit thier agenda)
So why is this part always left out of the left wing diatrubes?
******
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.
******
Then they take the following and turnit inside out until in means the exact
opposite.
******
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."
******
In fact it really would appear that there is solid evidence that these are
the facts. The leftist liemongers seem bent on applying Goebels "biggest
lie, repeated often enough becomes truth" gambit. The constant drumbeat and
assaults and accusations makes it appear as if there is something there. But
be honest enough to admit that in the end
IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAN EVIDENCE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED.
I can understand if you think conservatives in general are liars, franky I
think the same of liberals, mostly regarding policy. But to deliberately lie
and attack a man, to dishonor him is abhorrent. There is no excuse for it.
And it makes me very suspicious of a cult that feels that personal
destruction is legitimate. And it tends to make me think that none of what
thet say can be trusted, even if some of it potentially could.
Remember Bush's dad and the horrible attempt to denigrate his service, to
dishonor him. The left is to stupid to understand that a man who was
incompetent or a coward would not have lasted very long, no enlisted man
would fly with him in his plane, no pilot would want him on his wing. If you
think that politics played any role in that crucible it says more about your
worldview, than the events at the time.
Post by Stephen Tontonihttp://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html
http://www.southerner.net/blog/awolbush.html
The only matter that is in question regarding Bush's service was the
year that is allegedly missing from his service in the Alabama ANG. I
have no questions about his service with Texas ANG.
Again refusing to give credit for the previous years or acknowledge that
there is really no evidence to support the claim, just rumor and
supposition, not supported by his CO in Alabama.
Post by Stephen TontoniAgain, my point was that Kerry went to Viet Nam and saw active service.
Bush did not. Gore went to Viet Nam and saw active service, albeit with
a camera. Bush did not. Even had Bush completed his requirements with
the ANG (and he probably did) he has not been in nor has he seen a
fire-fight except on TV.
You do realize that in an army that the sharp pointy end is a long smaller
than the tail. F-102s went to VN. it was certainly possible that he could
have, it wasn't any political trick it was the luck of the draw.
Post by Stephen TontoniRegarding Kerry deserving the medals or not, that's highly subjective.
In addition to the 3 purple hearts, though, he was awarded a number of
http://www.awolbush.com/images/Kerry_Military_awards.jpg) So Kerry's
service in Viet Nam isn't just about whether swiftboat vets thought that
the 3 purple hearts were warranted or not.
I beleive they also questioned the citations for the other medals, too. And
that still doesn't answer for his behavior after he got home.
Post by Stephen TontoniAnd honestly, at this point, I don't even recall what the initial
discussion was about, which frequently happens when talking to
conservatives! (that's a joke, by the way... sort of)
Someone was attacking Reagan for "only" serving in Hollywood making pictures
when his hearing problems clearly precluded him from combat and the service
decided he was better making propaganda. He served in the capacity assigned
to him, for the duration.
Post by Stephen Tontoni--- Tontoni
(and one further PS... I didn't care for Kerry as presidential material.
He's an intellectual windbag. Kerry's entire platform was "I'm not
George Bush".. and that was nearly enough for him to win the election. I
don't know anyone personally who was REALLY a Kerry supporter. Anyway,
that Kerry came as close as he did to winning shows just how ready this
country was to get rid of Bush.)
And I don't neccessarily care for Bush as a President though I do believe he
is a decent man and has no malice in his heart. His aggressive attitude
toward the terrorists who have been murdering unimpeded for 30 years gets my
applause, but not that loudly because frankly I think he's pulling his
punches (we should have hit Syria, at least the border areas long ago). And
much of his domestic agenda is not even remotely conservative or
libertarian. What scares me about the Dems is the lieing and spinelessness
regarding the war.
