The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election

February 11, 2004

Bush | Bush and I were lieutenants

Letter to the Editor, Washington Times

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.
It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community’s attention.
The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit’s mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.
The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn’t room for all of them anymore.
Sadly, few of today’s partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months’ basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of “summer camp.” With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren’t getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.
The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush’s tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one’s life.
Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such “visitors” in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can’t even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to “pull drills” for a couple of months, I wouldn’t be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:
First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month’s weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.
If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.
Second, there was no such thing as a “disciplinary unit in Colorado” to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I’m “being disciplined.” These “disciplinary units” just don’t exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush’s performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush’s, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.
While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It didn’t happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early ’70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it’s time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, “Knock it off.” So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5

Posted by Chuck Simmins at February 11, 2004 04:37 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Wow. Wow. Wow. Is this issue dead? Please? Wow.

Posted by: mark buehner at February 11, 2004 05:24 PM

Btw, Dayside today had a gentleman on via phone that worked with Bush on the Alabama campaign. He claims to remember specific instances where Bush wasnt at campaign meetings because he was at Guard duty. He also said he has never spoken to anyone at the white house. Just to clear that up.

Posted by: mark buehner at February 11, 2004 05:39 PM

Please liberals, don’t make this your central issue. Don’t obsess about it. Don’t let your media minions burn credibility on this issue. Please.

Posted by: jones at February 11, 2004 05:57 PM

Wait a minute. Why was Bush working on a political campaign when he was supposed to be serving in the Air National Guard training to be a pilot? I thought pilot training was rather rigorous and required a prospective pilot to, you know, actually train. The only proof of his service is that he was paid for 6 days in a one year period? I’d say dig on, media, liberal and conservative alike. Something ain’t right here.

Posted by: Todd at February 11, 2004 06:11 PM

Todd, his “flight training” was years earlier 68-71 or so. This was drill time. He recieved permission to miss time for the campaign, and then made the time up.

Posted by: jones at February 11, 2004 06:19 PM

Todd Please read the post. It will explain precisely what occurred and what did not occur.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 11, 2004 06:33 PM

Just to expand a bit, Bush did 2 1/2 years of full time active duty to qualify as an F-102 pilot; he was at the end of his hitch and the F-102 was being phased out when Bush went to Alabama.

In any case, when you’re in the Guard, you have a civilian job and a civilian life; that includes being out of town some times.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 11, 2004 06:33 PM

Just to expand a bit, Bush did 2 1/2 years of full time active duty to qualify as an F-102 pilot; he was at the end of his hitch and the F-102 was being phased out when Bush went to Alabama.

In any case, when you’re in the Guard, you have a civilian job and a civilian life; that includes being out of town some times.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 11, 2004 06:34 PM

Todd, he was already a pilot by the time in question. He served his first 2.5 years in flight training. The time in question is his last year to two years of service, after he had stopped flying. As this article spells out, at that time there wasnt any flying positions for him (his unit had been converted to a training unit and his aircraft class was about to be retired) so he got permission to fufill his duty in Alabama will working on a Senate compaign. Not at all unusual for a Guardsman. He has pay stubs to prove he finished.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at February 11, 2004 06:34 PM

Thanks for clearing that up. So why aren’t there pay records that show he made the time up? I don’t get the indignation that the White House is putting up, that somehow our comander in chief is above questioning. All they are doing is making me more curious about what he was doing during this time. Were it noble, I would think they would want to advertise it. Now I’m beginning to think he was doing a lot of what Clinton was doing at Oxford.

Posted by: todd at February 11, 2004 06:35 PM

And Jones, I did read the post, and I am sure CNN and others will be scouring to verify the information. And I agree if some of the things it says are true, much of the criticisms of Bush should die. I hasten to point out, however, that the author’s creditibility is subject to question, because he repeatedly blames Kerry for criticizing Bush’s service, when Kerry has been very careful not to comment on same. He seems a little reckless with his facts. I’m just not buying the “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” spin the White House is attempting to give this issue. Shame on them, particularly in a time of war. I can understand them wanting to kill the issue, but their method reeks of scandal.

Posted by: todd at February 11, 2004 06:50 PM

“he repeatedly blames Kerry for criticizing Bush’s service, when Kerry has been very careful not to comment on same”

no?

Kerry Questions Bush Guard Service

quote from above:
” But he responded sharply to Bush’s claim in a nationally televised interview that his honorable discharge from the National Guard should answer lingering questions about the president’s service.

“The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don’t have the answer to that question,” said Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts, one Bronze star and one Silver star in Vietnam. “

Now, just who is it again that “seems a little reckless with his facts.” ?

Posted by: CERDIP at February 11, 2004 06:57 PM

Um,

Todd reread my comments and then get back to me. And I do mean I want a clarification.

Also check out

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402101529.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/bush3.pdf

(among others)

and also murdoc’s comment on the objectivity of the NG Colonel. (bottom of February 11) here-

http://www.murdoconline.net/

Posted by: jones at February 11, 2004 06:59 PM

CERDIP, thank you for making my point. The quote attributed to Kerry shows that he was being very carful not to comment on the issue. The author of the article, however, seemed to put some spin on it.

Posted by: todd at February 11, 2004 07:07 PM

“The issue here, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be?”

Ummm, so you read this as not being a comment? That’s very illuminating….

I can name many people who have not commented on Bush’s Guard record. The trouble is, I can’t show you examples of them not making a comment on it, because, you see they didn’t comment on it.

What Kerry said is certainly a comment, and not only that, but one intended to cast the issue in a negative light.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 11, 2004 07:16 PM

JONES,
found a new guy to tangle with? “And I do mean i want a clarification.” Wow! I need to get clear on something. Did i miss that you were in charge? ‘cuz if i did, i certainly apologize for my impudence.

CERDIP, how is Kerry being reckless with the facts? I honestly don’t get understand how you can say that. JK says that he has heard an issue raised and that he doesn’t have an answer. (He didn’t raise it; and apparently it was raised with enough volume and by enough legitimate sources that the White House responded.)

the way i read the article it is not clear if he was asked a question about this or volunteered.

AND apparently Bush’s claim that his honorable discharge answered the lingering questions was not sufficient. There was no let up until the records were actually released.

Also CERDIP, wonder if you had a chance to dig up a source for that thing you’ve been writing on JK shooting people who wanted to surrender?

Thanks

Posted by: carl at February 11, 2004 07:17 PM

Jones,

Getting back to you,

I have read your comments and your links.

I agree with your comment that liberals should not make this their central issue. But that does not make it a non-issue.

But I feel only strengthened in my points:
1. The White House’s tact of indignation only added fuel to the fire when the president himself had not adequately explained his service. The White House was no where near as direct as the national review link, which I thank you for sending.

Now that the President has dragged this country into a war at a tremendous cost, by intimating an imminent threat when there was no evidence of one and none has been established, he should be more forthcomming about what his service entailed. In his own words, he is now a war president who, incidentally, does not beleive troops should be used for nation building. Make no mistake, I love my tax cut, but as a veteran, I believe I am owed an explanation. I do not submit to the blind obedience that is fuel to totalitarianism. I commend those in the conservative media who have articulated this view well in recent days. Sic semper tyranus.

2. Col. Campenni’s credibility (rather than objectivity) is subject to question by attempting to cast Kerry as the leader of the AWOL bandwagon.

CERDIP,

I can only guess at the political affiliation you subscribe to by your blindly literal interpretation of the word “comment.” I will accept that perhaps I was reckless in the use of my language, but not my facts. When addressing a hostile audience intent on criticizing rather than understanding, I should be more careful. So let me try this: “I have good cause to question the colonel’s credibility, because the unspun facts do not support his moderately animus-fueled characterization of Kerry.”

Thanks for the discussion. I am even more confident now that the current administration should be sent packing by the electorate.

Posted by: Todd at February 11, 2004 07:58 PM

Todd,

There is none so blind as he who willfully
does not see.

Your mind is closed to all facts. O.K.

No Problem! Adios!

Posted by: leaddog2 at February 11, 2004 08:25 PM

Ah, so thats the new angle. Slime the Colonel’s credibility. Had to be something I spose. 30 years defending our country and this is what he gets, just because he had the bad luck to walk in front of the Dump Bush At Any Cost bulldozer. Hope no old ladies or blind kids walk out in that street.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at February 11, 2004 09:14 PM

What a wonderful tactic… raise a question in a news conference, casting doubt on your opponent’s record… and, being unable to prove a negative (that he didn’t fulfill his duty), demand positive proof in defense against a baseless claim, wasting said oppenent’s time and resources, and planting the defamation in the minds of voters, knowing that when your opponent is exonerated that most people will never know of the correction.

I really don’t agree with the “The President works for us, so he is expected to provide full proof to defend against any accusation against him” stance you are taking, Todd. I would be indignant too if I was forced to provide thirty-year-old documents that I was not responsible for keeping, based on nothing other than “I’m not going to comment, but I heard a rumor…” There are things the president needs to answer for, and this is NOT one of them, so save your totalitarianism comments for someone else. It’s not like he lied under oath about having extramarital sexual relations with an intern in his office… what was your stance on that, by the way? Did you think that was worth investigation?

I don’t elect a president just so he can spend all of his time fighting off baseless accusations. I elect him to lead my country, and lefties keep wasting his time by searching for every little possible detail to dredge up, like holding the wrong turkey. That’s why the White House is indignant, they are sick of this garbage. You can keep saying “I think there still may be something there…” but there will never be proof enough to satisfy you, and eventually you will realize they don’t care if you are satisfied or not. Are you going to ask if he can prove he didn’t kill Kennedy, next? There is real work to do!

Posted by: Alex Dale at February 11, 2004 09:17 PM

okay then We showed that Todd.

Bush got a pass in 2000 on this ‘cause he was up against another vet…a newspaper reporter? Kerry actually fought. Bush sent troops into war on what turns out to be flimsy evidence. He then raised the issue of military service with his “Mission Accomplished” prance/photo opp/waste of taxpayer money.

He got a pass in 2000 ‘cause he said all the right things. And his credibility is now in serious decline. This is how bad it is…his own wife says that he was lying about not reading the newspaper. Apparently, he will lie when the truth would be easier.

So anything in his background and his story should be scrutinized to see who’s getting the shaft. Unless you’re one of a chosen few, if you’re just an average American, don’t look now, but it’s you he’s abusing.

What amazes me is how he gets away with it. He’s doing stuff I did in 7th grade. Are any of you parents?

Posted by: carl at February 11, 2004 09:50 PM

carl - it was Todd being reckless with the facts - stating that Kerry has carefully avoided making comments about Bush’s Guard record.

also re: Kerry’s killing - Boston Globe Article by David Warsh - no longer seems to be available online: same article referenced here

Posted by: CERDIP at February 11, 2004 10:07 PM

Mr. Dale,

Because you ask, my stance on “that investigation” was that it was a travesty, largely the fault of the Supreme Court. In his opinion allowing the case to go forward in the first place, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that it would not be disruptive on the presidency. But I guess he’s a conservative so he judgment and credibility is beyond questioning. But, quite frankly, I think it takes sheer gaul to intimate that it was appropriate to have a publicly financed witch hunt into Clinton’s sexual trist, while at the same time claiming that the current president should not have spend any time discussing his own military service and the “lefties are wasting his time” by dredging up every detail. Do not paint me with a broad brush; I am not saying that he has to answer every accusation. But with 500+ soldiers laying dead on his orders I suggest, sir, that this is exactly the kind of thing the president needs to answer for.

Posted by: Todd at February 11, 2004 10:51 PM

Todd, read the special prosecutor laws before you go blaming Republicans for Monica Lewinsky.

And it was Clinton’s free will to commit perjury.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at February 11, 2004 11:08 PM

Hey Carl! I gotta have you look at a Poster Photo for Senator Kerry’s Campaign! How about he has a few thousand of these printed up like YardSigns and post them up and down The Wall? That oughta be good for how many votes?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 11, 2004 11:29 PM

“when Kerry has been very careful not to comment on same. He seems a little reckless with his facts. “

I guess you didn’t watch Hannity and Colmes with Kerry on. In that he was questioned about the attack on Bush going AWOL. Kerry distanced himself a little bit but made it plain and clear that he felt it was a fair assessment made by other people.

Kerry has also made numerous speeches that I saw on T.V. of which he was mentioning the AWOL thing.

Posted by: Jeff macmillan at February 11, 2004 11:42 PM

“CERDIP, thank you for making my point. The quote attributed to Kerry shows that he was being very carful not to comment on the issue. The author of the article, however, seemed to put some spin on it.”

The only spin are the people trying to protect Kerry’s butt over this outrageous lie. Kerry ‘participated’ in spreading the lie to the public and did so on national television.

What if I were to use YOUR real name and say something like, “I have heard that THIS PERSON is a rapist. I have heard he has raped 5 women. People have said maybe 6 women. I have not yet seen the facts on this yet so I don’t have an answer.”

That still qualifies in joining in on spreading the outrageous lie. You can spin it as meaning that Kerry is distancing himself from the outrageous lie. But, he is doing it only to cover up his own butt. It certainly shows that Kerry has taken the outrageous lie as noteworthy for discussion.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 11, 2004 11:49 PM

If the person is spreading the outrageous lie.. Then end of discussion. Kerry was wrong to participate in the spreading of a lie. Just as National Enquirer can get sued for participating in spreading lies in its pages about a celebrity. It’s called defamation of character.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 11, 2004 11:53 PM

Todd, do me a favor, before you go off about the casualties from the conflict, ask them (the ones who are doing the fighting) if they want to be used in your argument against their service. When I left the Marine Corps (during Carters term) a large part of the reason was, I didn’t trust my CinC. A large part of the gung ho attitude of the current crop of service men and women is due to trust. Go take a look. Mike H.

Posted by: MIke H. at February 12, 2004 12:01 AM

Excellent logic from the Colonel, and others since, and yet, Todd’s position has only solidified.

Is logic and fact, perhaps, not what he’s looking for?

Imagine.

Another one.

Posted by: jeffers at February 12, 2004 02:52 AM

Todd,

That is rich. The proof doesn’t fit the result I want so it proves my point.

Carl,

I like you can ask CERDIP for all the clarification you want, but I can’t.

Why are the trolls so desperate to keep this issue alive? It is killing them. I bet they wish they had an issue to support.

Time to change the NICs, trolls, you are exposed as frauds.

Posted by: jones at February 12, 2004 06:22 AM

Carl! Todd! Did you like that Flag Photo link I gave to you? Ain’t that just to die for? I especially like how Senator Kerry’s still wearing his uniform AND medals in that one. I wonder… Do you suppose he has that flag hangin’ in his office there in Washington? Why don’t you call him up and ask him?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 12, 2004 07:55 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200402120830.asp

Another nice refutation. Again.

Posted by: jones at February 12, 2004 09:10 AM

No-one has mentioned GW Bush has 4 years experience as Command in Chief that John Kerry cant match.

Posted by: mark buehner at February 12, 2004 09:15 AM

Why does any of this matter? Clinton beat Dole, who was a for sure War hero. And we all know what Clinton was. While Kerry’s personal courage is a proven fact, his judgement is very questionable. Isn’t judgement what this campaign will be about.? I think Kerry’s position of surrendering American sovereignty to the UN will make Koffi happy, but will create serious social problems. Not to mention his domestic policy will lead to a stock market crash. I fail to see how a crashing stock market will add jobs to the economy.

Posted by: ableiter at February 12, 2004 10:26 AM

Come on guys. Your are making this too easy.

I’m not going to comment on the ad hominem attacks, name calling, or straw men. Jeffers, logic and fact is exactly what I am looking for. Y’all been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh if you think logical fallacies are the same as logic. (Oh dear, did I just perpetuate a fallacy by calling it such?)

But for the content:

Mr. Buehner, I think the “Dump Bush At Any Cost bulldozer” you are referring to was forged by the conservatives in the Clinton years, and simply has a new moniker. I think the liberals have justification to take a few spins on it now that it has been through a few scorched earth campaigns, but that is not what I was doing. Make no mistake; I am no liberal. And I certainly wasn’t “slimeing” the colonel’s credibility. I was questioning it on an isolated issue.

And none of those who have attempted to chime in on this issue have provided sufficient justification for the colonel’s casting of Kerry as the ringleader of the AWOL bandwagon, which is what my point was. Thank you, Mr. McMillan for making my point for me “Kerry distanced himself a little bit.” This is exactly what I was referring to. Call it a CYA move; I call it an appropriate tactical move given his resume. But we are both saying the same thing. I freely admit that my language in my initial comment to Jones was not as precise as it should have been for the point I was making (see earlier comment). I also freely admit that the bulk of the colonel’s input is very useful on this issue (although some of it is conjecture, not logic, but he is well qualified to speculate). But none of you have given sufficient cause for me to recant the tenor of my comment.

Gabriel (your comments do not rate a Mr.)
1. I did not blame the republicans. I blamed the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice Rehnquist.
2. I have read the special prosecutor laws, and will gladly debate the relative merits thereof with you any time anywhere.
3. To the extent you are intimating that the Republicans lack responsibility for the fervor and extent to which the whitewater probe continued on (remember, the original purpose for which found no wrongdoing by the president), I would suggest you are out on a limb abandoned by your fellow conservatives, and wilst you are out on said limb, I recommend you read the Constitution to discover how funding allocations are made, and then think about who controlled the funding mechanisms during those years.

Mike H.,
I cannot oblige your favor, because the people I used in my comment are dead. And I am not arguing against the service of those service members deployed around the globe. I am saying that the facts surrounding their deployment subject the commander in chief to scrutiny which he should take seriously and answer forthrightly, not smugly and indignantly. But if one were to take a poll of the service members collective attitudes, I am sure one would get a wide divergence of opinion from gung-ho to get me the f out of here. I also suspect that there would be at least one person who would support my original point on this issue, which is that the president has an obligation to answer questions about his military service, and the White House’s indignation only adds fuel to the fire. Their collective fear of the issue is palpable.
Here is what one commentator has said about the president’s performance this past Sunday, which is largely what may comments were based upon:
OpinionJournal’s Peggy Noonan minces no words:
“I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive. . . .
“The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event. When he was thrown the semisoftball question on his National Guard experience — he’s been thrown this question for 10 years now — he spoke in a way that seemed detached. ‘It’s politics.’ Well yes, we know that. Tell us more.
“I never expect Mr. Bush, in interviews, to be Tony Blair: eloquent, in the moment, marshaling facts and arguments with seeming ease and reeling them out with conviction and passion. Mr. Bush is less facile with language, as we all know, less able to march out his facts to fight for him.
“I don’t think Mr. Bush’s supporters expect that of him, or are disappointed when he doesn’t give it to them. So I’m not sure he disturbed his base. I think he just failed to inspire his base. Which is serious enough — the base was looking for inspiration, and needed it — but not exactly fatal. . . .

quoted from article found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25548-2004Feb9.html

Quite frankly, I am surprised that Mr. Bush’s base does not expect more from him. I thought his response when given the opportunity to speak to the families of the fallen service members was disgusting. Not exactly President Lincoln’s letter to Mrs. Bixby (http://www.jeannepasero.com/mrsbixby.html). But if y’all want to put your heads in the sand and pretend this issue doesn’t matter, be my guest. I predict that it will one element in a long line of missteps that commentators will cite as causes for Bush losing the presidency come November. (Remember last summer when the Daily Show projected Bush would win the election that was 18 months away? The polls are within the margin of error now, folks.)

And Jones, I’m a little surprised at your resort to name calling, but since you have brought it up, I’m glad you are familiar with the word “fraud.” It should be used a lot when Bush attempts to explain his “judgment calls.” I can’t wait for that one. Who will be to blame when the trolls occupy the White House?

But I thank you for your links to the national review. I am much less skeptical about Mr. Bush’s ANG service given the national review and Colonel Campenni’s comments. This is exactly the kind of defense I would expect the president and white house to make about his record. So why aren’t they? What are they afraid of? Where, for the love of god, is the leadership? We need it.

Posted by: Todd at February 12, 2004 11:41 AM

“Even as the debate continues, the issue may become less whether Bush technically did or did not fulfill the requirements of Guard duty. We know he received an honorable discharge. The issue may become less whether Bush acted honorably during that time than whether he is dealing with it honorably now.”

Most strikingly, however, White House officials yesterday backed off Bush’s unqualified pledge Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to open his entire military file.

This in spite of the following exchange on “Meet the Press” on Sunday:

“Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

“President Bush: Yeah.”

Again, I ask: What are they afraid of?

Read more at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/

Posted by: Todd at February 12, 2004 01:41 PM

“Most strikingly, however, White House officials yesterday backed off Bush’s unqualified pledge Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to open his entire military file.”

That is absolutely false. The democratic spiel has been to ‘attack Bush on something’ and then Bush responds by releasing something.

Certainly since it has been 30 years… some of the records are missing or gone.

But Bush has brought out pay roll records and now he has brought out demo reports.

The demo reports prove that the missing period of time in question… President Bush was not AWOL from service. It shows that he was there and working in the national guard.

If the democrats want to learn something else or want something else answered that has not already been proven…. Then I am sure President Bush will find some more records proving it.

All of this was already delt with in 2000 campaign. We have already been there and done that. Your accusations that Bush is not being forth coming is nothing more than petty hatred and spite.

Go vote for Kerry the Infidel.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 12, 2004 02:53 PM

Again, I say: The fear is palpable. Now it is growing:

“Mike Allen and Lois Romano in The Washington Post find the administration growing more defensive. Communications director Dan Bartlett told them that anything new concerning Bush’s attendance in Alabama would be released. “But Bartlett — like McClellan — was emphatic that the White House had no immediate plans to open Bush’s entire file, which would include his Guard medical records. “

“Absolutely false”? “Nothing more than petty hatred and spite”? It appears someone has taken leave of his love for logic and facts.

It’s like fish in a barrel today.

Posted by: Todd at February 12, 2004 03:09 PM

Great Scott, are people still commenting on this? This is like the Shroud of Turin or crop circles; no matter how roundly or comprehensively the issue is refuted, someone will still find a way to resurrect it like all the zombies in Night of the Living Dead.

This horse is not only dead, its flayed, ground up, made into glue, and covered with glitter on some first grader’s art project.

Let it die. There are actual issues in this campaign.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 12, 2004 05:08 PM

Todd,

So proving innocence is a sign of your guilt?

How are things in Bizarro Land?

JM is right on. Let it die and get an issue to discuss. Even one. Do you have an issue?

Posted by: jones at February 12, 2004 05:32 PM

You guys just don’t get it. Why is everyone so afraid of this issue? This is political campaignig 101: how you deal with an issues is often more important that the issue itself.

I know how badly you want this issue to die. But, no, I am not going to let this die, and you can expect that the media will not either, because we can smell fear. The fact that this issue has never been squarely addressed is why it will continue to come up. Just don’t be surprised, and indignant, when it does.

But I got a million issues. I have allueded to several, such as how Bush will answer for his “judgment calls.” But how about the growing number of jobs lost on the Bush watch? How about having your chief economic advisor recommend it would benefit the U.S. economy to ship jobs overseas? The polls I read put jobs in the top 3 of issues on voters minds. Really, what is the White House smoking? Why aren’t the conservitives outraged at this bumbling? When they are out of power in November, they will only have themselves to blame.

Posted by: Todd at February 12, 2004 05:56 PM

Snore…. You’re right on two counts Todd 1)This ugliness did start with Clinton, for and against, but the real nutty conspiracy stuff aimed at him was just as bad. 2)This isnt going to go away.

The only problem with that is that people are throwing around damned serious charges so lightly. AWOL, thats the military equivalent of being a rapist, and I just heard half a dozen journalists grill the WH press secretary about it, two congressmen acuse the president of it in front of our Secretary of Defense and former lt general, and a bunch of presidential nominees gleefully float the concept with a bunch of non-denials (well, there certainly are questions…). No serious person that understands how serious this charge is would be tossing around sticks of dynamite like this, which goes to show just how ignorant democrats in general (john kerry and wes clark notwithstanding) are of the military, particularly edicit. And these are the people that want the reigns of our government in the middle of a war.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at February 12, 2004 11:28 PM

i am saddened that people who claim to love this country and honor its veterans would allow the Bush campaign to use people like ted sampley and thomas j burch jr to attack john kerry, just as they were used in 2000 to savage john mccain. you can disagree with kerry’s positions (or mccain’s) but to lie about their war records as these men do, is despicable. the bush team is using men who have enriched themsleves by playing on the hopes of those whose loved ones are mia. these men are beneath contempt, and anyone who gets in bed with them becomes tainted.

Posted by: jonny at February 13, 2004 02:31 AM

///. But, no, I am not going to let this die, and you can expect that the media will not either, ///

Blah Blah blah. No, no, todd, the reason you will not let it die is not because you smell fear, but because you will only accept one of two conclusions.

1) Bush was AWOL.
or
2) We need more investigation.

Your mind will accept no other possible conclusion, no matter what evidence is presented.

No one is afraid of this issue, Todd. Its not fear you smell, rather annoyance. So by all means, cling to this issue for as long as you like. You do so at your own peril, because the American public disdains smear campaigns, noted by the increase in Clinton’s popularity as the Monica Lewimsky hearings progressed.

I was hoping you weren’t another one of these liberals that would hate Bush even if he could raise the dead, because I think you’re articulate. But when you retreated back into the old, tired, pedantic rhetoric, I got disappointed.

Think what you want about me, but I don’t care about this issue, just like I don’t care about what John Kerry did after the war. Both men served their country admirably. Both men are allowed latitude for saying and doing stupid things in their twenties. What I’m interested in is their records since becoming politicians. Kerry served courageously and admirably, but that service should not be accepted by anyone as a shield for a poor voting record regarding military and security concerns. We’re at war; a serious one, and I need someone in the White House who has proven themselves able to make tough, unpopular decisions; not someone aloft and sensitive to the shifting of the ever-changing political winds.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 13, 2004 08:19 AM

To add to what Jonny said, the annoyance springs from the fact that every peice of evidence the WH produces is immediatly called a forgery, and every witness is called a liar. Witnesses that support Bush are scoffed at how they could remember 30 years ago, while those that go against him are taken as gospel truth. The most grating part is the total ignorance and lack of desire to educate yourselves on how the NG works. To address one small but intrical part of this, the time in question Bush was picking up a few drills at a different unit. He was never a part of that unit, only showed up a few times, and was just doing menial tasks to fufill his requirements. It would be very much like bein in school and having somebody from the school across town stop in 3 or 4 times in a semester, sit through class, and leave. Do you remember everybody in all your classes from 30 years ago? Or even most? Or even any? And Bush was not famous at the time. His dad was a 2 term congressman from Texas that just lost an election. Do you know the kids of every former congressmen from different states? The media has ignored the context of this story, and the attack dogs have intentionally distorted it.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at February 13, 2004 09:58 AM

Ex-Guardsman Says Bush Served in Ala.

quote:

“A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers George W. Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.

“I saw him each drill period,” retired Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla.”

Posted by: CERDIP at February 13, 2004 02:53 PM

JohnyM & Mark

Thank you both for your very reasoned responses. I was begining to think that was prohibited in this forum. Any, I have to say, I agree with the bulk of your comments. Johny, trust me, I am no liberal who thinks everything Bush does is bad. I think those people are as lothesome as the conservatives who think everything Clinton is bad. (talk about some people who need to get over an issue).

As a veteran, I was pissed that Bush, but more his White House, would attempt to brush of this issue as though it didn’t matter, when he had taken this country to war.

But I am happy to report, because CNN has just announced that Bush has ordered his entire Vietnam-era military file to be released to the public, I am officialy over this issue. So, to that extent, Johnny, you are wrong. Congratulations, your man stood up. Perhaps the Dems shouldn’t be picking out new curtains for the OO just yet.

Posted by: todd at February 13, 2004 06:04 PM

President Bush is being savaged on the Nat. Gd. issue. How about equal play. Lets look at Kerry’s record. Having Ted & Jack Kennedy as Yachting friends suggests very heavy clout. Kerry only was in Viet Nam for a few months. Two medals were scratches. ( Maybe self inflicted ) The third was a shrap. wound, none requireing even a day’s loss of duty. The combat was a VC jumping up with rocket, turning & running. Gunner’s 50 Cal hit him. Kerry jumps off and shoots him ( allegedly in the back ) THis is heroic? Then he gets miraculously transferred out due to thrice wounded! How convenient. Given ultra liberal Ted Maybe it was all phonied up. We should have an investigation.

Posted by: Ron at February 19, 2004 10:11 PM

Does anyone remember that Kerry has sealed all his records. Haven’t there been allegations of Kerry being a little unhinged as Governor? If you have listened to Kerry it seems extremely unlikely that he would have even attacked Afghanistan if Kerry had been President. As far as WMD; Clinton, Albright, Gore all had made statement during Clintons term expressing the positive existence of WMD by Saddam. How can the Democrats say, Bush made it up. Clinton did not create millions of jobs ——- the thousands of DOT COM ( .com ) companies that sprang up did. Also the ecomony was going straight down before Clinton’s term finished dut to the bubble bursting on the DOT COM companies. Had 911 never happened the economy would be in high gear. Thank God Bush became President.

Posted by: Ron Ford at February 19, 2004 10:54 PM