Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 06:30
VIEWED: 9503
PAGE 8 of 8
I'm going to combine a couple of posts on this one. I spent some time playing around with demographic information for the military, members of congress and the population as a whole. There are definite problems because of differences in the median ages of the three different populations so it's hard to be anything other than general based on the sources I found (I wish they would have broken the numbers out using different categories). I have not found any information about income – so I haven't been able to verify my assertion that members of congress come from a different income bracket than members of the military. In terms of gender, women are represented at a higher percentage in the military than in congress, but much lower than in the general population. In terms of minorities, African Americans are over-represented in the military and under-represented in congress, Hispanic/Latinos are under-represented in the military and under-represented in congress (but the military representation is three times congress representation), and Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders are slightly over-represented in the military and greatly under-represented in congress. The military numbers are all from 2001 ( http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/index.htm ). The congress numbers are all from the current congress ( http://www.ethnicmajority.com/congress.htm – although I had to add in Ben Campbell – and http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cawp/Facts/Officeholders/cawpfs.html ). The general population numbers are from 2002 ( http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/d/de/demographics_
of_the_united_states.html ). So all I can really say is that both the population of congress and the military population do not reflect the general population, but the military population is closer.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
I did find this, in GWB's biography on the US Embassy, Japan site. I'll try to find some more.
"George W. graduated from Yale in May of 1968 with a major in history. Two weeks before graduation, he went to the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Air Force Base outside Houston to sign up for pilot training. One motivation, he said, was to learn to fly, as his father had done during World War II. George W. was commissioned as a second lieutenant and spent two years on active duty, flying F-102 fighter interceptors. For almost four years after that, he was on a part-time status, flying occasional missions to help the Air National Guard keep two of its F-102s on round-the-clock alert."
I guess I really shouldn't have used the wording that I did. What I said was that I hadn't heard that Bush joined the National Guard to be a pilot like his dad. So now I have (thanks to the excerpt). What I should have said was that I hadn't heard Bush say the primary reason he joined the National Guard was to be a pilot like his dad. This excerpt says that this was one motivation. I find it interesting that they don't list any other motivations.
This paragraph is fascinating. What's the impression that you get from reading it? This is a good kid who volunteered to serve his country, right out of college, the same way his dad did and that he did his part to protect this country. I guess it doesn't surprise me that they would put the best spin on events in the biography. There's nothing in this paragraph about Vietnam and the draft as possible motivations for joining the Guard. There's nothing in this paragraph acknowledging that he can't prove he flew an F-102 after May of 1972 (when did two years equal "almost four years" and when did not flying equal "flying occasional missions"). There's nothing that says he was suspended from flying in August of 1972. In short, it's about what I would expect from an autobiography.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
Given Burkett's previous anti-Bush statements, does this let the Administration off the hook for providing the documents, or do we just move deeper into X-files territory?
Burkett is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I guess I really shouldn't have used the wording that I did. What I said was that I hadn't heard that Bush joined the National Guard to be a pilot like his dad. So now I have (thanks to the excerpt). What I should have said was that I hadn't heard Bush say the primary reason he joined the National Guard was to be a pilot like his dad. This excerpt says that this was one motivation. I find it interesting that they don't list any other motivations.
This paragraph is fascinating. What's the impression that you get from reading it? This is a good kid who volunteered to serve his country, right out of college, the same way his dad did and that he did his part to protect this country. I guess it doesn't surprise me that they would put the best spin on events in the biography. There's nothing in this paragraph about Vietnam and the draft as possible motivations for joining the Guard. There's nothing in this paragraph acknowledging that he can't prove he flew an F-102 after May of 1972 (when did two years equal "almost four years" and when did not flying equal "flying occasional missions"). There's nothing that says he was suspended from flying in August of 1972. In short, it's about what I would expect from an autobiography.
I kind of hate to post this link, because the source is an almost sure poison pill, but it does confirm some of my thoughts about the state of the ANG at the end of the Vietnam war, and possibly explains some of the non-flying status after 1972. It's worth noting that the date on this letter is Feb. 11, 2004, quite a bit before the current flap.
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.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If interested, here's an op-ed I just read on Yahoo.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
The charge of scandalous behavior by Lt. George W. Bush in the National Guard evolves, on reflection, into scandalous behavior by CBS and Dan Rather. Mr. Rather is standing by his story, but hanging on by his fingernails. The focus had been on whether CBS had relied on forgeries. In his second "60 Minutes" broadcast, Rather had the courage to bring onstage the 86-year-old secretary, Mrs. Marian Carr Knox, who said flat-out that the document suggesting inattentive duty was a forgery -- this was not a document typed by her or in her office.
But even though the document was fake, Mrs. Knox went on, its sentiments weren't fake. Namely, that Lt. Bush was happy-go-lucky in the Texas National Guard, more interested in other things than Guard duty.
At that point Dan Rather looked sternly at his guest, and indeed at life itself, and said, Well, then, George Bush (news - web sites) defied direct orders!
Yes, said Mrs. Knox.
The concrete issue had to do with his failure to take a physical examination on the appointed day. These physicals, "60 Minutes" viewers were told, were routine annual requirements. An officer was supposed to undergo a physical on his birthday, a reasonable arrangement designed to allocate medical resources. But Bush didn't take the exam that day.
An awful, irreverent thought enters impious minds. Namely: So what?
So he missed the physical. What did the postponement of it have to do with anything of current interest? No one has charged that he missed the physical in order to conceal something. Conceal what? That he had syphilis, and didn't want to show up with the medics until his antibiotics had dispelled all traces of it? That he had taken to defying military authority to express his iconoclasm?
It was stressed that he had sought leave, and been given it, to move to the Air Guard unit in Alabama, which would permit him a role in the Senate campaign of Winton Blount.
Giving him leave didn't affect pressing military concerns. "In 1972," according to retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971, "there was an enormous glut of pilots. 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."
And then the theme is advanced that Bush got into the Guard because of influence. Service in the Guard was coveted, because homeland duty is clearly preferable to overseas duty in combat zones. But Guard units were hardly cloistered. Air Guard pilots flew 24,124 sorties and 38,614 combat hours in Southeast Asia during the months after Bush started his service. The scholar Charles Gross records that "85 percent of the personnel in the Vietnam-based 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron ... were Air Guardsmen."
Bush began his training in May 1968. He did six weeks of basic training, 53 weeks of flight training, and 21 weeks of fighter-interceptor training. Guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points annually to meet their yearly obligation. Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.
Was there influence accountable for his getting into the National Guard?
Here is a subject best ignored, but when raised, requiring basic sophistication. Grown-up people know that influence is everywhere used. When Bush joined the Air Guard, his father was only a representative, having failed to be elected to the Senate. So George W. could get away with -- what? His father didn't exactly own the National Guard. So he got in because his father was in Congress and his grandfather had been in the Senate?
Anybody who believes that influence isn't a factor in life was never asked to write a letter to a member of Congress asking him to endorse the application of Joey fr
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, every now and again I go out on a limb and I faaaaaaaaaallllllllll!
Can I change my statement and not be called a flip-flopper??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, every now and again I go out on a limb and I faaaaaaaaaallllllllll!
Can I change my statement and not be called a flip-flopper??
I'm completely neutral about your choice of footwear.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hahahaha!!!!!
I would have been more involved in this thread but I've been very productively busy this weekend. It's been interesting reading!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The letter by William Campenni from February 2004 shares a lot in common with an earlier letter he wrote in May 2003.
http://archive.observernews.com/stories/archives/viewpoints/2003view/0
51603/16letr7.shtml
It looks like he dusted off his original letter, made a few minor changes, rearranged paragraphs slightly, and added a lot of material. The deletions aren't really that important (got rid of some partisan rhetoric, changed the name of one of his commanding officers from Don to William, and removed an inaccurate statement that 1970-1971 was the period of Bush's guard service that was in question – it was actually 1972-1974). The material that he added provides a lot of context. Unfortunately, I couldn't see how he tied it back to this particular case. One thing we know is that William Campenni was not with the Texas Air National Guard for most of the period in question. In November of 1972 he was with the Pennsylvania Air National Guard.
Quote:
excerpted from article, "9/11 scenario faced" by Peter Bacque, 01 December 2003
One of those on-guard outfits was the Pennsylvania Air National Guard's 146th Fighter Squadron, an air defense unit based at Pittsburgh International Airport.
Just out of graduate school, Campenni was a 32-year-old captain in the 146th, flying the F-102 Delta Dagger, the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor, and "sitting alert" on Nov. 11, 1972.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Common%2FMGArt
icle%2FPrintVersion&c=
MGArticle&cid=1031772380834&oasDN=timesdispatch.com&oasPN=%21newsℑ=timesdispatch80x60.gif
(note that the link has been split in two)
Now I haven't been able to determine where Campenni went to graduate school. It's possible that it was in Texas and so he might have been present when Bush missed his physical but his own letter puts the cut-off date at 1971. I'm pretty confident in saying that he was not present when the Alabama transfer story played out (and almost as confident that he wasn't present when Bush missed his physical). He mentions that he and Bush did not travel in the same social circles so I would be very surprised if they were corresponding during this period.
His statements that it was not a big deal to miss a physical and easy to make it up later may very well be accurate. But there's no evidence that Bush ever made up his missed physical. I would be surprised if you were allowed a two year cushion to make up a missed flight physical.
His statement that he would not be surprised if Bush's commanding officer in Alabama did not remember him, based on his own experience as a commander might be accurate as well. But there is only one person in Alabama who claims he saw Bush, and the dates he gave are from before Bush was even in Alabama. There are many people in Alabama who say they never saw Bush show up.
So he provides useful context into how things could have happened, based on his own experiences in the Guard. But he provides no evidence that this is indeed how things did happen. He wasn't an eyewitness. He wasn't even in either of the two states in question. He admits he wasn't really a friend of Bush. And the documentation in Bush's files do not support the scenario that he posits. I see his letters as a well meaning attempt to say, "Well this is how it could have happened." Unfortunately, it's just speculation from a distance.
***
There's a lot of good stuff being written about Bush's Guard service (stuff that does not use the CBS documents
). Here's an excerpt from an article from the upcoming issue of the Air Force Times (thanks to kos at dailyKos for the link).Quote:
excerpted from "Bush’s Air Guard stint started well, then faded into mystery" by William H. McMichael from Issue Date: September 27, 2004
From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his pNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME