Show Comments Here (62) |

Hide Comments

Teaching lefties about the military is like teaching blind people about color, except the lefties are jamming their fingers in their ears and don't want to know. I'd leave the lefties to their grey and colorless world but I wouldn't want others being sucked into the muck too.

Fortunately, as the recent Dean debacle illustrated all too well, if every lefty blogger out there all attended the same High School they couldn't get their man elected prom queen.

Posted by David Blalock at February 15, 2004 04:23 AM

Even worse, Leftists seem proud of their scorn, their derision of all that is valuable and good in America... Leftists REVEL in their disgust and hatred of America's leader, thus losing more and more traction (believablility, courteous/intelligent listening) with Americans and world-citizens.

The Left chooses feelings, the rest of us choose rational investigation of reality... the differences are beginning to sift wheat from Left.

Posted by Sharps Shooter at February 15, 2004 12:42 PM

My personell records from the Coast Guard have no, ZERO, paperwork generated for the six months I was at class "A" School.

AREST ME!! I'M A DESERTER!!!

Posted by Random Numbers at February 15, 2004 02:28 PM

My fighter-pilot cousin was also an absentee Fla voter in 2000, and one who was directly affected by Gore's transparent contempt for the value and legitimacy of his vote. You ought to just hear what he has to say about all this. It's too profane for even me (!) to post.

Posted by Mike at February 15, 2004 03:00 PM

I'm always suprised the press doesn't do a comparision between Bush's records and the records of other people who served as air Guard pilots at the same time.

The could say: Here are the records of Joe Smith who served as an ANG pilot over the same time frame as Bush. See how detailed and comprehensive Smith's records are compared to Bush's? Obviously, something is up here.

Instead, they simply imply something is missing in an unusual fashion. They rely on ordinary people's sterotyped concepts of miltary service and record keeping. Ordinary people confuse Guard duty with standard full time service. Ordinary people have no idea how to read military documentation or to understand what may or may not be indicative of coverup.

Perhaps somebody should dig up Kerry's service records from when he was an Admirals attache in Boston. I wonder what would be "missing" or "suspious" there.

Posted by Shannon Love at February 15, 2004 03:14 PM

What was/is especially interesting is watching the other side act like the Air Guard did NOT serve in Vietnam, when 4 wings did in fact go over, totaling 10,670 people. Kerry himself derides by claiming NOT to deride Air National Guard service...lovely.

FOXNews.com - You Decide 2004 - Kerry Questions Bush Guard Service: "Kerry insisted he was not making a political issue of Bush's Vietnam-era service, saying he had no trouble with the 'many people' like Bush who served in the Guard to reduce the odds of seeing combat in Vietnam"

Serving in the Air National Guard was not a way to avoid service in the war, Kerry is trying to confuse people into believing that the Air National Guard avoided the war because the Army National Guard was never called to service in Vietnam. But 4 Fighter Units, 10,670 people, were indeed called up to serve in Vietnam. Furthermore anyone deliberately avoiding service in Vietnam was in large part we can assume attempting to avoid being killed. Serving as a Fighter Pilot is particularly bad way to avoid being killed as even in peacetime it is not a low risk occupation, of course then the argument reverts to Bush is stupid, so stupid in fact that he chose the highest risk occupation in the Armed Services to avoid being killed. While Gore is very smart because he did in fact find a very good way to serve and avoid being killed. Have bodyguards assigned to you, to guard against your typewriter assaulting you and cut your 1 year stay to 5 months, because your Senator daddy ordered it to be so.

Have I gotten it wrong? I dont think so but appreciate any feedback.

Pierre

Posted by Pierre at February 15, 2004 03:17 PM

It continues to amaze me that these same people who keep crying crocodile tears about Bush's guard service never have a word to say about a draft dodger whom they elected president. At least Bush didn't "loathe" the military as did our former president. I hope present and former guard members will remember how they were portrayed as dodging service in Vietnam; how they were denigrated as draft dodgers in the same vein as those who fled to Canada; how their honorable duty was also denigrated as insignificant. It is the same ole Democrat mantra: hate.

Posted by Frankie Guinle at February 15, 2004 04:02 PM

I joined the Marine Reserve while in college. Upon graduating, I applied for Navy OCS and was accepted into the NUPOC program. I report to OCS in April. To make a long story short, upon my discharge from the USMCR I was given a hard copy of my SRB for my own records. I have it in front of me right now. Guess what? It is sketchy, difficult to understand, and in some cases incomplete.

My Basic Individual Record lists my test scores, rifle scores, etc, but has a lot of blank spaces. My Basic Training Record has my service schools with dates, and my Record of Service lists my Pro/Con marks. My payroll summary has NO details recorded, only number of SAT years and total retirement points. My DD-214 from my active service (boot camp + School of Infantry) has the wrong MOS listed. No evidence of my awards (ribbons or Meritorious Masts) is to be found.

The point of this rant is that military records (ESPECIALLY in the reserves) can often be confusing and incomplete. It would be very difficult for someone (especially a civilian) to figure out what it is I did for 3 years in the reserves. Individual training events are not listed, and I've gone long stretches without generating paperwork. Given the military's stellar record keeping (all servicemen have horror stories regarding lost paperwork), twenty years from now I would expect little of my SRB to remain, except for the basics: that I served 3 years in the Marine Reserve. Details would be lost in the bureaucratic fog.

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 04:23 PM

One of the best articles I've read about the meaning of the Bush, deserter, Kerry, war hero "story" I've read comes from Mark Steyn in a UK journal. Worth the read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/02/15/do1501.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/02/15/ixop.html

Posted by Wallace at February 15, 2004 05:06 PM

Agree with all the above re: screwed up records... when on active duty, I had 2 reviews of my MPRJ... both times it showed that I had served two tours in Korea, in the 60's when I was 12 years old (I pointed this out both times, but nothing changed)... Also, my DD214 does not mention my Army General Staff service or the Army Achievement Medal I received mid-tour... I hate to think what got posted to my file after I left AD and was on Individual Ready Reserve for a few years...
One more example of the fact that:
#1 If you have personal knowledge of a situation.
and
#2 That situation gets reported on in the media.
Then you have to endure extreme frustration at the fact that the report bears no resemblance to the truth as you know it from personal experience...

Posted by jagcap at February 15, 2004 05:26 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Kos is a Gulf War I vet, which makes it even more bewildering...

Posted by Independant George at February 15, 2004 05:49 PM

Speaking as a liberal, let me give you my thoughts on the issue.

As I watched this whole process unfold, I never cared about what happened 30 years ago. After all, that's ancient history. Whether it was good or bad, it didn't matter to me.

What was interesting to me was that it took four years of pushing to get Bush to finally release all the documents. This is Bush's pattern: he keeps everything classified, even the most mundane, uninteresting documents. What was the rationale for keeping that dental record sealed for four years? What was the point? Did the concealment serve any purpose? The only possible reason for keeping it hidden for four years is that Bush has a blanket policy of keeping all documents hidden. That blanket policy doesn't look good.

Posted by Josh Yelon at February 15, 2004 05:55 PM

Post your medical records to the internet Josh.
Maybe the guy is standing on a certain priciple.
If so he is doing many future generations of office holders a favor.

Posted by vtrtl at February 15, 2004 06:05 PM

Josh

No he didn 't get anything classified. He is only record as saying that everything was released in 2000. Before that time, the records were considered personal and thus were not released. THe fact these things took so long to get out is that it took that long to dig through the "entirely" paper records (not computerized) to find enoug of the paper trail to satisfy people like you. How much did the government spend on military personnel looking through millions of docs for misfiled and lost stuff. There is the real scandal in all this. That a "gin-ed scandal by the DNC and media" was allowed to slander the pres.

Posted by capt joe at February 15, 2004 06:05 PM

You're right, it wasn't "classified", it was "hidden ." I shouldn't use intelligence terms incorrectly.

- Josh

Posted by Josh Yelon at February 15, 2004 06:08 PM

Josh:

I think your assertions are wrong. First of all, military records are, by their very nature, confidential. Only authorized personnel have access to them. If you look at your SRB (if you are a vet), you will clearly see it stated that the files are for authorized personnel only and misuse or unapproved release is a crime. Also, even in this day and age, many military records exist only on paper. My USMCR medical record is a paper document. These document routinely get lost or misfiled. Lastly, the reason this stuff wasn't released earlier is it wasn't an issue until the last couple of weeks. Yes, some leftists tried bring it up in 2000, but it wasn't reported in the mainstream press until very recently.

One last thing. Remember how Clinton refused to release his medical records? I recall the Dems protecting his right to privacy.

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 06:26 PM

Josh-

Bush' military records were not "hidden."

The Rose law firm files, the 900 FBI files, the files detailing who hired Craig Livingstone, now, those were hidden.

Posted by Mike at February 15, 2004 06:33 PM

Ted: You say it's a crime to release these records. I'm no expert, but I suspect that Bush as CinC has the authority to release them legally.

You're also right that since the records exist only on paper, some of them theoretically could have been lost. But obviously, they weren't lost, since he eventually released them.

You say he didn't release them until recently because it wasn't an issue until recently. My assertion is that it was politically unwise to wait until it became an issue.

The Bush administration has people in it who understand politics. These people must have realized that keeping documents sealed when the opposition is loudly demanding them eventually leads to a political crisis. The obvious thing to do would have been to avert the crisis by simply releasing everything.

One theory is that they kept them sealed because some of them are medical in nature, and Bush is a champion of privacy in medical records. This explanation makes no sense. Even the staunchest supporter of privacy believes that a person has the right to reveal their own medical conditions. My doctor has no right to tell somebody I have hemhorroids, but if I want to tell somebody that, it's my option. Bush has no privacy obligation to keep his own record sealed. Besides, I think the Bush administration's stance on medical privacy was clearly shown in the recent abortion-record subpoenas.

The truth is, I can't think of any reason to keep all this information hidden. There wasn't really anything in it. I believe that this points to a culture of keeping everything hidden unless forced to do otherwise.

Posted by Josh Yelon at February 15, 2004 07:07 PM

Pierre, while essentially speaking you are right that the Army Guard was not called up for Vietnam, I think in fact there was a very small number of Army Guard who were mobilized for service there. The figure that sticks in my mind is approx 8,000, which I read somewhere a long time ago. Don't remember where I saw it but it was probably in some sort of official or semi-official Army historical publication which came out while I was active duty.

The only specific example I can remember is that there was one company of Indiana Guard which was a Ranger or Recon unit and was sent to Vietnam. I always thought that was ironic, considering the Dan Quayle controversy (he's from Indiana and served in the Army Guard remember). The 88 or 92 campaign was the previous time this issue came up, though not with this level of attention.

I think that until Gulf War I, the previous time a significant number of Guard had been called to active duty was the Berlin Crisis of 1961. (The figure that sticks in my mind is 88,000, but I don't remember if this was just Guard or if it was Guard/Reserve). So we essentially had a period of almost 25 years when service in the Army Guard/Reserve was largely free of call-up to extended periods of active service.

Now of course we're overdoing it the other way (IMO).

Posted by Paul H. at February 15, 2004 07:12 PM

Josh, the relevant documents weren't withheld or hidden. The documentation supporting the President's honorable discharge has been out for years. This is just a dump of almost entirely irrelevant information after two weeks of hysterical and wildly ill informed reporting.

By the way, I’m a fellow ‘deserter’ from the ANG. I’ve missed some drills (but made them up) to have enough retirement points for a ‘good-year’. I await the firing squad.

Posted by Steve Gerads at February 15, 2004 07:35 PM

Josh -
What you are suggesting is that privacy should be subject to a heckler's veto. Sure, you have privacy, but the second someone makes nasty accusations about you, then you should voluntarily give it up. In that case, Kerry should immediately make public all of his telephone records and credit card receipts for the past five years, to show he has had no connection with 'that woman'. It hasn't become a full-blown scandal yet, but in order to keep it from becoming one, he should do so anyway, just to shut me up.

Posted by Celeste at February 15, 2004 07:45 PM

Josh:

I think you misunderstand me. Bush's honorable discharge is a matter of public record (type of military discharge appears on any standard background check. Specific records are confidential. Until recently, there was no need to release them, so he didn't.

As for the abortion records, some doctors filed a brief citing specific examples of partial-birth abortions being medically neccesary. However, they did not include any documentation. The government, as the plantiff, subpoenaed these records to challenge their assertions. Sounds like standard legal procedure to me. You can't introduce evidence in a court case without proper documetation.

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 07:52 PM

Celeste: yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, with respect to politicians - they should have no expectation of privacy. I believe that openness is the price they should have to pay for the right to run our country. Naturally, that doesn't apply to matters of national secrecy, but I don't think Bush's teeth count. I know that's an extremist point of view.

Yes, that would apply to Democrats as well. If you were to say, "I have some evidence that Kerry spent an hour in a sleazy motel, and that he paid for it with a credit card," then I would expect him to show his credit card receipt to disprove it. In fact, he would, if he weren't a political incompetent.

Posted by Josh Yelon at February 15, 2004 08:20 PM

Ok, all you vets. One pertinent question.

When you were in, did you ever have the latitude to declare that you just decided you weren't going to do the job that the military trained you to do anymore.

I certainly did not.

Bush decided he wasn't going to be a fighter pilot anymore. That's after the Air Force spent at least $250,000(2002) dollars training him to fly the F-102.

Anybody else out there who had that kind of latitude, please speak up and enlighten me.

Posted by VetCurm at February 15, 2004 08:49 PM

VetCurm:

Are you referring to his move to Alabama? Most reserve units allow members to transfer for professional and personal reasons. Also, when I transferred to the Navy I decided that I wasn't going to be a Marine Infantryman in the reserve anymore. They let me go with three years left on my contract and after having spent tens of thousands of dollars on me.

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 09:30 PM

…Neither Kos nor any other lefty blogger understands the term "duty" in military parlance.

Bush's duty was flying F-102s in the air defence role during the cold war. For the information of the younger generation, the stakes in the cold war made terrorist attacks look like mosquito bites.

He failed to fulfill his duty when he blew off his physical. He never went back on flight status. He got away with it, but honorable, it was not.

And he bailed out eight months early, to go to Harvard. Granted, that kind of thing was common in those days. But tell it to some Guardsman in Iraq, on his second back to back deployment, maybe he's lost his house and is about to lose his wife, looking at a stop loss order that forces him to stay for more. Ask him what he thinks of Bush's service.

Posted by Jody at February 15, 2004 09:34 PM

Ted
Are you referring to his move to Alabama? Most reserve units allow members to transfer for professional and personal reasons.

As far as I know, there were no Air Reserve units in Alabama flying the F-102. If anyone out there can correct me on that, I'd be grateful.

The unit he initially asked for a transfer to had no aircraft at all.

I assume they had more of a need in the Navy slot that you transferred into, than the Marine slot you transferred out of.

That wasn't true of the slot I had, although I admit I'll was active duty and not reserve. It was, however in the same time frame.

Posted by VetCurm at February 15, 2004 09:46 PM

Jody:

The Washington Post published a letter written by an officer who served with Bush in Texas during the time in question. I will try to post a link when I find the article. The explanation given for why Bush left early was that the Vietnam war was winding down, there was a huge surplus of pilots, and the guard decided to trim their numbers. Furthermore, the mission of the unit changed from air defense to pilot training, leading to a major shakeup of the TO. I tend to believe this because the same thing happened after the Cold War: a manpower surplus lead to widespread early discharges. Also, even today it is not uncommon for reservists to be cut loose early. I personally know people who have been released early because they moved to an area without a nearby reserve unit, or because of family problems. This practice is especially common when the mission or weapon system changes, causeing a unit to be above TO (overstaffed).

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 09:46 PM

VetCurm:

That was kinda my point. The unit he moved to didn't fly the F-102. Because he was a transient (he only transferred for about 8 months), the command at the Alabama unit never bothered to train him for a new MOS. My guess is that they probably had him do some misc admin work. This is pretty common in the reserves. Units often allow transient servicemen to drill as a courtesy so they can get their time in. In my old unit I have often seen Marines show up for a couple of drills because they were "passing through". These Marines were usually coming off or going into recruiting duty, among other things. Also, the reserve used to be (not so much anymore) VERY lenient about allowing people to miss drill weekends and make up the time on their own schedule. We used to have a Marine who wrestled for Ohio State. He never showed up for drill during wrestling season (which lasted about 5 months), and he made up the time over the summer answering phones, organizing gear, etc.

Furthmore, I don't think he "blew off" physical. If his CO wanted him to take it, he could have compelled him. My guess is that they were above TO for pilots, and simply wanted to take people off flight status to trim the roster.

Lastly, things have changed in the Reserves. Things are MUCH tighter post 9/11. However, during the long stretches between mobilizations (pre Gulf War 1 I believe the last sustained, large scale mobilization was Korea), I'm sure things got pretty slack ass.

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 09:59 PM

Ted
Furthmore, I don't think he "blew off" physical. If his CO wanted him to take it, he could have compelled him.

See, now that's where I have my biggest problem with the whole deal. I was taking flight physicals then too (every six months instead of once per year), and not showing up to take a flight physical would have gotten you an Article 15 at least (the wing commander at that time reminded me a lot of Patton, but the policy was pretty much constant even when a new wing commander took over).

Having people who were not qualified because they had not taken their physicals would have looked bad on the unit's readiness report. Again, it just doesn't jibe with my experience.

Posted by VetCurm at February 15, 2004 10:10 PM

Vetcurm,

Where to start...IF you had read all the info on this story then you would know:
1. that missing a physical is a common occurance in the Guard for a number of reasons, most having to do with scheduling conflicts.
2. Suspension of flying status is an automatic for everybody. It is not a disciplinary action, but a safety default.
3. His temporary transfer to Alabama was approved, twice. Temporary transfers are also a common occurance in the Guard.
4. Alabama did not have any flying slots for him, anyway.
5. Lt. Bush volunteered to fly F102's in Vietnam, but was turned down because the program was winding down. So much for "avoiding combat".
6. Had his unit been called up, all he would have had to do is report for a physical to get his flying status restored. What he wanted would have been moot at that point. But, HE WAS NOT CALLED UP.
7. The F102 was replaced by the f101 and the guard had more than enough F101 pilots. HAD HE WANTED TO FLY, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOL BECAUSE HE WAS NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE NEW JETS, and the TANG was not interested in re-training short-time F102 pilots.

For the record I have that kind of lattitude. If you were good enough at what you do, so would you...consider yourself enlightened.

Posted by Dark Jethro at February 15, 2004 10:13 PM

VetCurm:

The thing is, you were actie duty. Things are different in the Guard and Reserve. It is not uncommon to be excused from drill, transfer temporarily, or even miss important event (physicals). This is the nature or a part time force in which members must juggled family, civilian carrer and service.

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 10:21 PM

VetCurm:

Answering your question *as you framed it*: no. However, when one of my AFSCs--that's MOS to you other service types--was deleted (no longer necessary), I was given a choice: cross-train or get an early out. Yes, I had that choice, even with all of the money they spent trianing me in my year-long technical school (a subject you brought up). I chose the former. GWB had the same choice when his aircraft was being phased out. He made the latter choice.

When this happens, the member becomes basically superfluous and is generally allowed to do what he/she wants within limits of feasibility until the DOS arrives. He wanted a temp transfer to work on a political campaign and his commander allowed it. His a/c was going away and he planned on getting out So what?

Posted by Juliette at February 15, 2004 10:23 PM

Dark Jethro
For the record I have that kind of lattitude. If you were good enough at what you do, so would you...consider yourself enlightened.

I sense some hostility here. Maybe you oughta give some thought that people with certain specialized skillsets had less latitude. Especially when the time frame is thirty years ago, and not now.

Then, people with my skillset had to re-up just to get assigned to a different base, but as I said, that was then.

Whether I was good at what I did, well, we'll just have to leave that one on the table, now won't we?

Posted by VetCurm at February 15, 2004 10:24 PM

Josh -
As long as you're consistent about it, that's certainly your perogative. I, however, am uncomfortable with the idea that people should be compelled to give up their privacy based on groundless accusations. I didn't say I had any evidence that Kerry was cheating on his wife, but that he should release his credit card receipts absent any evidence, just to quell his critics. Likewise, the critics demanding Bush release all of his personal records to prove he satisfactorily completed his guard duty are doing so absent any evidence that he did anything wrong - he's got an honorable discharge.

Privacy loses its value if the information only gets to be private for so long as no one asks for it.

Posted by Celeste at February 15, 2004 10:30 PM

Ted
The thing is, you were actie duty. Things are different in the Guard and Reserve. It is not uncommon to be excused from drill, transfer temporarily, or even miss important event (physicals)

That's what I'm here trying to get some information on. I'm being straight when I say that it doesn't jibe with my own experience. I'm also being straight when I say I was active, and not reserve.

Granted, my unit was pretty strict. Missing (or being late) to a required morning briefing would get you an Article 15 and a $225(2002 dollars) fine.

Posted by VetCurm at February 15, 2004 10:33 PM

Juliette:

A similar thing happened when my reserve unit transitioned from the Dragon anti-tank missile system to the Javelin system. Because the Javelins were far more effective, they required fewer Marine to operate. As a result, there was a surplus of Assaultmen (an infantry MOS that dealt specifically with anti-armor operations). Marines near the end of their contract were cut loose early to bring the TO back into line. Why spend the time and money to train someone on a new system when they've only got 5 months left?

Posted by Ted at February 15, 2004 10:34 PM

Ted:

"Furthmore, I don't think he "blew off" physical. If his CO wanted him to take it, he could have compelled him."

His CO didn't see him for at least a year, which is kind of the point. Bush was grounded for not taking his physical. And he never corrected the situation. Never went back to his duty. Can't blame him; those were dangerous airplanes, and like you say, they were passing out of the inventory. But it was for the Air Force to say whether he should remain on flight status, not Bush.

It only becomes an issue when the guy dresses up in a flight suit, struts around on an arcraft carrier, calls himself a war president, and gets a lot of people killed.

And for those who want to call me a "Bush hater", go ahead. I'm also a lifelong registered Republican, of the Goldwater variety, who grew up in the Air Force, and knows a lot of history. I support the war on terrorism. I think that losing that war is a really bad idea, and I think Bush's policies are doing just that.

Jody

Posted by Jody at February 15, 2004 10:38 PM

Jody, have you considered the notion that Bush may have been told something like "you're going to have to train on the 101 if you're going to remain on flying status 'cause we won't have 102s in two years. That's going to take [I have no idea] hours over the next year and a serious commitment from you to getting your life back on track -- or you can drop any hope of flying."

And so he dropped the flying, saved the USAFR a few bucks by not having the physical -- which automaticly removed him from (his nearly non-existant flying status since he wasn't going to have a seat to fly in) flying status --, pushed papers for a while, and left.

Uncle says and does lots of things to people that doesn't show up in the paperwork and a lot of it is forgotten, sometimes by both parties, who are surprized by the paperwork's memory.

Posted by htom at February 16, 2004 12:12 AM

I had some latitude. Course, this was back in '69 with the war still going strong, not '72 when the drawdown was forcing people out of the military.

Anyhow, I was in command of a small boat, with a crew of guys who looked to me for leadership. Well, after four short months I found myself with three minor injury type purple hearts. I had an option to stay with the troops who depended on me, or piss on 'em and leave. Buh-by, suckers. Enjoy your cruise!

I was out of there. Other fish to fry,you know.

Wanna see my scars?

Posted by John F Kerry at February 16, 2004 01:06 AM

Has anyone considered that when Bush enrolled a lot of people were doing or wanted to be doing the same thing- it was how our country felt about the war. He is also on the same page now as most of America re the 9/11 Iraq situation.

I personally think that it is a good thing that our President reflects the majority opinion of the country now and then.

I think he has shown that he isn't a pushover/coward by his actions over the last several years- that is what is being implied by saying he chose not to volunteer to serve in Vietnam, right?

Posted by Chris at February 16, 2004 01:10 AM

The letter from bush's fellow pilot was in the washington times - http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm.

The washington post is regarded as little more than the mouthpiece for the democratic party and a new york times wannabe.

Posted by patriot at February 16, 2004 01:51 AM

htom—

No, I haven't considered that notion. Why should I? Bush hasn’t offered it as an explanation. And he was questioned about missing the physical. Sorry I don’t have the reference, but his story had to do with the availability of his personal physician, a non sequitur, since it was a military flight surgeon he needed to see.

If Bush had been RIFed there would be all kinds of paperwork about it. In his record, there is only the grounding for missing the physical.

The military pilots I have known took their flight status very seriously, and sweated seeing the flight surgeon every time. Being grounded, no matter what the reason, was a black mark, one to be erased as soon as possible. But not, apparently, to George W Bush.

I believe that service in wartime is a defining experience, one that speaks to a man’s fitness for leadership. You may not agree, but imagine Bill Clinton running this war. George Bush answered the call to service honorably, but his performance in the end was less than stellar.

More important to me is what is happening now. Bush’s diversion in Iraq has cost the lives of nearly six hundred soldiers, and three thousand wounded. And, by God, let’s face the cruel fact that for every one killed there are one or two whose wounds are so terrible that they would be better off dead. He has exhausted our strength to the point that we will be hard pressed to cope with a genuine military emergency in Pakistan or Korea.

Bush’s military service started off in exemplary fashion, but it sidestepped the real war, and petered off into indifference.

Pretty much what you can say about his performance in Iraq. The rats are already abandoning ship.

Check out what Joe Galloway has to say:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/7920901.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Galloway is one of the few honorable journalists in the war business. He was at LZ X-Ray in ‘65, and wrote the book, “We Were Soldiers Once, And Young”

Jody

Posted by Jody at February 16, 2004 02:08 AM

Jody,

Galloway's no Bush fan, and never has been.

I think I prefer the guy who got out during the massive drawdown to the guy who turned his back on his crew three months into his tour and walked away at the height of the war. The idea of that guy as CinC is beyond frightening.

And please cease the feeble argument that the US is incapable of defending itself. We aren't anywhere near a total war footing that a 'military emergency' (as you imply) might bring us to. The argument doesn't hold water.

And stop insulting the memory of the dead by insisting the war was not necessary. Their sacrifice is respected here. Your willingness to dismiss a true group of heroes to get the real deserter into the white house is disgusting.

Posted by Ol' Sarge at February 16, 2004 02:27 AM

VetCurm,

Let me echo some of the earlier comments on this post. I started as a Private at Parris Island and ended up as a light colonel. I served 11 years active duty followed by 17 years reserves. I can tell you from personal experience that the reserves do have the sort of flexibility that the active duty folks never had. The key thing in the reserves is to get a "good year", which is defined as getting 50 retirement points in that anniversary year (based on your pay entry base date). Points are earned for active duty (1 point per day) or inactive duty (1 point per 4 hours with a maximum of 2 points per day). Inactive duty points are awarded for drills, whether paid drills or unpaid drills, for completing correspondence courses, or for other approved projects.

If you can belong to an active reserve unit and get paid for your drills, that's really great. I did a bunch of that, but I also did a bunch of drilling for what the Marines called a Mobilization Training Unit (MTU), formerly called a VTU (Volunteer Training Unit) which drills for points but no pay. In either type of unit, there are scheduled drills. If you miss a scheduled drill, you can make up the drill. Ideally, if you are going to miss a drill, you let the unit know in advance, but most reserve units are really flexible, especially for the officers, and if something comes up at the last minute, you can usually slide by even if you don't let the unit know in advance. It all depends on the unit. Frequently you can perform drills in advance and therefore not have to show up for the scheduled drill.

Some drilling reservists have very flexible "scheduled" drills, i.e., they can drill almost whenever they feel like it as long as the project they are working on gets completed when it is supposed to.

I looked at Bush's drill history, which has been floating around on the Internet for a couple of years, and I fail to see what the fuss is about. he earned 4 points in October 72 and 8 points in November of 72, which carried him through December, since you should average 4 points per month or 48 per year. (That's 4 points per month times 12 months.)

[Digression here. You also earn 15 points per year just for belonging to the active reserves or individual ready reserves. Add the 15 to the 48 and you have 63 points for the year. Guess what? You can only credit 60 inactive duty points per year towards retirement. That means that the average reservist is wasting points that count towards retirement. Couple that with the fact that only 50 points are needed for a good year, and the clear implication is that reservists are expected to miss at least some of their drills. Which is actually the case--I forget what percent attendance individual reservists are supposed to meet, and I forget what percent of total unit attendance units are supposed to meet, but I can guarantee that it is not 100%. End digression.]

Bush then earned 6 points twice in January 73, which equals 12, which is equivalent to 3 months, which carried him through March, so lo and behold, he drilled again in April, earning 4 points. Then in May, he drilled 4 times, earning 3, 3, 4, and 3 points respectively, or 13 points total. That carried him through July 73. Bush got good years for both 1972 and 1973, and left the service with an honorable discharge. That means he did what he was supposed to.

So what I see is an entirely normal drilling record for a reservist who, like so many of us, is holding down two or three careers at a time (counting the military as one of them).

So what is all the fuss about? Darned if I know. Remember, this was a time when new Army officers who had made life-changing decisions to join the Army after college were being discharged right out after finishing up their basic schools and being commissioned as 2/LT's because the Army had too many officers. Vietnam was winding way down--I had my orders to Saigon cancelled 2 months after receiving them (that was in December 1971), but I ended up in Thailand in September 72, working at a Marine Air Base called Nam Phong, aka The Rose Garden, as in we didn't promise you one, but we're sending you there. At that time, there were NO, repeat NO, ground troops permanently stationed in Vietnam, but Marine air, Navy air, and the Air Force were actively supporting the Vietnamese ground campaigns. And the Army must have provided aviation support to the Vietnamese, but they weren't being coordinated by the 7th/9th Air Force. The point being that LT's were a dime a dozen, with more reservists AND active duty types wanting to fly that there were flying billets available for them. If LT Bush, who had already been flying as part of the national air defense mission for 3 years, wanted to step down, that was no big deal because there were hundreds who wanted to take his place.

Again, I found nothing, absolutely nothing, in Bush's records that looked out of the ordinary.

Posted by Chris Pastel at February 16, 2004 02:40 AM

Jody,

I don't have any details on bush's personal physician, but I had more than one military physical done AT HOME instead of at drill or at a reserve center, because the doctor I saw was a qualified military doctor, in the inactive reserves, who performed his drill points by giving physicals to reservists! Right in his regular doctor's office. Bush's "personal physician" could have been a qualified flight surgeon. I don't know, but neither do you.

Missing a flight physical when you know you are going to go off of flight status is not a big deal. If it had been a big deal, his CO would have made sure he got his flight physical. Just because you don't like Bush, don't make this into a bigger deal than it really is.

Posted by Chris Pastel at February 16, 2004 02:49 AM

Re: duty

This is from Colin Powell's book:

“I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well placed and so many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve or National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”

Powell seemed to believe that those who "wrangled slots" in the National Guard and stayed stateside didn't fulfill their duty ("owe equal allegiance") to the country to the extent those who went to war did.

Of course, allegiance to one's country doesn't necessarily mean obeisance to the government's dictates or the will of the majority. Some wars, like the Vietnam war, are
unjust.

Posted by Odin at February 16, 2004 03:03 AM

Way to cling, Odin. Did you steal my bong at Woodstock?

Posted by Thor at February 16, 2004 03:19 AM

> The truth is, I can't think of any reason to keep all this information hidden. There wasn't really anything in it. I believe that this points to a culture of keeping everything hidden unless forced to do otherwise.

Actually, Bush's behavior has been politically reasonable and entirely predictable.

Remember the wind-up to the Iraq invasion? Opponents demanded that nothing happen until Congress got its say. Bush waited for a while, and let Congress approve.

Bush is under no obligation to keep his political enemies from doing dumb things like demand records that refute their arguments. It is entirely reasonable for him to let them stew and set themselves up for a big fall.

However, it is also reasonable to ask why they keep falling for the same trick.

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 16, 2004 03:43 AM

Greyhawk, I stole this from your latest post. Hope you dont mind:

AWOL: "It only becomes an issue when the guy dresses up in a flight suit, struts around on an arcraft carrier, calls himself a war president, and gets a lot of people killed."

Ahhhh... so the carrier landing, in which the CinC "dressed up in a flight suit and paraded around" is what's got the kollektiv lefty panties in a knot?

From Front Page Magazine, here's USN (Ret) CDR Lewis F. McIntyre's letter to Senator Byrd about that visit. (Helpful note for you leftys out there, USN is United States Navy, CDR is Commander - his rank, and ret is retired. Look anything else up yourselves.)

Senator Byrd,
As a retired Naval Officer, with two Gulf carrier deployments under my belt, I find your criticism of President Bush's visit to the Lincoln offensive in the extreme! This is the first time that the Commander-in-Chief took time out of his schedule to pay a visit to thank those who served in the line of fire, in a way that was both dramatic and meaningful to those on the carrier.

Perhaps if LBJ got off his fat ass to do something similar, our troops' morale in Vietnam might not have been so low.

As a Naval officer, I am extremely sensitive to styles of leadership.

That is, after all, our stock in trade. And it was not lost on me that the President spent about thirty seconds shaking hands with the Admiral, CO, and CAG (If you don't know these abbreviations just look them up in your Funk &Wagnalls!) He then spent the next forty-five minutes putting himself at the disposal of the people who make that ship work, the yellow shirts, the green shirts, the purple shirts, the chiefs, the sailors.

If you don't know the significance of those colored shirts, look it up in your Blue Jacket's Manual. Not dressed out in formal uniform (I understand at Bush's request), but in their greasy, smelly, sweaty working uniforms ... working a flight deck is hot, hard work. And yet he, in his flight suit, put himself at their disposal, this was their moment for 19 or 20 something year old kids a few years out of high school, to get a picture of themselves with the President of the United States, his arm draped around their shoulder.

That is a moment that those kids never dreamed would ever happen to them, maybe not even when they knew he was coming aboard. Surely, he would see the brass, not the troops. But it was the troops to whom he gave his time ... and it was the most natural moment in the world. You might have thought it was a family reunion, and in a way, it was...

Bush is one of them, the common man, and while he is still the most powerful man on the planet right now. He hasn't lost his touch for them.

Was it a political moment?

What moment of a president's life is NOT a political moment? Was it grand standing, to come in to an OK pass to a 4 wire, a bit high in close, correcting, left of centerline? Well, hell, he didn't fly the approach anyway, though I understand from the pilots who flew him that he did a pretty good job at formation flying, tucked in close for a lead change. You can always tell a fighter pilot, you just can't tell him very much. And, apparently after thirty years, it all comes back, with a little coaching, I am sure. Frankly, I would have liked to see him come aboard in an FA-18, but the Secret Service vetoed that, and Bush accepted their judgment ... again, a mark of a good leader.

If you had spent some time in the service, instead of the Klan, you might understand the significance of that moment to all the men and women aboard the Lincoln, and indeed to all the men and women in the service who shared that moment vicariously. But you chose the bedsheet instead of the uniform, and so you don't.

I am half-tempted to move to West Virginia just so I could vote against you in your next election.

Lewis F. McIntyre
CDR, USN (Ret)

One last helpful note: Don't look up "look them up in your Funk & Wagnalls!" in your Funk & Wagnalls.

Posted by Ol' Sarge at February 16, 2004 03:52 AM

Chris Pastel:

You are right on the everything except, I think, only getting credited 60 inactive points per year. I just checked my Career Retirement Credit Record and found that I got credited all 63 points per year for my reserve service. As for leniency regarding medical exams, we were supposed to have a Navy doctor check our teeth every year to certify us Class 1 dental. However, this meant driving out of the way to the Navy reserve center on the particular weekend the Navy dentist (also a reservist) was working. That, or pay for a civilian dental exam. I had a friend whose dad was a dentist and he would sign the dental chit for me without even checking my teeth (I would mail the paperwork to him, he would sign it and send it back to my reserve unit).

Posted by Ted at February 16, 2004 03:58 AM

I don't know anything about the military either. I was 18 in 1966, and I don't blame anybody for their positions on the war back then or for joining the NG instead of getting drafted. I do blame those who ran to Canada and who spread lies about our troops. And I do blame those who didn't grow out of their stupidity. And I especially despise people like Kerry who built his political career on being antiwar and anti-military, but expects to use his service as a club against his political opponents. To me, all that shows is that he either didn't know what he was fighting for or didn't really care, and that he hasn't figured it out in the meantime.

Posted by AST at February 16, 2004 04:35 AM

Ol’ Sarge—

By the paragraph:

1 I didn’t say Galloway was a Bush fan; I said he had been through the fire and was honorable. Read up on LZ X-Ray. Number of civilians not named Joseph Galloway awarded the Bronze Star for valor in Vietnam: zero. If he doesn’t like Bush, maybe he has his reasons.

2 I’m with you there. I’d never vote for Kerry.

I do have to question your reference to a “massive drawdown,” though. Ground troops were being withdrawn from Vietnam in ’72, and my own Dad’s second tour in AC-119 gunships got Vietnamized out from under him, but the air war was peaking. The destruction by bombing of Laos and Cambodia was under way in ‘72 and ‘73; Linebacker II, the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam in 1972, resulted in a protest demonstration by B-52 aircrews at Anderson AFB, Guam. They were protesting their betrayal by the political leadership.

3 Didn’t say we can’t defend ourselves. Said that war in Pakistan or Korea (war with actual nuclear consequences) will be much harder to deal with after the expenditure of men and materiel in Iraq. About a month and a half ago, the Pentagon announced that at least two of the divisions rotating out of Iraq will be combat unready for at least nine months. If a big war breaks out, such unreadiness will cost lives.

4 This war, like the Vietnam war, was not necessary. As always, we are fighting the last war. I lost my best friend in Vietnam, and now his son, who I also love and partly raised, is one of the terribly wounded casualties of Iraq who would be better off dead. I do not insult the memory of these men. I detest the politicians who wasted them.

Jody

Posted by Jody at February 16, 2004 05:39 AM

Hope I don't run for president.

I once spent six months in the Massachusetts national guard, attending five drills before illness caused me to change jobs and move out of state.

No one showed me where to sign up. So I was only credited with one drill, even though as a physician they could have pulled records and seen that I had done physical examinations during those "lost weekends".

But the REAL story is after I moved, I finally got paid: One hundred dollars. I was listed as a S3 instead of an 03.

The lieutenant got snippy and told me it was not a mistake, and threatened to get me for harassment when I lost my temper. I could never find her superior, and others in the staff said all I had to do to "correct" my record was to go up and talk in person to the guy in charge: An impossible thing for me to do, since I was 600 miles away, a single parent, and recovering from major surgery at the time.

So not only does Massachusetts National Guard owe me a thousand dollars, but if I run for president, I'll be considered AWOL just like Bush...

Posted by Nancy Reyes at February 16, 2004 01:23 PM

A lie, oft repeated, will become reality. Stalin knew this, and so does the DNC.

Posted by Silver at February 16, 2004 02:11 PM

Chris Pastel

Thank you for your excellent response. As I said, Bush's record didn't jibe with my own experiences, so I wanted to find out from other people who had "been there", because I know there can be big differences depending on what branch you were in, whether you were active or Reserve, and where you were stationed.

I also hope to be able to get some straight answers from other guys who were likewise on Swift boats in Vietnam in order to be able to evaluate what Kerry did.

Posted by VetCurm at February 16, 2004 03:21 PM

Dave Blalock:

Nah, teaching lefties about the military is like trying to teach nuerosurgery to Elmer J. Fudd. It just can't be done.

Posted by Richard Cook at February 16, 2004 03:33 PM

I don't know anything about Kerry's exploits in Vietnam. What I do remember from those days is that many people joined the Navy rather than be drafted because the Navy had far, far fewer people actually engaged in the war where people could shoot back. Navy air, Navy river boats, Navy SEALS, and Navy UDT were the big exceptions. I would like to know if Kerry volunteered for riverine operations or if he was just assigned there. Once there, he seemed to do okay, but I still wonder about his conduct after he left the war. I never could understand the VVAW folks.

Maybe one of these days we'll see a detailed chronolgy of Kerry's active duty days instead of only receiving snippets through the media. Then we can match his experience against ours and make our own judgments.

Posted by Chris Pastel at February 16, 2004 03:40 PM

Jody
"This war, like the Vietnam war, was not necessary. As always, we are fighting the last war. I lost my best friend in Vietnam, and now his son, who I also love and partly raised, is one of the terribly wounded casualties of Iraq who would be better off dead. I do not insult the memory of these men. I detest the politicians who wasted them"

Better off dead? Actually, if you could link a news story about this kid that might make a compelling story. The "Born on the Fourth of July" for a new generation, son of a deceased Vietnam hero that horribly wounded. John Kerry will definitely want to have this man on his stage, and I have no doubt Hollywood will come calling for this one, and though no amount of money will overcome that horrible a fate the considerable millions might make life better then it would be without it.

Posted by Oliver Stone at February 16, 2004 09:06 PM

Hey, Lewis, Ol' Sarge, you said
"Perhaps if LBJ got off his fat ass to do something similar, our troops' morale in Vietnam might not have been so low."

Maybe old age has affected your memory. LBJ went to Viet Nam to visit the troops, as VP in 1961, and as President in October, 1966, while I was there with the 173rd ABN BDE (SEP). [President Nixon visited in July, 1969.]

Like the rest of the Internet, this site contains a lot of unsubstantiated half-truths from both sides with too little reason and fair play. However, it certainly sounds like the deaf-and-blind right-wing wackos are in the lead, here.

Try this on for size:

In his new documentary, Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror, John Pilger demolishes the case for going to war against Iraq as it was put forward by George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The documentary includes videotape footage from 2001 of Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitting that Iraq wasn't a military threat and had not developed weapons of mass destruction since the first Gulf War a decade before.

I won't defend Clinton's or Bush's war records--or Bush's AWOL/desertion/dereliction of duty. And, I will note that John Allen Mohammed, the DC sniper, also received an honorable discharge after assualting an officer, stealing, and other less than honorable activities. The HD alone obviously doesn't mean much.

But I will put up John Kerry's three purple hearts, Bronze Star, and Silver Star against Bush's record any day. And I certainly know which one I'd rather have lead us in a war.

Airborne!
Warren

Posted by Warren at March 11, 2004 05:19 PM

Warren,
Another quote from John Pilger:

TONY JONES: Can you approve in that context the killing of American, British or Australian troops who are in the occupying forces?

JOHN PILGER: Well yes, they're legitimate targets. They're illegally occupying a country. And I would have thought from an Iraqi's point of view they are legitimate targets, they'd have to be, sure.

Thanks for sharing your interest in our national defense, Warren, but quoting traitors who advocate killing American and allied GI's here is a really bad idea, and following up with an endorsement of John Kerry is redundant.

You're out of your league.

Posted by Greyhawk at March 12, 2004 01:09 AM

From Feb. 15th, 2004 article.
It's Not the Economy, Stupid.

The Washington Post has the same non-story as every news site this weekend, but their headline - Many Gaps In Bush's Guard Records - draws lefty bloggers like flies to... well, to political campaigns, I suppose. .....................

Kos' summation is insightful into the Bushhate mindset:

But the damage is done. AWOL has taken a hit to his credibility. And we've got plenty more material for the press to work with.

Go ahead fellas, make my day.

Well, I suppose with the recent release (under court order I should add) of additional "misplaced" info about W's mil. record, I would hope you now understand that making opinionated and uneducated commentary as a knee jerk reaction is best suited to Neo-Cons, eh?

Posted by Cleanfellow at September 16, 2004 11:28 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(62) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)