Kerry as traitor, aiding the communists
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
minsue said:No, too many smart assed remarks in my own head involving you being spanked for being a pinko commie.
Oooh! Kinky! I like!
Ravishing
..lost in my reality
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2004
- Posts
- 1,684
minsue said:
I'm not going to pretend I've been following this, hell I'm not even American. But I agree with every statement made up there for a number of reasons that are in it and my own. Because as it's been said by Minsue, I'd do it if I were them, and I'd lived their life.
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Colleen Thomas said:
My dad would have thought your dad was a liberal, and possibly a socialist although we might not go as far as calling him a communist. My dad worried that Reagan was too moderate, and that Bush Sr. was leaning a little to the left. One of my regrets when he died was that he missed out on the Clinton impeachment.
I feel your pain.
But honest to God, Colly, I think even my dad - faced with a stack of evidence that says the country went to war because of a hoax - would want to see someone held accountable.
Forget about civilians; how many Americans have to die for a hoax before it becomes a deal-breaker issue to even Bush's supporters?
kellycummings
You suck
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Posts
- 2,000
shereads said:
I've have read in a few places where Bush supporters have been jumping ship over the whole Iraq thing. It's something he can't defend himself on, no matter how hard he tries. Like I said before, I'd respect him more if he would just admit his mistake.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
shereads said:My dad would have thought your dad was a liberal, and possibly a socialist although we might not go as far as calling him a communist. My dad worried that Reagan was too moderate, and that Bush Sr. was leaning a little to the left. One of my regrets when he died was that he missed out on the Clinton impeachment.
I feel your pain.
But honest to God, Colly, I think even my dad - faced with a stack of evidence that says the country went to war because of a hoax - would want to see someone held accountable.
Forget about civilians; how many Americans have to die for a hoax before it becomes a deal-breaker issue to even Bush's supporters?
Hunny,
I don't really know how to put it any blunter. He is the defacto republican candidate and if your pet issue is a republican issue he is geting your vote. The other option is to put the democrats back in power and it just aint happening if you can help it. It's really that simple.
Democrats didn't call for Bill's head and Republicans won't call for Bush's.
He may be a sonofabitch, but by god he's OUR sonofabitch. Consider it the warcry for the religious right, the NRA, and anyone else who's agenda is being advanced by the republicans controling the white house.
-Colly
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
kellycummings said:
Damnit, I'm not supposed to still be on here, but I just can't help myself. Your comment on admitting his mistake reminded me of yesterday's Doonesbury.
When I went to look for it I found today's which actually has some relevence to the original thread subject.
G'nite all.
- Mindy
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
kellycummings said:
He didn't make a mistake, kelly. In a Vanity Fair interview last year, Wolfowitz said the WMD was "the one reason we could all agree on" during internal discussions of how to position the war to the public.
The "golly, what happened" routine isn't working as well for Bush II as a mea culpa might work, but the goal has been achieved. We're there. Even if Bush loses the White House, the financial benefits to the corporations awarded rebuilding contracts won't be diminished. What's been torn down still has to be put back up, and if it isn't done by U.S. companies it will be done by subsidiaries.
It worked that way when there was a ban on doing business in Iraq. Cheney authorized it at Halliburton.
At a cost to taxpayers that can't even be accurately estimated yet, private interests are makiing a mint already. It's not a failed war. It was an investment that's paying off handsomely for the people who put this man in office.
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
minsue said:Damnit, I'm not supposed to still be on here, but I just can't help myself. Your comment on admitting his mistake reminded me of yesterday's Doonesbury.
When I went to look for it I found today's which actually has some relevence to the original thread subject.
G'nite all.
This is where I came in, Mindy. I became a fan of Doonesbury in the 1970s. Now it's deja vu all over again.
I never thought America would put itself through this again.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Bush's service records: The score card
Did the president walk out on the Texas Air National Guard 30 years ago? A guide through the morass of new evidence.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Feb. 13, 2004 _|_ Forty-five months after allegations first surfaced that President Bush failed to honor his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard, the story has returned with a vengeance. As aides release a trickle of selected documents in the White House's effort to persuade the public that Bush fulfilled his obligation, the story continues to fester and questions remain unanswered.
Some key facts have been established. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968 and began pilot training. From 1970 to 1972 he flew F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. In the spring of 1972 he left for Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of former postmaster general Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. But Bush never got proper authorization to train with an Alabama unit. That did not come until the fall of 1972 when he was assigned to Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala. After the 1972 election, Bush returned to Texas and reportedly served with the Houston unit, before his discharge proceeding began in the fall of 1973. But as the Boston Globe first reported in 2000, there was no proof in Bush's discharge papers that he had ever served in Alabama, or that he served from the spring of 1972 to the spring of 1973. During the summer of 1972 Bush also failed to take his required physical and was stripped of his flying status.
In the 2000 campaign, Bush's spokesman told the Associated Press that after a thorough search he could not find any documents in his military record to prove Bush ever showed up in Alabama. But this week, after Bush declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would "absolutely" release all of his records, and as the press and political scrutiny intensified, that all changed.
Here are some of the key elements and players in the complicated, still unfolding mystery and how they reflect on Bush's claims.
Jan. 6, 1973, dental record
Good news for Bush: Released Wednesday night, the signed document shows Bush was present at the Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala., on Jan. 6, 1973. It's the first definitive piece of evidence Bush showed up on the Alabama National Guard base. More important, if Bush was still in Alabama in January 1973, it helps explain why his commanders in Houston, when filling out his annual evaluation covering May 1972 to April 1973, wrote that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Records indicate Bush served only two days in Houston during that time.
Bad news for Bush: The dental record, which places Bush in Alabama in early 1973, completely contradicts statements from Bush's aides, particularly during the 2000 campaign, that immediately following the completion of the Blount campaign in November 1972, Bush returned to Houston. Moreover, the dental exam still does not prove Bush ever performed any paid duties while in Alabama, only that he went in for free dental care on one day.
Released payroll documents
Good news for Bush: They indicate Bush attended Guard duty while in Alabama and did not take a whole unbroken year off between May 1972 and May 1973. The records show Bush was credited with serving the Guard on 14 days during that crucial stretch.
Bad news for Bush: The records suggest that during a five-month period of that year Bush failed to show for any Guard duty. Worse, there are no corroborating records generated in Alabama to confirm the payroll documents. If Bush was in Alabama and getting paid, as the records indicate, a paper trail originating with his unit in Montgomery should confirm the dates highlighted in those documents. No such records have come to light.
Released retirement-point summaries
Good news for Bush: Like the payroll records, they lay out dates in 1972-73 when Bush was credited with Guard service, including dates he says he served in Alabama.
Bad news for Bush: The documents are not signed by Bush's commanders or anyone else, but are simply a computer-generated overview of points earned. Once again, there's no paperwork from Alabama corresponding to the dates listed.
Band of brothers
Have former Texas or Alabama National Guardsmen who served with Bush stepped forward to vouch for his service between 1972 and 1973?
Good news for Bush: None have done so.
Bad news for Bush: None have done so. In 2000, when the story first broke, a group of Alabama veterans offered a $3,500 reward to any guardsmen who could help confirm Bush's whereabouts. Nobody came to collect the money. This week, the conservative Washington Times published a letter from a member of Bush's Texas National Guard unit who insisted he served alongside Bush. Bad news: He served with Bush in 1970 and 1971. Nobody questions Bush's duty during those years. It's 1972 and 1973 that stand at the center of the controversy.
Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed
Turnipseed was the commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, the National Guard unit in Montgomery that Bush was ordered to report to in the fall of 1972. In 2000, the retired officer told the Boston Globe he was "dead certain" Bush never showed up for duty.
Good news for Bush: Turnipseed's story has been changing in recent weeks, and with each subsequent media interview he seems to cut Bush more slack, even suggesting he doesn't remember whether he himself was at the base during the time in question. This week Turnipseed told the Birmingham News that Bush was under no obligation to serve in Montgomery as long as he made up the time later. "I'm fed up," he added. "People want me to give them something to bash Bush."
Bad news for Bush: Turnipseed has identified himself as a Republican and says he intends to vote for Bush in 2004, which may raise suspicions about his motivations for changing his story. Further, Turnipseed still cannot identify Bush as being present. And he's not the only officer who can't remember seeing Bush. Back in 2000, the Boston Globe reported that Turnipseed's administrative officer at the time, Kenneth Lott, also did not recall Bush showing up for duty. To date, Lott's recollection has not changed. Even if Bush did show up for duty in Montgomery in October 1972, as the documents suggest, there is still no explanation for his five-month absence from April to October 1972.
Albert Lloyd Jr.
Lloyd is the retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel director from 1969 to 1995. In 2000 he helped the Bush campaign locate and interpret relevant military documents.
Good news for Bush: Lloyd issued a statement that was released in conjunction with the payroll document on Monday declaring that Bush had "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."
Bad news for Bush: In 2000, Lloyd told the Boston Globe he admired Bush and believed he ''honestly served his country and fulfilled his commitment.'' But this week Lloyd told the Washington Post he wasn't sure if he'd vote for Bush. ""I'm not happy with him," he said.
Bush's suspension from flying
In July of 1972 Bush, a fully trained pilot, failed to take his required annual physical and was subsequently suspended from flying.
Good news for Bush: None. White House chief of communications Dan Bartlett says Bush didn't have to take a physical because, since he was temporarily transferring to Alabama to work on the Blount campaign, he was no longer flying.
Bad news for Bush: As a rule, military pilots don't take it upon themselves to decide when they're going to stop flying, or whether they want to take a required annual physical. "There is no excuse for that," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file.
But those sorts of documents are considered private under provisions of the Privacy Act, and Bush would have to authorize their release. To date, the White House has refused to do so. Aside from the lone Alabama dental record, the White House has also refused to release Bush's military medical records.
(SR notes: the president's medical records are private; according to the Justice Department, yours are not, if you're a woman who has had an abortion.)
Statement of Intent, signed when Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard
Good news for Bush: None.
Bad news for Bush: In 1968 he pledged, "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit." Instead, 22 months after the government spent nearly $1 million training him to be a pilot, Bush simply walked away from his aviating career, never flying after April 1972.
Future release of documents
Good news for Bush: He promised to release all materials, but his White House is stonewalling and refusing to allow more than a handful out. So far, nothing damaging has been released.
Bad news for Bush: Undoubtedly there are more documents.
Did the president walk out on the Texas Air National Guard 30 years ago? A guide through the morass of new evidence.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Feb. 13, 2004 _|_ Forty-five months after allegations first surfaced that President Bush failed to honor his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard, the story has returned with a vengeance. As aides release a trickle of selected documents in the White House's effort to persuade the public that Bush fulfilled his obligation, the story continues to fester and questions remain unanswered.
Some key facts have been established. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968 and began pilot training. From 1970 to 1972 he flew F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. In the spring of 1972 he left for Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of former postmaster general Winton Blount, a friend of Bush's father. But Bush never got proper authorization to train with an Alabama unit. That did not come until the fall of 1972 when he was assigned to Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala. After the 1972 election, Bush returned to Texas and reportedly served with the Houston unit, before his discharge proceeding began in the fall of 1973. But as the Boston Globe first reported in 2000, there was no proof in Bush's discharge papers that he had ever served in Alabama, or that he served from the spring of 1972 to the spring of 1973. During the summer of 1972 Bush also failed to take his required physical and was stripped of his flying status.
In the 2000 campaign, Bush's spokesman told the Associated Press that after a thorough search he could not find any documents in his military record to prove Bush ever showed up in Alabama. But this week, after Bush declared on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would "absolutely" release all of his records, and as the press and political scrutiny intensified, that all changed.
Here are some of the key elements and players in the complicated, still unfolding mystery and how they reflect on Bush's claims.
Jan. 6, 1973, dental record
Good news for Bush: Released Wednesday night, the signed document shows Bush was present at the Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, Ala., on Jan. 6, 1973. It's the first definitive piece of evidence Bush showed up on the Alabama National Guard base. More important, if Bush was still in Alabama in January 1973, it helps explain why his commanders in Houston, when filling out his annual evaluation covering May 1972 to April 1973, wrote that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report." Records indicate Bush served only two days in Houston during that time.
Bad news for Bush: The dental record, which places Bush in Alabama in early 1973, completely contradicts statements from Bush's aides, particularly during the 2000 campaign, that immediately following the completion of the Blount campaign in November 1972, Bush returned to Houston. Moreover, the dental exam still does not prove Bush ever performed any paid duties while in Alabama, only that he went in for free dental care on one day.
Released payroll documents
Good news for Bush: They indicate Bush attended Guard duty while in Alabama and did not take a whole unbroken year off between May 1972 and May 1973. The records show Bush was credited with serving the Guard on 14 days during that crucial stretch.
Bad news for Bush: The records suggest that during a five-month period of that year Bush failed to show for any Guard duty. Worse, there are no corroborating records generated in Alabama to confirm the payroll documents. If Bush was in Alabama and getting paid, as the records indicate, a paper trail originating with his unit in Montgomery should confirm the dates highlighted in those documents. No such records have come to light.
Released retirement-point summaries
Good news for Bush: Like the payroll records, they lay out dates in 1972-73 when Bush was credited with Guard service, including dates he says he served in Alabama.
Bad news for Bush: The documents are not signed by Bush's commanders or anyone else, but are simply a computer-generated overview of points earned. Once again, there's no paperwork from Alabama corresponding to the dates listed.
Band of brothers
Have former Texas or Alabama National Guardsmen who served with Bush stepped forward to vouch for his service between 1972 and 1973?
Good news for Bush: None have done so.
Bad news for Bush: None have done so. In 2000, when the story first broke, a group of Alabama veterans offered a $3,500 reward to any guardsmen who could help confirm Bush's whereabouts. Nobody came to collect the money. This week, the conservative Washington Times published a letter from a member of Bush's Texas National Guard unit who insisted he served alongside Bush. Bad news: He served with Bush in 1970 and 1971. Nobody questions Bush's duty during those years. It's 1972 and 1973 that stand at the center of the controversy.
Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed
Turnipseed was the commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, the National Guard unit in Montgomery that Bush was ordered to report to in the fall of 1972. In 2000, the retired officer told the Boston Globe he was "dead certain" Bush never showed up for duty.
Good news for Bush: Turnipseed's story has been changing in recent weeks, and with each subsequent media interview he seems to cut Bush more slack, even suggesting he doesn't remember whether he himself was at the base during the time in question. This week Turnipseed told the Birmingham News that Bush was under no obligation to serve in Montgomery as long as he made up the time later. "I'm fed up," he added. "People want me to give them something to bash Bush."
Bad news for Bush: Turnipseed has identified himself as a Republican and says he intends to vote for Bush in 2004, which may raise suspicions about his motivations for changing his story. Further, Turnipseed still cannot identify Bush as being present. And he's not the only officer who can't remember seeing Bush. Back in 2000, the Boston Globe reported that Turnipseed's administrative officer at the time, Kenneth Lott, also did not recall Bush showing up for duty. To date, Lott's recollection has not changed. Even if Bush did show up for duty in Montgomery in October 1972, as the documents suggest, there is still no explanation for his five-month absence from April to October 1972.
Albert Lloyd Jr.
Lloyd is the retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel director from 1969 to 1995. In 2000 he helped the Bush campaign locate and interpret relevant military documents.
Good news for Bush: Lloyd issued a statement that was released in conjunction with the payroll document on Monday declaring that Bush had "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."
Bad news for Bush: In 2000, Lloyd told the Boston Globe he admired Bush and believed he ''honestly served his country and fulfilled his commitment.'' But this week Lloyd told the Washington Post he wasn't sure if he'd vote for Bush. ""I'm not happy with him," he said.
Bush's suspension from flying
In July of 1972 Bush, a fully trained pilot, failed to take his required annual physical and was subsequently suspended from flying.
Good news for Bush: None. White House chief of communications Dan Bartlett says Bush didn't have to take a physical because, since he was temporarily transferring to Alabama to work on the Blount campaign, he was no longer flying.
Bad news for Bush: As a rule, military pilots don't take it upon themselves to decide when they're going to stop flying, or whether they want to take a required annual physical. "There is no excuse for that," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver Jr. told the Boston Globe. He's the former director of the Air National Guard. "Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals." By failing to take a physical and thereby losing his flying status, Bush should have been subject to a disciplinary review, copies of which would be contained in Bush's military file.
But those sorts of documents are considered private under provisions of the Privacy Act, and Bush would have to authorize their release. To date, the White House has refused to do so. Aside from the lone Alabama dental record, the White House has also refused to release Bush's military medical records.
(SR notes: the president's medical records are private; according to the Justice Department, yours are not, if you're a woman who has had an abortion.)
Statement of Intent, signed when Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard
Good news for Bush: None.
Bad news for Bush: In 1968 he pledged, "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit." Instead, 22 months after the government spent nearly $1 million training him to be a pilot, Bush simply walked away from his aviating career, never flying after April 1972.
Future release of documents
Good news for Bush: He promised to release all materials, but his White House is stonewalling and refusing to allow more than a handful out. So far, nothing damaging has been released.
Bad news for Bush: Undoubtedly there are more documents.
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
The electorial college and the popular vote have agreed in all but two cases in the past 100 years.The_Darkness said:
Some would disagree with me, but Bush was actually elected by one vote - in the U.S. Supreme Court, which ignored over a century of precident.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
shereads said:
Joining the Air National Guard was NOT a way to avoid Vietnam any more than joining the Coast Guard would have been -- both "home guard" forces served in Vietnam; specifically, air defense fighter units, like that GWB was assigned to, stood alert at DaNang and other bases in 90 day rotations.
Those ANG pilots who didn't serve a rotation in Vietnam were still an important part of the nations Air Defense forces -- some even armed with the "Genie" Nuclear Air-to-Air Rocket.
John Kerry is one of a small minority of Vietnam Vets who actively opposd the war -- as was their right to do so. As vietnam Vet myself, I don't have any problem with his opposition to the war. I DO have a problem with how he went about opposing the war and who he chose to associate with.
His public comments are a matter of public record and to my mind were both slanderous towards the average Vietnam Veteran and would have justified a charge of treason had we ever bothered to declare war.
His public conduct in opposition to the "war" did give "aid and comfort to the enemy," IMHO, and are NOT the kind of conduct I want from my commander-in-chief.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
The missing ref for Sher's posting of Boehlert's story of the Guard service of GWB
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/13/bush_update/index_np.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/13/bush_update/index_np.html
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Is this speech, in the midst of a war, traitorous.?"
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/vietnam/vets_against.txt
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement
by John Kerry
to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
April 23, 1971
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veteranstestified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with thefull awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to humangenitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging whichis done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. Theterm Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens his country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committingthat threaten it, that we have to speak out....
In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one Americanlife in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to takeup the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn't even know the difference between ommunism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.
They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force waspresent at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese orAmerican.
We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorialregime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided ideaof who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties.
We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by Americanbombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame allof the havoc on the Viet Cong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
....We are here in Washingtonto say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions
and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.
[...]
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where arethe leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others?Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, havereturned?
These are the commanders who have deserted their troops.And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.... [end excerpts amounting to about 2/3]
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/vietnam/vets_against.txt
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement
by John Kerry
to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations
April 23, 1971
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veteranstestified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with thefull awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to humangenitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging whichis done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. Theterm Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriots and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens his country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committingthat threaten it, that we have to speak out....
In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one Americanlife in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to takeup the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn't even know the difference between ommunism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.
They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force waspresent at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese orAmerican.
We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorialregime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided ideaof who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties.
We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by Americanbombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame allof the havoc on the Viet Cong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
....We are here in Washingtonto say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions
and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.
[...]
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where arethe leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others?Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, havereturned?
These are the commanders who have deserted their troops.And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country.... [end excerpts amounting to about 2/3]
Last edited:
The_Darkness
Ascending Demon
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2003
- Posts
- 6,787
If this article is what the big problem is all about with Kerry, I'm not moving back to Iowa: I'm moving to Ireland.
He illustrated nearly everything that was wrong with that war. He blatently put it down and said "here it is, this is what we did, and this is why we were wrong."
I could debate Veitnam all day. I went round and round with some of my teachers about it and they ultimately concluded that I was right for nearly everything I said.
People change in times of war. Sometimes they turn into blood thirsty killing machines (a couple of my cousins did that) and the rest of them return home and try to act as normal as possible, but they are forever changed in ways that we civilians can't possibly imagine. I have one friend who's dad "Baked Cookies" for the entirity of his stay in Veitnam. Right. This man never has his back to a door and can't stand to watch movies with gunfire and explosions. That's just what she's told me, I'm sure there's more there....
The simple fact is that SOME vets did go way over the edge and SOME vets did start doing horrible horrible things that are, in fact, war crimes. The simple fact that Kerry is being chastized for bringng that information to light turns my fuckin' stomach.
The question of whether or not it's right to do so in a time of war? IS there a wrong time to publicly speak out against war crimes? A wrong time?
If this becomes an issue I will become undeniably pissed off.
He illustrated nearly everything that was wrong with that war. He blatently put it down and said "here it is, this is what we did, and this is why we were wrong."
I could debate Veitnam all day. I went round and round with some of my teachers about it and they ultimately concluded that I was right for nearly everything I said.
People change in times of war. Sometimes they turn into blood thirsty killing machines (a couple of my cousins did that) and the rest of them return home and try to act as normal as possible, but they are forever changed in ways that we civilians can't possibly imagine. I have one friend who's dad "Baked Cookies" for the entirity of his stay in Veitnam. Right. This man never has his back to a door and can't stand to watch movies with gunfire and explosions. That's just what she's told me, I'm sure there's more there....
The simple fact is that SOME vets did go way over the edge and SOME vets did start doing horrible horrible things that are, in fact, war crimes. The simple fact that Kerry is being chastized for bringng that information to light turns my fuckin' stomach.
The question of whether or not it's right to do so in a time of war? IS there a wrong time to publicly speak out against war crimes? A wrong time?
If this becomes an issue I will become undeniably pissed off.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Weird Harold said:
Actually Wh, your sentiments echo those of most of the vets I know. It has alot more to do with how he went about it than hispersonal choice to be opposed to the war.
-Colly
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Weird H said, in part, about Kerry,
His public comments are a matter of public record and to my mind were both slanderous towards the average Vietnam Veteran and would have justified a charge of treason had we ever bothered to declare war.
His public conduct in opposition to the "war" did give "aid and comfort to the enemy," IMHO, and are NOT the kind of conduct I want from my commander-in-chief.
A simple question: Would you call the Kerry speech i reproduced here, today (above), traitorous, or 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy'?
Has anti-war speech taking place in the US, in and of itself ever been been previously classified, by the US gov. as 'giving aid and comfort'? and/or prosecuted as a crime?
It seems you take 'aid and comfort' in psychological sense, unless I misread you: If I (hypothetically), a veteran, say (once I've arrived back home), "our military and political leaders are totally fucking up," then this hypothetical enemy hears it and says
"Gee, I'm pleased to hear of that sort of thing, it shows the US gov is weakening its resolve." In that sense he's 'comforted'.
Would you consider the US Senators that ended up speaking against the war (during it) traitors? Should they have been arrested for giving 'aid and comfort'. (After all, voting for withdrawal may be a pretty big comfort, if the enemy wins).
Indeed all the posters to this board who want withdrawal from Iraq, and say it publicly--especially those who've served in Iraq-- would then be 'giving aid and comfort' and justly subject to arrest.
His public comments are a matter of public record and to my mind were both slanderous towards the average Vietnam Veteran and would have justified a charge of treason had we ever bothered to declare war.
His public conduct in opposition to the "war" did give "aid and comfort to the enemy," IMHO, and are NOT the kind of conduct I want from my commander-in-chief.
A simple question: Would you call the Kerry speech i reproduced here, today (above), traitorous, or 'giving aid and comfort' to the enemy'?
Has anti-war speech taking place in the US, in and of itself ever been been previously classified, by the US gov. as 'giving aid and comfort'? and/or prosecuted as a crime?
It seems you take 'aid and comfort' in psychological sense, unless I misread you: If I (hypothetically), a veteran, say (once I've arrived back home), "our military and political leaders are totally fucking up," then this hypothetical enemy hears it and says
"Gee, I'm pleased to hear of that sort of thing, it shows the US gov is weakening its resolve." In that sense he's 'comforted'.
Would you consider the US Senators that ended up speaking against the war (during it) traitors? Should they have been arrested for giving 'aid and comfort'. (After all, voting for withdrawal may be a pretty big comfort, if the enemy wins).
Indeed all the posters to this board who want withdrawal from Iraq, and say it publicly--especially those who've served in Iraq-- would then be 'giving aid and comfort' and justly subject to arrest.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Defense of George W Bush: Risking his life over Houston, he was preparing to deal with incoming threats over the Canadian subarctic
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
Bush and I were lieutenants'
by William Compenni
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
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm
Bush and I were lieutenants'
by William Compenni
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
Dirt Man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 800
Who'd of thought this would get into a "MY-DICK-IS-BIGGER-THAN-YOUR-DICK," kinda thing. Any person who serves their country in the armed forces should be given the respect that is due them no matter what their rank, occupation, or area of duty is involved. These people make it possible for the rest of their comtry to sleep peacefully every night because they are the vanguard, and custodians of our security. Nothing gets done in the military without the paper work gets done first. And in triplicate. Do these warriors that push paper deserve any less respect than those who actually see battle? Absolutely not. For lack of a nail, the war was lost, remember. The valor is in the knowing that these people have sacrificed themselves to be of service to their country. Not how they fullfilled that service, nor that their nail was any more important than the other persons in defeating enemies. The armed forces is all about teamwork, not superstars.
As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man
As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man
Similar threads
