"Bush and I were lieutenants" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

archer2371 · 02-11-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Letters to the Editor

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
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

I trust this guy more than I trust any of the people making the baseless comments about Bush's National Guard record. He's got nothing to gain from it, isn't a real close friend of Bush's, just an acquaintance, and he sounds like a stand-up guy. My dad (who served in the USAF as well) pretty much confirmed the stuff that Col. Campenni stated in here, like the over staffing, National Guard policies on employment conflicts and the like. So, is this and the documents that were released confirm that the President did indeed serve his country? Or is there some doubt still left?

nanofever · 02-11-2004, 05:50 PM

Gee, what reason could I possibly have to not believe this guy ?

Oh yeah, Campenni slanders another canidate while trying to defend Bush's credit. Campenni has an obvious massive Bush bias from his writings and thus I wouldn't trust anything he says without corrobration.

jcookc6 · 02-11-2004, 08:22 PM

You will notice that there are no replies to this from the liberals in this forum. You know the ones that Hate Bush no matter what, and think your daddy can buy a MBA from Harvard B school.

Superbelt · 02-11-2004, 08:43 PM

Oops, someone is lying to us.

Mr Campenni was lying when he writes in the title article that he served with Mr. Bush.

Quote:

Relevant bit:

One of those on-guard outfits was the Pennsylvania Air National Guard's 146th Fighter Squadron, an air defense unit based at Pittsburgh International Airport.

Just out of graduate school, Campenni was a 32-year-old captain in the 146th, flying the F-102 Delta Dagger, the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor, and "sitting alert" on Nov. 11, 1972.

How did he manage to know what Bush was doing in the Texas Air National Guard or Alabama when he was stationed in Pittsburgh at the time?

You may want to invest in one of these:

Arsenic7 · 02-11-2004, 09:31 PM

It's hard to say who is right or wrong when it comes to Bush's military record. I imagine only a select few know what he was like back then for sure. It's doubtful they'd slander him now.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 04:28 AM

Additionally, I believe the account that I posted tells us that Campenni was in grad school from '71-72 Which is the disputed period in Bush's service record and that makes him incapable of providing an account for where Bush was.

Now, there is no reason for the article I posted to be lying about Mr Campenni, as Bill was not involved in anything political up until he wrote the leter defending Bush, this month. My article was written in December.

onetime2 · 02-12-2004, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Additionally, I believe the account that I posted tells us that Campenni was in grad school from '71-72 Which is the disputed period in Bush's service record and that makes him incapable of providing an account for where Bush was.

Now, there is no reason for the article I posted to be lying about Mr Campenni, as Bill was not involved in anything political up until he wrote the leter defending Bush, this month. My article was written in December.

Guard service is part time. People hold other jobs, go to school, etc while also members of the Guard.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 05:05 AM

Perhaps you would like to email him and see where he went to Grad school. (To see if he was in Texas)
william.campenni@verizon.net

It's legit: http://www.vnga.org/exec_council/pastpres.htm

onetime2 · 02-12-2004, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Perhaps you would like to email him and see where he went to Grad school. (To see if he was in Texas)
william.campenni@verizon.net

It's legit: http://www.vnga.org/exec_council/pastpres.htm

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Could he not go home for a weekend while at grad school to perform Guard duties? Or schedule two weeks away to fulfill his other commitment to Guard duty? Or be temporarily assigned to another Guard unit?

Further, "Just out of grad school" isn't very specific. Was he out for days, weeks, months, years? Did he go to grad school full time? What?

It seems no matter what is brought forward, those who want to believe Bush was AWOL will discredit the source.

I just read in a New Jersey paper yesterday an article which quotes Joe Lefevers, a member of the 187th in 1972 who said he remembers seeing Bush in unit offices and being told that Bush was in Montgomery to work on Blount's campaign. "I was going in the orderly room over there one day, and they said, "This is Lt. Bush," Lefevers said yesterday. "they pointed him out to me...The reason I remember it is because I associate him with Red Blount."

I couldn't find a link to this article but I still have the article here in front of me. It was in the Star Ledger and the story comes from the Birmingham News and it was written by Mary Orndorff and Brett J. Blackledge.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 05:50 AM

I'll admit it is possible, though I distrust it. He would have had to go to grad school somewhere close to the TANG. And I find it unlikely that he would go from TANG to the Pitt NG.
His abhorence for all things liberal dramatically reduces his cred with me. (Though some of his hate is misplaced as it was Nixon, not Johnson who was president from 1970-1971.) It shows he has an agenda and people with an agenda and serious hatred for a group of people tend to be willing to lie.

Quote:

ex:
"While our wonderful freedoms, won and protected by the military that liberals (a.k.a. Democrats) ... abhor ..."
-"William Campenni, letter in The Observer (Britain)

Bookman · 02-12-2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jcookc6
You will notice that there are no replies to this from the liberals in this forum. You know the ones that Hate Bush no matter what, and think your daddy can buy a MBA from Harvard B school.

This lil' testimony looks and smells like BS.
There has to be OFFICIAL PROOF. When has some testimony like this meant anything when dealing with a serious matter?

Point taken: you jab about liberals and waiting for there response.

Counterpoint made: I guess you must be conservative but lets take that out of the equation and talk about you....Why do you believe everything you read and hear?

onetime2 · 02-12-2004, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
I'll admit it is possible, though I distrust it. He would have had to go to grad school somewhere close to the TANG. And I find it unlikely that he would go from TANG to the Pitt NG.
His abhorence for all things liberal dramatically reduces his cred with me. (Though some of his hate is misplaced as it was Nixon, not Johnson who was president from 1970-1971.) It shows he has an agenda and people with an agenda and serious hatred for a group of people tend to be willing to lie.

I'm not saying I fully trust him but for the theories being thrown about around Bush's alleged AWOL to be true a hell of a lot of "ifs" need to fall the right (or wrong, if you're Bush) way.

IMO it seems to be a huge stretch at this point. I mean there are pay stubs that show he was paid for attending drills (obviously something had to trigger this pay). A dental exam was just released today from a place in Alabama showing he was there in January of '73. The people being quoted as saying they don't remember him being there either admit they could have forgotten since it was 30 years ago, or say there were >800 members of the unit so they couldn't possibly remember everyone. The fact that he missed a medical exam isn't uncommon. It happens all the time, whether regular military, reserves, or the guard.

Peetster · 02-12-2004, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jcookc6
You will notice that there are no replies to this from the liberals in this forum. You know the ones that Hate Bush no matter what, and think your daddy can buy a MBA from Harvard B school.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman
I guess you must be conservative but lets take that out of the equation and talk about you....Why do you believe everything you read and hear?

Please try to keep the focus of your comments on topic, and not attempt to divert it to a personal attack.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

The fact that he missed a medical exam isn't uncommon. It happens all the time, whether regular military, reserves, or the guard.

Not when the government spent 1 million dollars to train you how to fly, and THEN you miss a reqired, scheduled physical.
Missing physicals isn't that much to get worked up about, if you make them up. But there isn't any evidence that Bush ever took steps to get a make-up physical to get flying again. THAT is why it is a big deal.
He was grounded for the rest of his service. An expensive pilot just sitting around? Nah. Doesn't add up. The NG would have been very eager to either discipline him for that and/or get him certified to fly again.

jcookc6 · 02-12-2004, 07:42 AM

He was getting discharged because the plane he qualified on was being phased out.They were not going to waste a lot of money on someone who was due to be discharged.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 07:44 AM

This was about a year before he was discharged. (At the time of the physical the NG was working under the assumption that they would have him for 2 more years. He requested an early dicharge about a year after this physical would have taken place.) He was scheduled to take an annual physical to stay available to fly. Therefore, they WERE prepared to "waste a lot more money" to keep him flight-worthy.
The plane was being phased out but was still operational.

jcookc6 · 02-12-2004, 07:46 AM

This should not be an issue, I don't think it is Kerry who brought it up. He tried to get an exemption so that he could go to Paris and study. Like Clinton went to England. It was either join or get drafted into the army. He chose to join the Navy, and the only reason he was on the Swift Boats, was to be like his hero J F Kennedy who was on a PT boat.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 07:47 AM

You're right, this shouldn't be an issue. Bush should just release all his military records, like all presidential candidates before him, and we can move on to more important things.

onetime2 · 02-12-2004, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Not when the government spent 1 million dollars to train you how to fly, and THEN you miss a reqired, scheduled physical.
Missing physicals isn't that much to get worked up about, if you make them up. But there isn't any evidence that Bush ever took steps to get a make-up physical to get flying again. THAT is why it is a big deal.
He was grounded for the rest of his service. An expensive pilot just sitting around? Nah. Doesn't add up. The NG would have been very eager to either discipline him for that and/or get him certified to fly again.

I call bull. The reason it's a big deal is because you and others don't like him. As pointed out, his plane was being phased out and there was an excess of pilots available. To make him capable of flying another plane it would have taken more than 6 months of training.

Phaenx · 02-12-2004, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman
This lil' testimony looks and smells like BS.
There has to be OFFICIAL PROOF. When has some testimony like this meant anything when dealing with a serious matter?

Point taken: you jab about liberals and waiting for there response.

Counterpoint made: I guess you must be conservative but lets take that out of the equation and talk about you....Why do you believe everything you read and hear?

Guess the claim Bush was AWOL means nothing as well, since there's no "official proof." Mostly because he wasn't. You can take a look at his honorable discharge papers though.

Bookman · 02-12-2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Guess the claim Bush was AWOL means nothing as well, since there's no "official proof." Mostly because he wasn't. You can take a look at his honorable discharge papers though.

There is a bit of a flaw in your logic.
There needs to be Proof that disproves the accusation not proof that the accusation is valid.
Furthermore, this all seems similar to everything else about GWB. It is not personal..liberal, conservative..FULL of SH*T is what I call all of 'em.

The REAl isssue here relates to the USS Lincoln landing and using his "MILITARY" background as a method/tool of gaining support politically, which makes Kerry's use of this issue (GWB's AWOL-no service at all) a non-red flag. The claim/accusation should be dealt with then let rest.

All claims and response are speculation and further disclosure and investigation will end this dilemna.

Booky

onetime2 · 02-12-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman
There is a bit of a flaw in your logic.
There needs to be Proof that disproves the accusation not proof that the accusation is valid.
Booky

Hmmm, sounds remarkably like guilty until proven innocent.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I call bull. The reason it's a big deal is because you and others don't like him. As pointed out, his plane was being phased out and there was an excess of pilots available. To make him capable of flying another plane it would have taken more than 6 months of training.

Those planes were obsolete and planned to be phased out before Bush even joined the ANG. Yet they thought it worthwhile to train Bush to fly one. And then decide to just let his flight credentials lapse, no harm no foul, after only 2 years?
Nah.
He was getting a physical for a reason, aside from just being an annual checkup, and that was to ensure he was physically fit to keep flying. He didn't make the checkup, didn't schedule a followup and was going to be just an expensive grounded pilot for the next two scheduled years of his service. He requested the early discharge much later.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 08:29 AM

It's a fairly long article, go to the link to get the rest. I'm providing what I think are relevant bits.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...spurred_probe/

Quote:

President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.

Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.
...
For military aviators, the annual flight physical is a line they must cross to retain coveted flying status. Flight surgeons who conduct the examinations have the power to remove pilots from flying duty.
...
Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.

So, they scheduled him for a flight physical with 30 months left to his commitment. You don't schedule someone to a flight physical unless you fully intend to keep said person flying.

onetime2 · 02-12-2004, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
It's a fairly long article, go to the link to get the rest. I'm providing what I think are relevant bits.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...spurred_probe/

So, they scheduled him for a flight physical with 30 months left to his commitment. You don't schedule someone to a flight physical unless you fully intend to keep said person flying.

SOP is to have an annual flight physical, even if they are in desk jobs. Not getting a physical keeps them from flying it does not keep them from doing other jobs that they are assigned to.

Interesting that the tack has now changed from AWOL to "he didn't get a flight physical".

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 08:46 AM

No, we haven't dropped the AWOL (and possible desertion) charge. It's just all these subjects are complicated to discuss, let alone all at once.
Gotta focus on one thing at a time.

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 08:49 AM

Ok simply, this is the way I see it:
Noone with any competence assigns someone to do a task that costs an amazing amount of money for training, and then willingly pulls them from that project when less than half of your commitment has been completed.

Phaenx · 02-12-2004, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bookman
There is a bit of a flaw in your logic.
There needs to be Proof that disproves the accusation not proof that the accusation is valid.
Furthermore, this all seems similar to everything else about GWB. It is not personal..liberal, conservative..FULL of SH*T is what I call all of 'em.

The REAl isssue here relates to the USS Lincoln landing and using his "MILITARY" background as a method/tool of gaining support politically, which makes Kerry's use of this issue (GWB's AWOL-no service at all) a non-red flag. The claim/accusation should be dealt with then let rest.

All claims and response are speculation and further disclosure and investigation will end this dilemna.

Booky

No there doesn't. That's about as nonsensical as if I were to say to you "Hey, I think you're a child pornographer, prove otherwise, bye."

Rediculous. If you're going to accuse someone of something you'd better have some proof. Like broken U.N. resolutions.

Bookman · 02-12-2004, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
No there doesn't. That's about as nonsensical as if I were to say to you "Hey, I think you're a child pornographer, prove otherwise, bye."

Rediculous. If you're going to accuse someone of something you'd better have some proof. Like broken U.N. resolutions.

C'mon man, the only proof is lack of dis-proof or however you want to term it.
All this debate about training someone and missing physicals is really peripheral.
How can we end this?
What the white house has given is not enough.

Mehoni · 02-12-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
No there doesn't. That's about as nonsensical as if I were to say to you "Hey, I think you're a child pornographer, prove otherwise, bye."

"Hey, I think you have WMD, prove otherwise, bye"

SLM3 · 02-12-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
"Hey, I think you have WMD, prove otherwise, bye"

You beat me to it.

SLM3

Pacifier · 02-12-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
"Hey, I think you have WMD, prove otherwise, bye"

jep, exactly my first thought, too

Bookman · 02-12-2004, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mehoni
"Hey, I think you have WMD, prove otherwise, bye"

They did didnt they...they let the inspectors in (they were already there but you get the drift).

Superbelt · 02-12-2004, 04:03 PM

Ok how about this William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the unit that Bush had transferred to said he never saw Bush.

And these two guys who would have served with him there, say they never saw him once

Tophat665 · 02-12-2004, 05:45 PM

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Hussien has produced this kind of proof that he lacked WMDs, would we have invaded? Of course we would have. We did. So did he.

Look, if you belive GW is an honorable man, that's cool - I think you're being played for a sucker, but it's your opinion and your right - and no amount of proof is likely to convince you otherwise. If, on the other hand, you think he is a congenitally moronic pathologically lying amoral bastard who has surrounded himself with evil men who tell him exactly what to do at all times, like I do, then no amount of proof otherwise is going to make a difference.

So, you gotta ask yourself, do you trust the man, and, if so, why. If you can answer that to your own satisfaction, well, I can't convince you otherwise. If you can't, then look around. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the man will not tell the truth when a lie will serve as well.

(Superbelt - love the reasoned arguments. Also, that's a great new avatar and status.)

Sparhawk · 02-12-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tophat665
(Superbelt - love the reasoned arguments. Also, that's a great new avatar and status.)

I agree (on both counts)!

onetime2 · 02-13-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Ok how about this William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the unit that Bush had transferred to said he never saw Bush.

And these two guys who would have served with him there, say they never saw him once

That's proof? I'd hate for you to be the judge if I should ever be on trial.

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 06:57 AM

Thanks guys, I've been searching for a while now for a suitable avatar. I have one I use everywhere else I go that is small enough, but it is a little bit too big of a file size for here

It's an animated gif.

Eh.

onetime2:
It's not proof, it's just a little bit more evidence against Bush. It's no more objective than Mr. Campinni was, but the retired general actually DID command in Alabama. So he has that going for him.
Anyway, just another reason Bush needs to stop dicking us around with a dental record here or there and just release everything, unedited.

Ustwo · 02-13-2004, 07:42 AM

So what WOULD it take to prove to the left that this rather obvious non-issue is a non-issue. Oh wait I know, Bush not getting relected, until then expect more lies.

onetime2 · 02-13-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

onetime2:
It's not proof, it's just a little bit more evidence against Bush. It's no more objective than Mr. Campinni was, but the retired general actually DID command in Alabama. So he has that going for him.
Anyway, just another reason Bush needs to stop dicking us around with a dental record here or there and just release everything, unedited.

Sorry but Turnispeed has said that he may have forgotten about it since it was 30 years ago. Even in this Washington Post article he says " he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time". Yep wonderful evidence. Nothing like reporting only pieces of the statements made by "witnesses".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

And another one where he says "I don't think he did, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.."

http://users5.cgiforme.com/captainko...ages/1990.html

And still another:

http://www.timecanada.com/printstory.adp?storyid=2

Bush was told to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. “Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,” Turnipseed told the Boston Globe four years ago. “If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.” But by last week Turnipseed’s memory had grown cloudy. “I did say in 2000 that I didn’t remember seeing him,” Turnipseed, now 75, told Time. “But after I said that, I backed up and realized I didn’t even remember if I was on the base in 1972 or not.” Turnipseed said he was so busy checking out new airplanes outside Alabama and training, “I couldn’t even follow football.” He also noted that he voted for Bush in 2000 and plans to vote for the President again this year.

Now I suspect the tack will go toward the fact that he's a Bush supporter and is just covering up for him. Ahh well, such is the world of politics.

02-11-2004, 05:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	Gee, what reason could I possibly have to not believe this guy ? Oh yeah, Campenni slanders another canidate while trying to defend Bush's credit. Campenni has an obvious massive Bush bias from his writings and thus I wouldn't trust anything he says without corrobration. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

02-11-2004, 09:31 PM	#5 (permalink)
Arsenic7 Insane Location: Corvallis, OR.	It's hard to say who is right or wrong when it comes to Bush's military record. I imagine only a select few know what he was like back then for sure. It's doubtful they'd slander him now. __________________ This is no sig.

02-12-2004, 07:44 AM	#16 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This was about a year before he was discharged. (At the time of the physical the NG was working under the assumption that they would have him for 2 more years. He requested an early dicharge about a year after this physical would have taken place.) He was scheduled to take an annual physical to stay available to fly. Therefore, they WERE prepared to "waste a lot more money" to keep him flight-worthy. The plane was being phased out but was still operational. Last edited by Superbelt; 02-12-2004 at 07:46 AM..

02-12-2004, 05:45 PM	#35 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If Hussien has produced this kind of proof that he lacked WMDs, would we have invaded? Of course we would have. We did. So did he. Look, if you belive GW is an honorable man, that's cool - I think you're being played for a sucker, but it's your opinion and your right - and no amount of proof is likely to convince you otherwise. If, on the other hand, you think he is a congenitally moronic pathologically lying amoral bastard who has surrounded himself with evil men who tell him exactly what to do at all times, like I do, then no amount of proof otherwise is going to make a difference. So, you gotta ask yourself, do you trust the man, and, if so, why. If you can answer that to your own satisfaction, well, I can't convince you otherwise. If you can't, then look around. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the man will not tell the truth when a lie will serve as well. (Superbelt - love the reasoned arguments. Also, that's a great new avatar and status.) __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

02-13-2004, 07:42 AM	#39 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So what WOULD it take to prove to the left that this rather obvious non-issue is a non-issue. Oh wait I know, Bush not getting relected, until then expect more lies. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-11-2004, 08:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	You will notice that there are no replies to this from the liberals in this forum. You know the ones that Hate Bush no matter what, and think your daddy can buy a MBA from Harvard B school.

02-12-2004, 04:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Additionally, I believe the account that I posted tells us that Campenni was in grad school from '71-72 Which is the disputed period in Bush's service record and that makes him incapable of providing an account for where Bush was. Now, there is no reason for the article I posted to be lying about Mr Campenni, as Bill was not involved in anything political up until he wrote the leter defending Bush, this month. My article was written in December.

02-12-2004, 05:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Perhaps you would like to email him and see where he went to Grad school. (To see if he was in Texas) william.campenni@verizon.net It's legit: http://www.vnga.org/exec_council/pastpres.htm

02-12-2004, 07:42 AM	#15 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	He was getting discharged because the plane he qualified on was being phased out.They were not going to waste a lot of money on someone who was due to be discharged.

02-12-2004, 07:46 AM	#17 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	This should not be an issue, I don't think it is Kerry who brought it up. He tried to get an exemption so that he could go to Paris and study. Like Clinton went to England. It was either join or get drafted into the army. He chose to join the Navy, and the only reason he was on the Swift Boats, was to be like his hero J F Kennedy who was on a PT boat.

02-12-2004, 07:47 AM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You're right, this shouldn't be an issue. Bush should just release all his military records, like all presidential candidates before him, and we can move on to more important things.

02-12-2004, 08:46 AM	#26 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No, we haven't dropped the AWOL (and possible desertion) charge. It's just all these subjects are complicated to discuss, let alone all at once. Gotta focus on one thing at a time.

02-12-2004, 08:49 AM	#27 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ok simply, this is the way I see it: Noone with any competence assigns someone to do a task that costs an amazing amount of money for training, and then willingly pulls them from that project when less than half of your commitment has been completed.

02-12-2004, 04:03 PM	#34 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ok how about this William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the unit that Bush had transferred to said he never saw Bush. And these two guys who would have served with him there, say they never saw him once

02-13-2004, 06:57 AM	#38 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Thanks guys, I've been searching for a while now for a suitable avatar. I have one I use everywhere else I go that is small enough, but it is a little bit too big of a file size for here It's an animated gif. Eh. onetime2: It's not proof, it's just a little bit more evidence against Bush. It's no more objective than Mr. Campinni was, but the retired general actually DID command in Alabama. So he has that going for him. Anyway, just another reason Bush needs to stop dicking us around with a dental record here or there and just release everything, unedited.