Hi Denys and Michael :)
A quick note about the military and record keeping... from a 16+ year
vet (and still going :) )
The record keeping within the military is horrible!!! I am still
trying to get the Oregon Guard to correct a minor little problem involving
my retirement points with regard to 1989 and 1991 and 1992... you might
remember that last year??? I spent a bunch of time on active duty...
during which the Active component lost all of my medical records when
shipping them back to Oregon's command ... (I luckily had copies of the 3
inches worth of paperwork that had vanished and turned it over to Oregon
for my records)
I have turned over my LES (Leave and Earnings Statements) from all 3
years to show that I not only did the duty but got paid for it and out of
which account the pay came from... um... 10+ years and it still ain't
right... and I am in the service still.... imagine the snafu's if you try
to fix something 20+ years after you got discharged???
Oh... and if that doesn't convince you that the "formal" records
released by the DOD aren't that reliable... I only had to turn in my
Marriage documents (License, Certificate, signed statement from Minister
and sworn statement from a notary) 6 times to get that updated and then
they had to pay me over a year's back pay because 'with dependents' get
more money!
And my DA-201? (Formal record of service in personnel record) my
Japan and Panama tours (overseas training counts as promotion points!) keep
coming and going on my DA-201... sometimes Japan is there and Panama
ain't... sometimes Panama is there and Japan ain't... sometimes both are
gone... every once in a while both are there! It's been over 10 years
since I served in Japan... it shouldn't even be touched... but those
personnel people are human and when they add something they end up retyping
it since the list is too long and well... they be humans... :)
So, when it comes to military service records... take 'em with a grain
of salt if not 3 or 4 grains... if the person got out and doesn't care if
the the record is accurate on attendance or other details and the military
considers their service completed and honorably discharged oh well...
Remember, Clinton did ROTC duty... and there were some questions about
whether or not he completed his contract as well...
Art "just rambling again :) " Bahrs
=======================================================
Art Bahrs, CISSP Information Security The Regence Group
(503) 553-1425 FAX (503) 553-1453
|---------+---------------------------------->
| | "Denys Beauchemin" |
| | <denysnospamwanted@hous|
| | ton.rr.com> |
| | Sent by: "HP-3000 |
| | Systems Discussion" |
| | <[log in to unmask]
| | > |
| | |
| | |
| | 09/09/2004 07:01 AM |
| | Please respond to denys|
| | |
| | |-------------------| |
| | | [ ] Secure E-mail | |
| | |-------------------| |
|---------+---------------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: [log in to unmask] |
| cc: |
| Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Bush's National Guard Duty (again) on 60minutes |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Herr Baier, fresh from spending the night at MoveOn.org, really insists
on having us read about this (non) story and gives us two back-to-back
postings.
Herr Baier might want to read this one:
(I added some information about the F-102 at the end of the message.)
Bush's National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts
What do you really know about George W. Bush's time in the Air National
Guard? That he didn't show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a
physical? That his daddy got him in?
News coverage of the president's years in the Guard has tended to focus
on one brief portion of that time - to the exclusion of virtually
everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush
did:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately,
he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training.
Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of
fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods
thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush
had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102
jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service
requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a
minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points
in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968,
his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971.
And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his
first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you
know that?
That brings the story to May 1972 - the time that has been the focus of
so many news reports - when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush
filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe,
chairman of the Democratic National Committee).
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign.
His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says
retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The
Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in
desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you
had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were
helping them solve their problem."
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56
points - not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard
Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the
minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an
honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days
of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had
accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.
A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter
interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries
look to for leadership."
A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and
pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to
increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called
Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."
Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush's service -
in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets
- would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John
Kerry's record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
And, as it is with Kerry, it's reasonable to look at a candidate's
entire record, including his military service - or lack of it. Voters
are perfectly able to decide whether it's important or not in November.
The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans' attack, but
anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense
that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.
And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned
Bush's service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's.
In April - before the Swift boat veterans had said a word - Kerry said
Bush "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth,
about whether he showed up for duty." Earlier, Kerry said, "Just because
you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."
Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.
That's fine. We should know as much as we can.
And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as
well.
Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His
column appears in The Hill each week.
The Convair F-102 Delta Dagger is an airplane with an interesting
history. It was originally designed as a supersonic interceptor. This
is a mission where upon detection of incoming enemy aircrafts (bombers),
these interceptors would be scrambled and flown directly and at high
speed at the incoming enemy formations. Once in range, they would fire
all their weapons (rockets and missiles,) hoping to destroy as many
enemy planes as possible.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f102.htm
The problem with the original 102 was that, try as it might, it could
not achieve supersonic speed, it was underpowered and the design of the
fuselage was inefficient. The plane was a disaster until NACA (the
forerunner of NASA) approached Convair and explained the benefits of the
newly-discovered Transonic Area Rule. This is a design of the fuselage
where there is a pinch at the middle, sort of like a Coke bottle, that
enables a plane to "slip" through the air easier and faster. This
design finally enabled the 102a to achieve supersonic speed.
However, even with the Coke-bottle fuselage, the 102 was underpowered
and could only get up to Mach 1.2 or so. The P&W J-57 engine was simply
not living up to expectations. The Delta Dagger was not one of the
better planes but its follow-on, the F-102B, which became the F-106
Delta Dart was the pre-eminent interceptor of its time. It had a bigger
engine, the P&W J-75 and could reach Mach 2+. The Delta Dart soldiered
on from the mid-1950s to the 80's.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f106a.htm
I have a lot of respect for anyone that flew the underpowered tin can
known as the 102.
Denys
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
=============================================================================
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended to be a legally binding signature.
=============================================================================
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
