Ex-pilot says Bush put in for Vietnam

.

It was you who was quoting the looney tune who claimed to have eavesdropped on a phone conversation and later to have seen Bush's file being sanitized. Of course, his buddy said none of it was true, but that didn't stop you. You also didn't mind quoting unnamed individuals who claimed they never saw Bush in Alabama. Your standards really change based on whether Bush is attacked or defended don't they?

I think Bo and others have already answered your other comments sufficiently. I can add that checking a box on an application doesn't prevent anyone from changing their mind later does it?

I don't call them liars. There can still be skepticism about this officers's testamony, but he seemed to be in a position to know. He also mentions specific details which can be checked against Bush's records. Given this, calling the man a liar, which was the clear implication, is over the edge IMO.

In Dave's unsubstantiated allegations, he accepted the testimony even though the man's friend said it wasn't true. He also accepted nameless sources who said they never saw Bush in Alabama.

However, in this case, the officer is in a position to know, and details can be confirmed. I call that far more convincing, and do not see where I am being inconsistent.

Hi, KP.

The sources who reported not seeing Bush weren't "nameless" -- one was his CO, who has come forward (I don't recall the name, but searching in a good newspaper site will find it), and the other was whoever signed his fitness report "unable to observe." Now a couple of folks have come forward to say things that in both cases contradict official documents -- the one where Bush himself checked "no overseas assignment," and the fact that Bush apparently wasn't paid during much of the period when the guy in Alabama says he saw Bush. I'd say there's a difference between "unsubstantiated" and "unsubstatntiated contrary to physical evidence," wouldn't you? If you were on a jury and had to estimate the veracity of two witnesses in similar situations, when politics didn't enter into it, which would you believe. If the standard of proof were "beyond a reasonable doubt" (a criminal case) I might have a problem, but were the standard "preponderance of the evidence" (a civil case), I'm positive which way I'd go in the absence of other corroborating evidence.

But I note you folks have never addressed what I consider the more important issue -- the special consideration Bush was shown not once, not twice, but thrice (getting a Guard slot, transferring to Alabama, and being released early).

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

simply refuse to acknowledge that fact.

base commander has since said that he simply wasn't on the base when Bush was present. The 'unable to observe' has been answered by Bo. Checking a box on an application? Give me a break! Anybody can check a box, and change their mind later. You still don't 'get' the military do you?

If I was on a jury, the statement of 'A former senior Virginia Air National Guard commander, who served with George W. Bush in the Texas Air Guard,' would carry a great deal of weight as I've explained above. Those kinds of people aren't given to lies unless there is evidence to the contrary.

.

would know a bit more (even as a lowly airman basic E-1) and not have posted the drivel.

You would have known that Bush was not qualified on the F-4 and couldn't have flown.

.

Edward, what I noticed in that story was the statement, " Even if Bush, who was trained on a slightly different aircraft than the F4 Phantom jets flown by the squadron...". An F-4 is "slightly" different from a F-102A? Now, that's what I call an understatement. I'd date that "party" picture in the story to 1974, possibly 1973.
BTW, my last flight physical lasted about 1 minute. My number never came up in "golden flow".

The first and biggest difference is that the F4 is multi-engine, F102 is single.

Huge difference.

Based on the evaluations of GWB at the TX ANG, there is little doubt that he could have transitioned to the F4. But the training would have required 30-50 hours flying time minimum. The expressed reason for the transfer was so that he could aid in a political campaign while serving the minimum time required for his reserve committment.

All of that is based on the AL guard unit he was assigned to having F4s. Several items I have seen have indicated that his unit had no aircraft at all.

Bo

Say, Bo, look at that picture of Bishop at the party again. Is not that a TAC patch rather than a 187th Guard patch? What do you figure, 187th Fighter Wing, 187th Tactical Fighter Group, or 187th Reconnissance Group?
Can't make the shoulder patch yet.

engine make? After all, like Dave (the military expert) and Blake (the Air Force whiz kid) said, they are still planes.

What is scary is both are also educated persons linking to and making these pronouncements.

and you keep supplying more all the time.

Google it.

even in the most liberal of media you wouldn't embarass yourself with statements such as - "There's also the issue of why Bush was decertified for flying during the period in question as to his service.

That was explained long ago as the normal consequence of missing a flight physical.

There are no "key issues" with his service nor even with his getting into the Guard. He was intelligent enough and possessed the aptitude to become a pilot which is not something that applies to many although it did to him--he got in and became by ALL accounts a very good pilot.

The rest you shouldn't embarass yourself by mentioning because all has been explained patiently to you along with the suggestion that you get off your **** and call the Texas Guard and ask them. They will tell you the same as you have been here but possibly not so patiently.

Now, I have one for you. You said that you had a 1-Y classification but had never been called. That would mean that you took it upon yourself to run down to the Induction Center with every available medical record and excuse from mommy to get it. That would be called ...

Hi, Ed.

>>That was explained long ago as the normal consequence of missing a flight physical.<<
But that's only a part of the story, neh? WHY did he miss the flight physical? And weren't there usually other consequences for doing so? (This is really a question, or perhaps a surmise.) Why didn't he reschedule the physical if he loved to fly so much, and even wanted to fly combat? The whole story reminds one of Swiss cheese!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Drug testing had been a component for several years prior--this wasn't Clinton so drug testing isn't anything but a rather baseless red herring.

The Guard would rarely permanently ground a trained pilot simply for missing a single physical.

Blake was certainly never Air Force as that is EXACTLY what happens for missing a flight physical. not only is the training expensive but so are the aircraft.

Hi, Ed.

He said PERMANENTLY ground. I'm sure they don't just say "oops, you missed tour physical. Guess you'll just twiddle your thumbs for your pay until you get out..." If they do, it's a much bigger deal that the thousand dollar toiler seat!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave, as with most of the other items you classify as
issues, they are non-issues. As an example, the
bit about early outs from the service. There have
always been early outs within regulations, and
without any strings being pulled. Today, even with the
pressures of force levels, there are still early outs,
and just as an example, here starts the procedure for Air Force personnel:

http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/retsep/palace_chase_section.htm

Hi, Del.

>>Today, even with the pressures of force levels, there are still early outs, and just as an example, here starts the procedure for Air Force personnel<<
Tell that to the Colorado Guard woman who was recently threatened with being treated as AWOL if she didn't return to Iraq after a judge told her she'd lose custody of her child if she went back. Yes, the Army relented and reassigned her locally -- but would they without the horrible publicity they were starting to get? Saying that there are procedures and that those procedures are frequently used for those w/o influence are two different things!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!