SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zonkie who wrote (40024)8/3/2004 1:03:39 PM
From: WaynersRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
The reality is the Guard didn't need Bush or for him to fulfill his obligation. He wanted to be gone and they didn't need him and wanted him gone as well. Everybody ended up happy. The Guard was happy to allow him to leave 6 months early anyways. The Guard doesn't prosecute people for helping them reduce their bloated numbers.

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.



To: zonkie who wrote (40024)8/5/2004 3:20:59 PM
From: WaynersRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Its impossible to prove a negative, e.g. that papers which don't exist, exist. Let this be a logic 101 lesson for you.