dianavan,

You have brought up a very good point, re. The Commander-in Chief aspect of a President's duties.

Under the opinions of those detailed above in general it should therefore become a qualification for potential Presidential candidates that:

- They can never have taken drugs

- They can never have been, or be, conscientious objectors

Another point that has come out is that, in the opinions of most posting to threads relating to this topic, all those who opted for National Guard and Air National Guard service during the entire period of the USA's involvement in Vietnam were well connected, cowardly shirkers. This, of course, is complete and utter rubbish, as service in neither precluded the possibility that they could not be called upon to serve in a combat capacity. Many ANG Units did and performed with distinction.

F-102's were used in Vietnam, flown by ANG units. I believe they were withdrawn in either 1968 or 1969.

Individual pilots within the ANG would not normally be singled out for cross training on a different type of aircraft. That would be done by unit and it would take around 12 months to get a squadron up to operational standard. Longer if the function of the squadron was to change (e.g. for Interceptor role to a Tactical Recon role, or Ground Attack role) as the type of flying and the skills required vary greatly.

In the case of the suggested training for Lt. G. W. Bush, i.e. cross train from F-102's to F-4's, one is a single seat all weather interceptor, the other, employed in a similar capacity, is a two seat all weather interceptor. The way of fighting the aircraft is completely different.

Was he a deseter - No he was not.

Did he go AWOL - As far as the ANG are concerned - No he didn't, otherwise charges would have been brought at the time.

GUEST,guest from NW - 27 Jan 04 - 09:05 PM

Your response to DougR's post:

"you think he got permission? obviously you have no way of knowing that so your opinion is based only on your partisan views and has no factual context"

In exactly the same you have no way of knowing that he did not have anyone's permission, but the FACT that no disciplinary action was taken, tends to indicate that he did get permission.

DougR also stated that his opinion was based on four years personal experience in serving with the National Guard, so the, "your opinion is based only on your partisan views and has no factual context." Is way off the mark and out of order.

guest from NW - what exactly is your personal experience of the military?

NH Dave - 28 Jan 04 - 02:02 AM

Accepted that you served in (National) Guard and Reserve (National) Guard Units. Anyone who comes out and states as categorically as you have done that....."Bush joined the reserves during a time when many other young men were being drafted into military service and being sent to Viet Nam. This was a cushy billet for one who had no desire to risk is own pink young ass in Viet Nam, and he should have been treated as if he were in active or Federal Service." ....obviously has no conceptual idea whatsoever about the training of a combat rated pilot.

I am sure there are some Mudcat Members or Guests who have undergone such training, you yourself may even know someone who has undergone such training. If you do, please tell them that in your opinion their training could be described as a "cushy billet". They will look at you as though you were mad.

The learning to fly part of it is the easy bit, learning to fight your aircraft is the hard (and extremely high risk) part. F-102's, I described above as single seat all weather interceptor aircraft. Fighting such an aircraft (i.e. getting rated as operational) involves you having to fly in close formation with at least one other aircraft in some pretty shitty weather. The risk of mid-air collision is high, the level of concentration required is immense, you are extremely lucky if you survive making just one mistake in your entire flying career.

According to those who flew with Lt. G. W. Bush, he was a good pilot - knowing something about that training and the standards required - I'll take their word for it at face value, unless of course the "pack" wish to condemn them on the basis of no evidence as well.