Bush’s Honorable Air National Guard Service By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)

Bush also signed his form-180 allowing the Pentagon to release his military records; John F'ing Kerry has not. John F'ing Kerry IS running on his service record (that he won't release); the President is not.

The following story is about President Bush's miliitary service; "Unfit for Command" is John F'ing Kerry's...

Bush’s Honorable Air National Guard Service
By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
September 20, 2004

George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) -- 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat -- 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush’s because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee’s Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.

Lt. Bush’s opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft -- both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don’t remember looking ahead (and I’m sure Lt. Bush didn’t either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard’s Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 -- the world’s first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.)

Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed -- but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country’s National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush’s mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.

I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don’t strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield; and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I’ve been in F -105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their war time mission. We got really good at flying “Missing Man Formations” and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.

Cowards (or people who lack courage) don’t take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, “a dynamic outstanding young officer” who stood out as “a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot.” “Lt. Bush’s skills far exceed his contemporaries,” Colonel Killian wrote: “He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing.”

As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to protect the National Security Interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized -- with short notice -- to deploy anywhere in the world.

During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level.

Just as Lt. Bush’s supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to -- since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this -- we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time -- everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush’s Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush’s documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge.

As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country; he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to diminish Lt. Bush’s service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible and driven by political adversaries like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan on 02/10/04 -- the impetus for me to write this letter.)

There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Lt. Bush’s honorable service to our country. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented by Sen. Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political power to include: attacking the motives of our service members (ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander-in-chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn’t be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces.

Political leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1) I served with true heroes, although none of the guys I served with ever considered themselves heroes -- they just put their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational, combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud of; and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election -- as is being done by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Terry McAuliffe.

Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that never returned to United States -- having given their lives for their country.

Although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry’s four month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into office (as commander-in-chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.

Further, military people understand that Sen. Kerry has voted against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Senator Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm’s way.

As we all know, since Sept. 11, 2001 our country has been at war with international terrorism. Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, supported by the liberal media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything they can to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces.

Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their lives everyday for us. I’m grateful that we now have a population that, for the most part, appreciates our armed forces and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our soldiers and their president. Our country’s success in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing by the president who is taking the battle to the enemy.

We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a president and an administration that have been proactive in going after the national security threats to United States. Just think about how our national security would likely have been handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations; Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. And it wouldn’t be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities.

The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Who do you trust?

Addendum

DNC - Kerry Campaign - CBS 60 Minutes
Left-Wing Allegations and Fraudulent Documents
Response to DNC Video “Fortunate Son

The Democrat National Committee (DNC), the Kerry Campaign, CBS 60 Minutes and their liberal media supporters have launched the fifth major attack on President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The purpose of this attack is to enhance Kerry’s election prospects by dishonoring President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard (ANG) and undermining his credibility as Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces.

Concurrent with the airing of Dan Rather’s (CBS’ 60 Minutes program on 09/08/2004) hit piece on President Bush, DNC’s Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Senator Tom Harkin piled on with vitriolic attacks on President Bush’s service record. CBS’ program (using fraudulent documents to launch their attack on President Bush) served as the kick-off call for a coordinated nationwide attack on Bush’s ANG record. “Operation Fortunate Son” is the code name that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC have given for their attacks on George W. Bush’s service in the Guard.

Lying Allegation:


The DNC alleges that President Bush falsely claimed he served in the United States Air Force and therefore lied about his military service record. This is the DNC’s specific allegation: “George W. Bush’s campaign literature claimed that he ‘served in the U.S. Air Force.’ The only problem? He didn’t,” “George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service,”

Response to Allegation:

When I went through flight training in the United States Air Force (USAF), we had Air National Guard (ANG) Officers in my pilot training squadron. For economic reasons, the ANG turns to the Air Force to do its undergraduate pilot training. President Bush served in the Air Force for more than a year (as an ANG officer) while going through USAF flight training.

Also, the United States has exchange officers from other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) that come to the U.S. to fly in our Air Force flying squadrons. Upon return to the UK, these Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots would say they served in the USAF (as an RAF Exchange officer) and that’s what would be reflected in their personnel records. Similarly, our flying officers are assigned to squadron flying positions in the RAF. Their personnel records would reflect that they served in the RAF (as an USAF Exchange Officer).

Additionally, as part of Lt. Bush’s training (prior to attending USAF Flight Training), Lt. Bush was placed on active duty with the Air Force for 120 days. This would be another basis for saying he served in the Air Force. To deny that fact would mean that all service people who are in training status are not serving their country. This would be absurd but nothing surprises me any more with the DNC/Kerry Campaign and what they will do and say in their quest for power.

Conclusion: The DNC doesn’t know what it’s talking about. You don’t have to be an active-duty Air Force officer to serve in the Air Force as either an ANG pilot or an exchange pilot. George W. Bush’s description in his campaign literature as having served in the USAF and ANG was correct; he did not lie about his service record as alleged by the DNC.


Influence Allegation: Another allegation is that Lt. Bush used political influence to get in the ANG.


Response to Allegation:

President Bush’s father (President George H.W. Bush) has publicly stated that the Bush family did not pull any strings to get George W. Bush into the ANG. George W. Bush got a pilot slot in the ANG because he took the steps necessary to make himself a worthy applicant.

Left-Wing Democrats have alleged that there were 150 applicants trying to get in the ANG; that Bush was a “Fortunate Son” who was given preferential treatment; and that he was leapfrogged over all these applicants based on political pressure and special influence. This is a false charge. Here are the facts.

Most applicants were applying for ANG enlisted positions not for pilot training. The highest number of pilot applicants that the Texas ANG Group had (at any one time) during the Vietnam War was around ten. The reason for this very low number was there were stringent educational, security clearance and physical requirements that had to be met for pilot training in the ANG; also, there was a high “danger factor” in flying the F-102 aircraft. For every ten pilot applicants, usually only two were selected by the ANG to attend USAF pilot training school.

The question everyone needs to honestly ask themselves is: Why wouldn’t the ANG want George W. Bush in their organization? How many Yale graduates do you think the ANG had to choose from (probably only one) his name was George W. Bush? So when George W. Bush went for his interview with Col. Walter “Buck” Staudt (Texas ANG Group Commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston), it would seem to me that Col. Staudt’s decision to select George W. Bush for pilot training was a good one for the ANG - separate from any other consideration. Given that George W. Bush ended up being President of the United States, one might conclude that Colonel Staudt was an excellent judge of character; that he made the right decision.

Ben Barnes, another one of CBS’ 60 Minutes helpers in orchestrating the attacks against President Bush’s ANG record, states in his interview with Dan Rather that he helped George W. Bush get into the ANG. The only problem is that Ben Barnes previously swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting George W. Bush into the Guard. Additionally, this question came up in the 2000 election and Ben Barnes’ daughter asked her father if he had anything to do with helping George W. Bush get into the ANG. He told his daughter no (that he didn’t help Bush get in the Guard). So what has changed? Ben Barnes is now a big fund raiser and supporter of John Kerry and may have a job with Kerry - should Kerry be elected President. This is the “reliable source” Dan Rather used to attack President Bush and help validate the content of CBS’ fraudulent memos.

Conclusion: I believe that the liberal media - agenda driven - propaganda machine has not presented a fair and balanced perspective about George W. Bush’s ANG service, instead, their many articles have left readers with the impression that George W. Bush was given preferential treatment over 150 ANG applicants and that the only way he would have been selected for a pilot slot would be if someone helped him politically; nothing could have been further from the truth.


Default Allegation: George W. Bush defaulted on meeting his ANG Service Requirements


Response to Allegation:


Lt. Bush entered the ANG in May 1968 and took his last (F-102) flight in the Guard four years later in April 1972. His flying tour included pilot training and than operational flying in the F-102 (111th Tactical interceptor Squadron). During Lt. Bush’s time in the Guard he accumulated hundreds of hours of flying time; he served his nation honorably; he flew close to 4 years straight and performed Guard duties in 1972 and 1973 satisfactory to his Squadron Commander (Lt. Col Killian) and satisfactory to the ANG; he was given an honorable discharge in October 1973.

It was not uncommon for pilots to depart the ANG earlier than their established service commitment back in the early seventies. Allowing pilots to transition into civilian life served the best interests of the ANG in managing its pilot force. Why? The answer is simple: there were too many pilots versus the number of cockpits required to keep pilots current in their assigned aircraft. The glut of pilots was the result of a phase down of flying operations in Southeast Asia and Vietnam.

Also, it was common for ANG pilots (who were going to leave the service) to work out with their commanders, assignments not involving flying duty. The benefit to the individual was that it helped work the transition from ANG service to civilian life. The benefit to the Guard was that they could replace less experienced pilots with “high flight time” combat seasoned pilots.

An issue that keeps popping up is: why Lt. Bush didn’t take an annual flight physical? The answer is simple. Lt. Bush was not going to continue flying F-102’s in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. His squadron was scheduled to convert from an operational to a training squadron. Since Lt. Col Killian is deceased, it is impossible to know the dialogue that went on between Lt. Bush and Lt. Col Killian. What we do know is that Lt. Bush received an honorable discharge.

Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush’s ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it.

Byron York in his September 9, 2004 article provided the numbers I use in the below chart.

All I did was add up the points. NOTE: Any objective reporter could have totaled the numbers to give people a more balanced perspective on Lt. Bush’s ANG record; they chose not to. Now let’s look at the ANG point system and how Lt. Bush measured up against it.

Accumulating Points toward Air National Guard Service Requirements

As you serve in the Air National Guard, you accumulate points toward meeting your ANG service requirements. When Lt. Bush was serving, the minimum points required (annually) to meet ANG requirements was fifty (50 points). The DNC, Kerry Campaign and Liberal Media are obsessed with validating that Lt. Bush earned all the ANG points necessary to qualify for his honorable discharge. They are particularly concerned with points accumulated after April 1972.

I’ve constructed the chart below to show that Lt. Bush not only met his annual requirements but exceeded them threefold - 954 earned versus a 300 point minimum requirement. Lt. Bush’s strong record of Guard service supported his early release from a six-year service obligation to attend Harvard Business School. He received an Honorable Discharge in October 1973 having served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days.

BUSH EXCEEDS AIR NATIONAL GUARD ANNUAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (THREEFOLD FOR A SIX YEAR PERIOD)

Air National Guard Service Period
Minimum Annual Requirement
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush

May-68 to May-69
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253

May-69 to May-70
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340

May-70 to May-71
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137

May-71 to May-72
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112

May-72 to May-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Jun -73 to Jul-73
Minimum Annual Requirement - 50
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56

Ref:
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
Minimum Annual Requirement - 300
ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 954

Fraudulent Documents Used to Attack Bush

Multiple salvos are being fired at Bush by the DNC, Kerry Campaign and their liberal media surrogates - to dishonor President Bush’s service in the Air National Guard and undermine George W. Bush’s credibility as Commander-In-Chief. The preponderance of evidence is that the Kerry Campaign was the planned benefactor of the CBS 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush. But something went terribly wrong; we have a fraudulent document scandal and the mask has been pulled off CBS’ extraordinary effort to undermine the President of the United States; help the DNC and get Kerry elected President.

It appears that CBS’ 60 Minutes attack on Bush helped to get (in one fell swoop) thousands of liberal writers to dust off their last article (bashing President Bush’s ANG service), touch it up and re launch it. This massive left-wing driven effort hopes to get the media focus off of Kerry and back onto President Bush.

Now look at the Fraudulent Memo to File (below) produced by CBS.

As of 09/15/2004, CBS’ 60 Minutes stands by its story that the memos were copies of original Air National Guard documents.

Observations regarding the 18 August 1973 memo:


Typewriters used by the Air National Guard in 1973 (at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron) lacked the technology to produce the 18 August 1973 Memo for File -- to the specifications of today’s Microsoft Word technology. The technology lacking was proportional typeface, superscript, curly apostrophes, Times New Roman font and vertical spacing.

Should you have doubts that the memo is a fraud (after viewing my re-type), then validate the memo yourself. Instructions: Take the 18 August 1973 memo that CBS says is a copy of the original document produced in 1973 and copy it into Microsoft Word. Then set your font to the default setting - “Times New Roman Font 9”. Don’t change anything from Microsoft Word default settings; i.e., the type size (font 9), tab stops, and margins. Now type the memo that CBS says Lt. Col Killian typed over 30 years ago. Walla, you get the 1973 message exactly. The spacing is the same, letters line up (look above and below each sentence) and line breaks are the same.

Since anyone can quickly ascertain that this document is fraudulent merely by going through the above exercise (you don’t need a documents expert, handwriting expert or typewriting expert), then why weren’t the DNC, Kerry’s Campaign and CBS able to determine that these documents were fraudulent (using their experts)?


Other Points about the 18 August 2004 Memo for File:


Filing a memo with “SUBJECT: CYA” is unlikely; files are subject to inspection.

During the years Lt. Bush was in the Air National Guard (ANG) the abbreviation for an Officer’s Efficiency Report would be O.E.R. not OETR.

Col. Staudt retired from the Air National Guard on 1 March 1972 almost 1½ years before the date of the fraudulently constructed memo of 18 August 1973.

Staudt would not be in a position to exert pressure on Hodges or Killian (to sugar coat Lt. Bush’s O.E.R.) because he was not in the command line of either; he was retired.

Lt. Bush would not be getting an O.E.R. from Lt. Col Killian because he wasn’t under Lt. Col Killian’s observation for the number of days required to rate him. Also, Lt. Bush was leaving the Air National Guard and such a report would be of no advantage to the Guard and no advantage to Lt. Bush for career advancement in the Guard. The import of an O.E.R. (being rendered on Lt. Bush) would be minimal since he was on his way to Harvard Business School and leaving the military.


I’m not going to analyze the other CBS memos but offer this comment. Most of these memos would be a lot about nothing even if they weren’t fraudulent. It’s fascinating that the content of these memos just happen to coincide with the attack points used by the Kerry Campaign/DNC.

The DNC, Kerry Campaign, CBS’ 60 Minutes and the liberal media establishment know nothing about ANG flying units; know nothing about the conversations Lt. Bush had with Lt. Col Killian 30 years ago; know nothing about what Lt. Col Killian authorized Lt. Bush do (regarding meeting his service requirements); know nothing about what they talked about concerning Lt. Bush’s flight physical and know nothing about the views of the officers holding command positions at the time Lt. Bush served in the ANG.

But what all of us now know (based on the recent comments of ANG Colonels and Generals) is that George W. Bush was seen as an excellent officer, a top-notch pilot and highly respected by the officers and commanders who flew with him in the ANG. We know, also, that he was greatly respected by his Fighter Interceptor Squadron Commander - Lt. Col Jerry Killian -- based on comments of Killian’s wife and son. We know that Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge from the Air National Guard.

Despite all the positive comments of the commanders in Lt. Bush’s ANG chain of command (as well as the pilots that flew with him), the DNC/Kerry campaign and the mass liberal media continue belittling the service of our Commander-In-Chief.

Kerry’s efforts to malign Bush’s military service in the Air National Guard and undermine President Bush’s credibility with the American people (while promoting himself as a war hero) will not be well received by the American people. See my article: Kerry’s Strategy to Undermine Bush CLICK HERE Zell Miller best discribes John Kerry’s qualifications for Commander-In-Chief (Click Here). President Bush has served as Commander-In-Chief for three and a half years. We can judge his performance. I’m voting for the re-election of President Bush.

What Should Happen Now?

CBS must divulge who gave them the fraudulent documents. It’s okay for news organizations to protect information sources. It is not okay for them to use their journalistic cover to protect people who have played a part in a hoax on the American public. The use of fraudulent documents (in an effort to influence the outcome of a national election and take down a sitting President) is serious criminal activity and needs to be fully investigated and prosecuted.

-----------

John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Also, he served in Current Operations at 7th Air Force Headquarters, TanSon Nhut Air Base, RVN. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 - having served 28 years in the Air Force.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.