It probably won’t convince anyone, but I found this letter to the editor from a Texas Air National Guard officer from the same period as Dubya provided some procedural and cultural insight into the ANG of the early 70s that I haven’t seen so far in the current debate over Lt. Bush’s service record.
40 view(s)
First off let’s say it together..
Moonie Times!
…now I that’s better.
Next, Campenni says that he served with Bush from ’71 to 72, and not during the time period in question. Plus it seem that he was in Pittsburgh during the time that he stated being in Texas.
Also these links http://www.oliverwillis.com/entries/0204/owcom_exclusive_bill_campenni_talks.html “target=”new”>here, http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2004_02_08_counterspin_archive.html#107653413484616038 “target=”new”>here, “>http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_02_08_dneiwert_archive.html#107652570500719150″target=”new”>here, and this guy has tons of stuff “>http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/”target=”new”>here.
This one just makes me http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7932511.htm “target=”new”>chuckle.
1. Certainly the WT is more likely to publish a letter to the editor that fits their editorial viewpoint than one that doesn’t. That said, unless you think they fabricated the letter in the first place, the ownership, editorial bent, or logo design of the paper doesn’t seem to have much to do with the merits of the letter per se.
And, frankly, I find folks that lead off their items with references to the “Chimperor” to be a lot less credible.
2. Campenini says he served with Bush from 70-71, not 71-72, and, yes, the controversial period is in 72. That said, I didn’t offer this up as a “Hey, look, here’s a photo of me and George W. Bush doing marching drills in Alabama” thing, but as some insight, from someone who was there (as opposed to quite a number of folks who weren’t) as to what was SOP, formal and informal, in the ANG at that time frame.