doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Are these liberals you guys talking about?

Will, did YOU ever serve? I get a kick out of the folks who question W's service, which happened to be in the Air Guard. I was in the Guard also--joined pre-Nam, Nov 62, when they'd take most anyone who could walk and chew bubblegum simultaneously. No problem at all getting in. All you had to do was be willing to sign on the dotted line and wear the uniform. Others waited to be drafted; others ended up in Nam. Their choice. But I served in 1/133d Infantry. If you watch "60 Minutes" this weekend, you'll see that they're now in Iraq. And our sister battalion--2/133d Infantry--did indeed serve in Nam. But flying an F-101, as W chose to do . . . even if "influence" was exercised to get him into a Guard unit, there are far safer and more comfortable ways to stay out of combat than to train as a fighter jock. And remember, when we went to war in Iraq, the administration was scarcely shy on military experience. General Powell was still around, in addition to Rumsfeld. That's a bunch more military experience than there was in the upper echelons of the Clinton Administration.

Missing drills during Nam . . . it did indeed happen. My own service record has some similarities to the president's. When I left Iowa to work for the CIA, I still had several months left before my Ready Reserve obligation was completed. The full time personnel in my unit told me that by law, I was required to find another unit in the DC area and complete my 6 year obligation. But they also told me I probably would not be able to do so, and that I should not worry about it. They were right. This was 1968, all the Guard units were full, and no one wanted to mess with a soldier who had only a few months left to serve. So I ended up with what's called a "bad year" in Reserve terminology. I did not attend Annual Training, and I missed several drills. Much was made of W's similar circumstances. But here's just how big a deal that was, in the Reserve Components of that era: Several years later, with my records available for one and all to review, I was able to reenlist. I got--and kept, for the next 23 years or so--a Top Secret security clearance, including several periodic reinvestigations. Again, records with my missing training available for consideration. I received a direct commission--again, records right there for all to see. I was promoted several times, eventually to the rank of colonel, and was selected for command twice--again, records right out in the open. So I either get frustrated, or else get a big chuckle, as a result of those who tried to make much out of W's service record, from the same time period. It would've been a big deal, if a soldier in one of the units I commanded had missed drills and annual training. But it was most definitely NOT a big deal in the Reserve Components during Nam, if there were any sort of extenuating circumstances--like moving and being unable to find a unit, or being a pilot attached to a unit that had no aircraft you were qualified to fly.

And Will, I certainly do appreciate your evaluating my intelligence background as "adequate". How does it compare to, say, your own? Ritter . . . I did not "dismiss" him at all. I indicated--I believe correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong)--that he signed on with the other inspectors, when they left in 97, that Saddam still had hundreds of tons of unaccounted for chem weapons. And he also knew that Saddam was into playing hide and seek when weapons inspectors were on the ground.

Whether I support the war or not is irrelevant. All I'm doing is evaluating the DECISION to go to war, based on the intelligence available at the time that decision was made. And I have yet to see any stream of reporting (if you can point me in the right direction, please do so) that would have led the intelligence community--and please note, an NIE is the product of the ENTIRE intel community, not just CIA--that Saddam no longer had WMD's. I have no idea about his credibility, but there's a former Iraqi general, now in this country, who says Saddam did indeed have them, but got them out to Syria before the invasion. Anyhow, as a former analyst and commander of analysts, I can assure one and all that in the intelligence business, you do not discard what you know to be true--which is that Saddam had WMD's--without solid evidence that it is no longer true. Yes, the intelligence community got it wrong--mainly because, IMO, they did not have reliable sources on the ground, in Iraq, providing them with information on Saddam's WMD programs. They relied very heavily on what the UN inspectors told them, up until 97--which was that the WMD's were still there, even though they could not locate them. That's why President Clinton, and just about every other prominent Democrat, believed that Saddam still had them in 02-03, when we were considering taking military action in Iraq.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, intelligence analysts aren't in the hindsight game. Once more, I would recommend the opinion piece from the May 22 Wall Street Journal, written by a very prominent Democrat with very credible military experience (former senator Bob Kerrey), and far better credentials on the terrorist threat (courtesy of his service on the 9/11 Commission) than most politicians from either party. That article clearly demonstrates that you don't need to be a "neocon", or even a Republican of any stripe, to support the decision to invade Iraq. And sadly, I have to wonder how much of the current opposition to the war in Congress, on the part of the Dems, is based on either the polls or the desire to recapture the White House next year. Doing what's popular is the easy way. Doing what's unpopular, when you believe it's the right thing, is the true test of leadership.