Bush and I in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron from 1970 to 1971. (my title)

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) open public letter to Washington Times | 8/24/2004 | A Navy Vet

[Bad Dog2]

Distinguished Unit Citation (old) and the National Defence Medal (ribbon).

[CyberAnt]

"filter unpleasant truths"

Only unpleasant one .. huh?? Poor thing!

[backtothestreets]

"I don't know about "embellishing nothing", but I do agree with the rest of your post."

I mean there are guys that served in Viet Nam during the war that are so humble, they never spoke of their heroic deeds.  They never saw themselves as heroes, but they were.  Actually, it was the vast majority that served.  When they did speak, it was very matter of fact, open and closed.  They never seemed to fully appreciate their contribution, be it big or small.

When embellishment did occur, it was not these men that did it.  It was higher up by those that wanted their unit to be highly decorated.  Sometimes the facts were distorted, but even they were not the root cause of the embellishments.  It was the politicians that were always demanding some sort of measurable result.  This wouldn't have occurred if the politicians had let go and let the military run the war.

For the sake of all that served during this time, it is still a wound, and one that goes very deep.

I've no doubt this has resurfaced, not because of Kerry's wartime service, but because of his antics on Capitol Hill immediately following his discharge.  Yes, there were war atrocities, but they were few.  Kerry spoke as though he had seen them personally, and if that were the case, it would point the finger at the unit he served with, not some other unit in another part of Viet Nam.  In essence, Kerry pointed the finger of blame at his own unit.

It would help to hear John Kerry ask for a meeting with those he served with, and hear him humbly ask their forgiveness.  They didn't bring this wound back to the surface.  John Kerry did open the wound.  The wound is not Kerry's performance during the war.  That is merely a scab.  It's what he did immediately after leaving military service that is the wound.  Be it now, or later, he needs to personally apologize to those he served with. Hearsay won't do.  He's got to face them.  If he really wanted to show real leadership potential, that's where it would have to start.

For me, I am going to hope everyone will one day set the actual war from their minds, but not the valor of all that served honorably.  It was a war misguided by politicians, not generals and admirals, and certainly not by the men serving under them.  It was a dirty war from the White House down, and under both Presidents Johnson and Nixon.  If servicemen were dirtied, it was most often due to the politicians, not the personal service of military members to their country.  Only Goldwater  seemed to have had the right idea.  Unleash our military might, and nuke North Viet Nam if necessary, but save our men for the cleanup only.  The war we knew never had to be the way it was.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[maica]

Very good post - worthy of a letter to a newspaper, now that libmedia's attention has been turned to Kerry and his military/anti-military record.

You really express honestly and emotionally the situation that was.

I might edit away the last sentence about Goldwater, which although completely correct, will elicit knee-jerk resistance for editorial boards, and 'taint' your message about the war as it was run by both D and R administrations.

[backtothestreets]

The reference to Goldwater was a knee jerk response I felt as I wrote and remembered family, friends and veterans. Few returned unscathed.

Many high school friends were killed and wounded in one of the first parachute jumps in Viet Nam. A brother-in-law suffered a severe breakdown after his tour was extended a third time on the front lines, and when the fourth opportunity arose, the helicopter sent to retrieve him was blown up by enemy fire. Even before I enlisted, I'd visit Oak Knoll Naval Hospital to befriend and comfort injured sailors. Too many were mere shells. Their minds were too distant to reach. They were in an agony no one could relieve.

For far too many, their injury was not suffered in Viet Nam, but upon returning to the states and being treated as vermin. The government cut their veterans benefits, and many segments of society treated them as outcasts. Some employers refused to higher these veterans that had served their country honorably.

When Eisenhower became President he delivered a message to our adversaries that was very similar to what Goldwater proposed some ten years later. Basically the message was the Korean War would end. It would be their choice to see it ended by negotiation, or by nuclear weapons. His strategy saved thousands of American lives and brought most of our troops home.

In restrospect, we should have used every weapon at our disposal before exposing our troops to the enemy.

[backtothestreets]

Some employers refused to higher hire these veterans that had served their country honorably.

[maica]

I agree with you, and I was a strong Goldwater supporter! The way Johnson and McNamara and Westmoreland ran the war was despicable.

I just meant your message would pass muster for publication if the ref to Goldwater were removed.

[Doc On The Bay]

Agree.

If "W" was a "Good Stick" in F-102's, he was a "MENSCH!"

"JAWN" CANNOT "Come Close to" "W's" technical Skills.

ALAS, the "MEDIA" are FAR TOO IGNORANT to understand the Distinction.

Doc

[Doc On The Bay]

COL. CAMPENNI;-- I STRONGLY URGE You to forward your Letter to the "W" Campaign!!

There is SO MUCH "CRAP" "Out There" about the 'Guard!'

CLEARLY, "W" not only "Did His Duty," but he RISKED HIS LIFE for us.

It's ABOUT TIME that the "Voters" were Apprised of his Unselfish Risk to keep us Safe.

Somehow, the 'Dems have relegated Mr Bush's Military Service to the "Paper-Pushing" level.

America Needs to Know that "W" "Put His Life 'On the Line'" in his time "In the 'Guard!!'"

Your Information is NOT "Trivial!"

Doc

[Travis McGee]

Trying to edumacate the sheeple today is a nearly hopeless task.

[auboy]

Thank you!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Excellent. PRint bump

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[RaceBannon]

Take a look at posts 5 and 54 on this page

First oen is F-102 for sure

but post 54, look at the black stripe under GWN's shoulder...that looks pretty wide, maybe wide enough to go to the bottom insterad of the intake like post 5 would be

is post 54 an F-106?

[RaceBannon]

I was never shot at, but all the deaths I saw in the CORPS were all at sea.

[Young Werther]

Nope. In the background you can see an F-102 tail fin. The F-102 front windscreen had a rounded edge where the windscreen met the canopy.

The F-106 had a triangle shaped windscreen where it joined with the canopy.

When I was at Perrin the side canopy windows were prime cumshaw items. When they were no longer fit for flight duty and were sent to the scrap heap they were welded into met farmes and sold as cocktail tables. Never could get high enough on a list to get one!

[RaceBannon]

That tail on the right aint no F-102!

That looks more like an F-105!

The base in my home town flew F-102's for years, I saw them for the first 10 years of my life almost, went from F-100's to F-102's to F-100's again, Bradley Field

Also, I worked at the Air Museum, and we had an F-102 there, I used to polish the paint, that tail on the right aint no F-102!~

[Young Werther]

The picture in Post 54 shows a F-102 tailfin. Sorry.

You're right. that's an F-105 to the right of the F-106. I posted the F-106 to show the difference in the windscreen. BTW the F-102 pilot had no forward vision capability since the radar scope filled the windscreen. The F-106 had a wider windscren and the pilot had some forward visibility.

[RaceBannon]

Ok, Sorry, I was looking at the later pic, not post 54.

Westover AFB used to have a few QF-102's I used to watch in the early-mid 70's, 73, 74