A local Colorado radio station interviewed Lt. Gen Rod Bishop, USAF ret, USAFA ’74, in his role as a member of the board of directors of the USAFA Association of Graduates. The interview is expected to air this weekend. Here is an summary of the interview Gen. Bishop provided to the chairman of the AOG board:
Here, as promised, is a summary of the 45 minute interview I did on Monday with KOAA (the local Southern Colorado NBC affiliate.) Hopefully they have enough there for a minute or two of coverage. Expected air time is this Sunday PM–their biggest news night of the week. And if I didn’t share with you already, I was contacted on Wed by a gentleman who has been the Opinion Editor for the Gazette for years–he has asked me to do a podcast on the topic at his studio (which I did today).
I don’t really want all this attention–but my alignment with our AF core values (integrity first) compel me to want to make sure “truth is told” and correct the record from a press release which left our graduate community and many news outlets with a false impression of what transpired at our last BOD meeting. (I think I have heard from all of them.)
Although the below are my answers (and my opinions to direct questions) I am certainly open to the opinions of others and want to learn from those opinions as well–especially from those who might feel differently about honoring Charlie Kirk (CK), a USAFA BOV member who was assassinated basically in the line of duty.
I do believe as I imply below, that once the truth is known, finding an “appropriate” recognition will be easy.
In carrying out my third motion on CK (to find a way to appropriately recognize an assassinated BOV member) which passed 9-4, we must follow our fiduciary responsibility to “foster fellowship, communication and camaraderie” and “to promote a professional dialogue among its members” IAW our AOIs–ie, amongst ALL of our graduate community–not just individual identity or affinity groups. I consider the AOG to be the BEST affinity group out there as we are ALL a part of that one.
This should not just be a numbers count. We are legally and morally bound as described above. I look forward to following your lead and assisting in any way and hearing more about your plans on how you intend for us to carry out those fiduciary duties. I have some thoughts and have elicited the thoughts of others on how best to create that dialogue that will hopefully bridge the gap that separates grads on this issue.
In summary, I believe our mission at hand is:
- Help the AOG staff to find the “appropriate” AOG recognition of an assassinated member of the BOV
- Coordinated educational effort to correct the misinformation on Charlie Kirk–it is rampant
- Establishing a process, method, and approach for professional dialogue among the AOG Membership
- Establishing an environment for a professional dialogue among the members of the AOG BOD
For your ease of reviewing major points I made, I have highlighted what I consider to be the most important below. As always, I stated up front these were my own opinions and I was not representing the AOG BOD.
(1) I was asked by the KOAA reporter in the Monday interview, “Do you understand why people can think, since Charlie had no military experience at all, that he was not deserving of a degree from the Air Force Academy?”
I responded by saying, “no I don’t—we want every cadet who graduates from the Air Force Academy to have a great love of our country, to understand the vision of our founding fathers, to understand the Constitution, the why of why they serve. Charlie had a better understanding of all of that as well, or if not better, than any cadet who has ever graduated. I wouldn’t want to debate him on any of those topics.” I added (and I served 38 years in uniform.).
After the segment, I directed the reporter to a website where he could see Charlie’s closing comments at the BOV meeting. He said, “I was there (at the BOV meeting) and heard it first hand.” Pretty impressive.
“Make sure USAFA cadets can articulate and feel in their soul American Exceptionalism” –Charlie Kirk
(2) At that point I understood his smile when previously (during the taping,) when I took out the Gazette from Oct 18th and showed the page to the camera. (Picture attached.)
He knew where I was going. “On the left,” I said, “is an article which (not only promotes a false narrative–ie that the AOG BOD dispensed with any and all motions regarding CK and quotes a grad, professor, who says “Charlie Kirk was not qualified to be on the USAFA BOV.”
Ironically, on the right, the only other article in bold, above the fold, on the front page, is an article that says ” Trump calls for probe into Academy chapel.” “Where do you think the impetus for that probe came from I asked?”
How ironic!!! He knew as he was at the USAFA BOV meeting where Charlie brought the topic up, asking the Superintendent, “how can we help?” And then Charlie added, “we have the builder in chief as our commander-in-chief” (Words to that effect.)
Result: President orders probe. Isn’t that what a BOV member is supposed to be doing–overseeing the health, welfare and morale of the cadet wing?
(3) Another question I was asked that I should have been prepared for, but hadn’t thought about beforehand was “Do you expect to use the time between now and the February meeting to sway people to align with your way of thinking.”
I responded by saying, “I wouldn’t use the word ‘sway.’ What I will just try to do is to get the truth out there. Once the truth and the facts are known about Charlie, I think rational people will come to know the Charlie Kirk I knew (not a racist bone in his body) and the facts and the truth will have done the swaying.”
For those who repeat the narrative that Charlie Kirk a racist
(4) Off the tape we discussed how people see Charlie as a political activist and wasn’t I politicizing the military by bringing forth motions trying to honor Charlie Kirk?
I responded by saying “again, these were not my ideas–but I wish they had been” and added “a problem IMO in America today is the over politicization of just about everything. I had 6 different assignments with a very good friend and never knew his politics and he never knew mine.”
I went on to add, “I don’t think any one in the graduate community wants to see Charlie Kirk honored because he was a political activist–I think they want to see him honored because he better embodied the spirit of America and what we want from USAFA graduates–patriotism, a love for freedom, faith, family, freedom of speech than anyone else they know.
I heard the same today from a West Point grad today. And Charlie was just so inspirational in encouraging others to come to know and understand the gift we have as Americans.
People want to honor Charlie as he was a once-in-a-generation figure, and he was assassinated–not “shot”, “not killed” while practicing what our founding fathers knew what would make our country great–robust debate on ideas, not personal attacks.
Comments from USAFA grads who said YES to nomination of Charlie Kirk to be Honorary AOG member
(5) We did discuss on tape my thoughts on why some (not a majority I bet) opposed having Charlie Kirk recognized. I told him I have at least 3 answers to that question:
(A) Pretty obvious that CK was a supporter of the current President–those who don’t like the President, automatically don’t like anyone who does support him and in this case– that is CK.
(B) #2 came from a black friend of mine–a gubernatorial candidate in MN– I told the reporter, I asked him the exact same question a week ago Sunday.
His response: “Many haven’t completely digested the Marxist roots and intent of DEI to divide us as a nation. Some still want the discrimination that is a part of the “E” in DEI. Charlie was pro merit and against DEI. ” (i.e, making decisions based on merit –something I added 76.4% grads voted for in the last election).
I mentioned at this point that I would be VERY upset (as a Denver Bronco fan) if the Bronco’s decided to recruit players based on the percentage of white males in our population. The quality of the team would drop. Standards would have to drop to meet that goal.
There are just some jobs in America we want to recruit based on merit–don’t discriminate when so doing affects the hopes, dreams and aspirations of others.
(C) This 3rd one I told him came from a former USAF Chief of Chaplains when he and I spoke last week and asked him the exact same question. His response?:
“Pretty evident to me there are elements in our society who want to see God and religion removed from our day to day lives. But look at what is happening across our University campuses. There is a religious revival going on–Charlie Kirk is at least partially responsible for that–those elements in our society who want to see religion erased just can’t have that. “
So all the above join forces to significantly edit/alter (don’t play video clips to the end, etc) in a propaganda campaign to discredit/besmirch one great American.
(6) As the reporter was leaving he asked me essentially “why are you doing this?” I responded by giving him a copy of Erika Kirk’s comments at the Medal of Freedom ceremony.
Erika Kirk Speaks On Charlies Legacy: The Medal Of Freedom Award Ceremony
I asked him to read it and tell me if there can be one racist bone in Charlie’s body or his family’s.
I quoted Erika’s words towards the end: “The torch is in our hands now. It is in my hands, It is in your hands.” I could have given him Erika’s words from last night if the event at that packed house at U MISS had occurred earlier. “Find your voice, earn your voice,” she said among a dozen other notable quotes.
Although we did not specifically speak about a special award like the Thayer Award at West Point (which honors civilians) and has been awarded to many political figures like President Obama and Tom Hanks, we did discuss much about how in the opinion of many grads:
CK demonstrated/embodied/exhibited/taught values consistent/similar/identical to those of the AFA/AF that inspired young cadets/airmen and (b) need to be taught to future cadets/airmen, just as many other honors/exhibits/statutes/memorials at the AFA and in the AF honor other individuals who did the same in order to teach/inspire future generations.
Again–standing ready to assist in anyway. Just let me know how and what you would like me to do.
VR, Rod
For more information see:
The War for Truth: Efforts to Honor Charlie Kirk Knock Down the Lies
Air Force Academy association to revisit honoring activist Charlie Kirk
Regarding the misleading press release sent out by the AOG, Gen. Bishop said:
… I will send you the press release that is either a result of poor staff work, an intentional mislead in order to get this issue off our plate, or–well you decide.
One of my wing commanders (the one who helped lead Charleston AFB through a hugely successful C-17 Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability Evaluation (a month long super ORI in which we met unbelievable departure reliability rates (99%) with 12 airplanes flying at war time ute rates for weeks), came to us from the job of being the former USAF PA. One on the many things he taught us–was “don’t let an untruth take a second breath.” Well this untruth has had several second and third breaths.
You might not have heard me say to Wyatt when he left to engage the press, “do you want me to come?” I don’t think he heard me, so I followed up with another sentence–(need to get this right I was thinking) “here’s a quote for you Wyatt–‘we have done a great job of getting grads a voice–now we need to work on having that professional dialogue.”
None of that or even a mention of the third motion that passed 9-4.
When I resend the press release you will see it only addresses the first two motions (which I was going to withdraw #1/carry forward #2 anyway, but in a moment of “grace”, since the honorary degree motion one can happen on its own, you remember I said I would withdraw the first two. The Board Chair and the CEO and at least one other BOD member all asked me to withdraw all three.
You may remember me saying “I can’t do that” as I would be disenfranchising the hundred if not thousands of grads who would like to see Charlie honored in some way and I ran on a platform of “giving grads a voice” and “promoting a professional dialogue.”
The third one was going to be Honor Charlie Kirk as the first recipient of the Ronald Fogleman Award but we couldn’t pass that one. So I quickly amended the third motion, incorporating some of the words Mark had said about “an appropriate” award–and again that motion passed 9-4.
The way the press release was written however, it left the media with a false impression of everything being off the table which in turn mislead the public that the USAFA BOD was done with honoring Charlie Kirk.
I have been told this issue should be the BOD’s chair to fix (it was certainly my issue when I was a Wing CC or a JTF Commander when inaccuracies were reported), I reached out for help but received none until Lee offered Friday night.
This has caused at least 25-30 additional hours of work for me this week answering texts, emails and phone calls asking me why I backed down, what happened, or what is wrong with the AOG.
~~~
Our graduate community buried its head in the sand on the CRT/DEI issue–except to support it in some tacit and not so tacit ways–that was CLEARLY supporting a political idea–something forbidden by our Articles of Incorporation. “At no time will the organization support or oppose a political idea, candidate or political party.”
How did that work out? Are we any closer as a graduate community because Mike Gould refused to have the topic discussed?
I don’t believe the release is misleading, I know it was–been told so by multiple median outlets. As my next door neighbor, a former reporter for a national news outlet has frequently told me–the biggest bias trick in reporting is censorship by omission.
I tried to get the AOG Staff, CEO, Board chair to answer these questions from the media–invited them to the session with the COS Gazette–no response from any except to make sure I make it clear I am representing myself.
“What are you going to do to correct the record?” I asked repeatedly.
Finally, it IS our job to foster a professional dialogue–problem is, elements in our society want to over politicize EVERYTHING.
Yes Charlie Kirk was a political activist–but he was so much more that than. He was a man of courage–went into the belly of the beast of progressivism, (college campuses) and said “let’s talk.” He was a man of faith, he was a man who loved his country.
He knew way more that the average cadet does about the why behind our country’s founding. That “why” is what he wanted cadets to understand about our constitution. Why do you take that oath was his challenge.
And he was a sitting member of the BOV of the United States Air Force Academy, specially selected because he was a once in a generational figure who could change minds, engaged with our youth, make people understand and wanted to be know for “the courage of (my) faith”. And he was assassinated while serving in that roll.
If we can’t have a professional dialogue on that, easily dispatching all of the fake racist comments along the way and find a way to honor such a good man, then we have sunk to a new low as a graduate community and nation.
~~~
. . . I may have found the AOG press release earlier if I hadn’t been inundated since Saturday with phone calls, texts and emails from our fellow grads and media asking me to correct the record or explain how the BOD couldn’t find a way to honor a a BoV member who was assassinated while serving our Academy.
As we discussed today–I believe all the negatives social media in particular has spread about CK are predominantly a result of significantly edited video clips as some in our society do not like what Charlie stood for/was accomplishing.
As I expressed to you in an otherwise wonderful phone call–it is not my job to correct the record. That I believe falls to you or the CEO or our PR. NOT MY JOB.
Can any of you tell me what any of you have done in this regard? Days of my life gone in this effort, and a lot of lost sleep all in response to a misleading press release which in turn mislead the public.
Now that I see the release, I have only a few questions to ensure such a mistake like this never happens again.
(1) How in the world could we ever have released such a misleading statement? Was there intent to mislead? If so, why? If not, then why did we not state the truth/tell the entire story?
Given the push to me to move up my Charlie Kirk motions by hours and the pressure put on me to withdraw them by you and the CEO and at least one other BoD member, logic leads me to believe you just wanted these motions “off our plate” in a move to acquiesce to those threatening to take their dollars and run instead of standing on principle and our AOG AOIs which tell us our mission is to “promote a professional dialogue.”
(2) How does the process work? It needs fixing. Wyatt writes and Mark releases?
In an interview with the Gazette reporter on Monday–I was asked, “Why did the AoG put out a statement which led us to believe any motions regarding CK were withdrawn?” My answer: “you will have to ask them.”
Then we went “off the record” and I gave them my thoughts. I have asked to better understand here and have been ignored since Sat. Follow on interviews are not going to be “off the record”–an action I do NOT want to take–but perhaps that is the only way for me to get answers to my many questions of the last few days.
As we have discussed, “I am trying to foster a ‘professional dialogue’ among our graduates” as our AOIs call for. Some seem just to be bending to threats of losing $$$.
