Why was Bush assigned a second rate plane?

[ArtKramr]

Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the trouble.
And it turns out they were right.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 8/29/2004 12:44 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
>didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
>trouble.
>And it turns out they were right.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I thought you said you would stop initiating off topic posts. I see your word
is meaningless.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why was Bush assigned a second rate plane?
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 8/29/2004 11:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (ArtKramr)
>>Date: 8/29/2004 12:44 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
>>didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
>>trouble.
>>And it turns out they were right.
>>
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>I thought you said you would stop initiating off topic posts. I see your
>word
>is meaningless.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

This is a military aviation NG. The subject of my post was military aviation.
You still can't read.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Larry]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why was Bush assigned a second rate plane?
> >From: (B2431)
> >Date: 8/29/2004 11:05 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>From: (ArtKramr)
> >>Date: 8/29/2004 12:44 PM Central Daylight Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL
they
> >>didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
> >>trouble.
> >>And it turns out they were right.
> >>
> >>
> >>Arthur Kramer
> >
> >I thought you said you would stop initiating off topic posts. I see your
> >word
> >is meaningless.
> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >
>
> This is a military aviation NG. The subject of my post was military
aviation.
> You still can't read.

WrongO again there Art Ya Old Fart. Your subject line: "Why was Bush
assigned a second rate plane?" indicates BUSH as the subject.

Tis you that cannot read.

Ed

[Bob Coe]

Why did the US Air Force have them? You saying your military is
second rate?

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the trouble.
> And it turns out they were right.

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
trouble.
> And it turns out they were right.

Art once again steps on his crank. . .

He wrote this once . . .

"Let's suppose you hav never been laid but want to know what it is like. So
you
buy every book and read them carefully. Now you know. You feel quite expert
even though you have never actually been laid. But one day you meet a guy
who
has been laid and he tells you what it is like. But you are outraged. That
is
not what it said in the books. This guy is obviously a fraud, He knows
nothing
and you have the books to prove it. And these books are written by expertss
on
sex. So you know best. Now lets take war, Yu have never been to war but read
lot of books, reports etc so you feel you really have it all down cold. Then
you meet a guy who has actually been to war and what he tells you doesn't
agree
with what you read. So obviously this guy who has been to war knows nothing
while you who have never been to was know everything. You accuse him of
lying
and call him a fraud. Maybe you need to do two things:"


So, Art, regale us with your vast experience flying hugh performance jet
fighters, particularly the F-102. Oh, whats that? You never flew one?
Figures. Hypocrit.

[Leslie Swartz]

Anyone wanting to bring back a draft should consider Art's behavior as a
strong disincentive . . .

The last thing a professional military needs is more men and women of weak
character and intellect.

Steve Swartz

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (ArtKramr)
> >Date: 8/29/2004 12:44 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> >didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
> >trouble.
> >And it turns out they were right.
> >
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> I thought you said you would stop initiating off topic posts. I see your
word
> is meaningless.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ian maclure]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:44:09 +0000, ArtKramr wrote:

> Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the trouble.
> And it turns out they were right.

Art seems to be under the impression that when you join the ANG
they take you down to Planes-R-Us and let you pick a shiny new
airplane of your choice.
Art is also under the mistaken impression that Bush was at any
time AWOL. He obviously has not clue one about how the ANG works.
Not to mention which he totally ignores Bush's two+ years spent
on active service training to fly this "cheesypoof" ( his idea )
of an airplane.
Art is also it seems completely ignorant.... of the personnel
situation in period when draw down of the military during
Vietnamisation and post withdrawal period meant there were
herds of regular USAF pilots looking for flying billets which
cam from guess where. Evidently the math associated with
M flying billets and M+N pilots is beyond Art these days.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[ian maclure]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 15:00:31 -0500, Bob Coe wrote:

> Why did the US Air Force have them? You saying your military is
> second rate?

Why?
When they were designed they were probably high performance
for the time. However high performance was a swiftly moving
target in those days.
Reading the literature there were designs that entered service
obsolete or served no more than five years or so and were
discarded or passed on to the ANG.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[Do not answer]

Bob Coe wrote:

> Why did the US Air Force have them?

What plane DID Bush fly?

Asbjorn
--
To reach me by e-mail, please use _sheridan at babcon dot org_.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:50:53 +0200,
Do not answer attempted to say .....

> Bob Coe wrote:
>
> > Why did the US Air Force have them?
>
> What plane DID Bush fly?

F-102, but then you knew that already..


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[B2431]

>From: Do not answer
>Date: 8/30/2004 12:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Bob Coe wrote:
>
>> Why did the US Air Force have them?
>
>What plane DID Bush fly?
>
>Asbjorn

He flew F-102s operationally as well was the trainers to get there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
>
> Art seems to be under the impression that when you join the ANG
> they take you down to Planes-R-Us and let you pick a shiny new
> airplane of your choice.
> Art is also under the mistaken impression that Bush was at any
> time AWOL. He obviously has not clue one about how the ANG works.
> Not to mention which he totally ignores Bush's two+ years spent
> on active service training to fly this "cheesypoof" ( his idea )
> of an airplane.
> Art is also it seems completely ignorant.... of the personnel
> situation in period when draw down of the military during
> Vietnamisation and post withdrawal period meant there were
> herds of regular USAF pilots looking for flying billets which
> cam from guess where. Evidently the math associated with
> M flying billets and M+N pilots is beyond Art these days.
>

Art is generally ignorant of military aviation.

[Jim Thomas]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> Guess it was all they figured he could handle.

C'mon, Art; Bush was in the Texas ANG; the Texas ANG was flying the
F-102 at the time; so Bush flew the F-102. So what is your point?

Jim Thomas

[Matthew G. Saroff]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
>didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the trouble.
>And it turns out they were right.
>
Let's be fair. It was what the TANG Champagne unit flew.

He didn't go AWOL, he was coked to gills when he wrecked
a plane, and he was in rehab after that.

Hushed up because of his family.

Google it.
--
--Matthew Saroff
_____ * For a succesful technology, *
/ o o \ * reality must take precedence over *
______|_____|_____ * public relations, for Nature *
uuu U uuu * cannot be fooled." *
* - Richard P. Feynman *

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Matthew G. Saroff > wrote:

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> >didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
> >trouble.
> >And it turns out they were right.
> >
> Let's be fair. It was what the TANG Champagne unit flew.

Including pilots of the 147th squadron rotated out to Palace Alert duty
in Viet Nam, among other places, at the time Bush joined the squadron.

Two years later, the 147th was tasked with training ANG F-102 pilots.

> He didn't go AWOL, he was coked to gills when he wrecked
> a plane, and he was in rehab after that.

What plane? When?

Surely you can point out the accident report?

> Hushed up because of his family.

That, or made up later by someone else?

> Google it.

Cite.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
...
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> >didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
trouble.
> >And it turns out they were right.
> >
> Let's be fair. It was what the TANG Champagne unit flew.
>
> He didn't go AWOL, he was coked to gills when he wrecked
> a plane, and he was in rehab after that.
>
> Hushed up because of his family.

What utter rubbish.

>
> Google it.

Why, so we can once again prove that the internet is full of kooky sites
that assert everything from Elvis being alive and living in Bali to the
existance of transporter beams?

Brooks

[L'acrobat]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Guess it was all they figured he could handle. And when he went AWOL they
> didn't even bother to come after him. They figured he wasn't worth the
> trouble.
> And it turns out they were right.
>

What does that say about you Art?

They would only let you sit in the plane, not fly it, it wasn't even a
fighter and lets face it, it was hardly the USAAFs premier bomber at the
time.

Clearly the USAAF realised that you were not worth the trouble, were you?

And they were right, you aren't worth the trouble and it's time to killfile
you - for years you have demonstrated your sheer ignorance here, but now you
are so far into bitter senility that you aren't even worth laughing at.

You've always been a joke Art, now it's just a sad one.

[Do not answer]

Tank Fixer wrote:

> In article >,
> on Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:50:53 +0200,
> Do not answer attempted to say .....
>
>
>>Bob Coe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why did the US Air Force have them?
>>
>>What plane DID Bush fly?
>
>
> F-102, but then you knew that already..

Thanks, I certainly did not. Maybe I should, but I didn't.

Asbjörn
--
To reach me by e-mail, please use _sheridan at babcon dot org_.

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"


>
>Why, so we can once again prove that the internet is full of kooky sites
>that assert everything from Elvis being alive and living in Bali to the
>existance of transporter beams?
>
>Brooks

Actually transporter beams do exist. What do you think they run hoist trolleys
on?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
>
> >
> >Why, so we can once again prove that the internet is full of kooky sites
> >that assert everything from Elvis being alive and living in Bali to the
> >existance of transporter beams?
> >
> >Brooks
>
> Actually transporter beams do exist. What do you think they run hoist
trolleys
> on?

Gantries?

Never heard the term "transporter beam" used.

Brooks
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 8/31/2004 3:31 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Why, so we can once again prove that the internet is full of kooky sites
>> >that assert everything from Elvis being alive and living in Bali to the
>> >existance of transporter beams?
>> >
>> >Brooks
>>
>> Actually transporter beams do exist. What do you think they run hoist
>trolleys
>> on?
>
>Gantries?
>
>Never heard the term "transporter beam" used.
>
>Brooks
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I haven't either, but the beam a hoist trolley runs on could be described as a
transporter beam, I suppose.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired