Records Show Bush Guard Commitment Unmet

[WalterM140]

Records show pledges unmet

September 8, 2004

This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters
Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael
Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of
President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly
insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military
commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service --
first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out
of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush
signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a
punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records
show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts.
The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge,
Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to
locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization
augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary
order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard
regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush
spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his
six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he
left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke,"
Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in
a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a
''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory
participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend
duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days
of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active
duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory
participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one
six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months
in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with
interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations
from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills
was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or
ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did
neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service
had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding
officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous
12 months.

Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped
questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted
again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not
''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared:
''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have
called him up for active duty for up to two years."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army
Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military
officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard
regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without
any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was
complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview
yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars
to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher
standard."

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas
Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White
House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his
obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to
Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts,
Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush ''took a chance that he
could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and
he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. ''There
were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and
reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many
of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the
system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so.
''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating
on my income tax," Korb said.

After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active
duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any
given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that
obligation in two successive fiscal years.

Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year
obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often
allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a
responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb,
who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. ''I see no
evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission
to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that
document, he should have fulfilled his obligation."

The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future
president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received
favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from
Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of
Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a
call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a
Bush family friend.

Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and
dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970,
after five additional months of specialized training in F-102
fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year
assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron.

In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily
to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do
equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service
records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October
of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported
Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward
with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing
guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973.
While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for
failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1,
1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his
annual performance review because he had not been observed at the
Houston base during the prior 12 months.

Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some
of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a
weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June,
and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after
reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have
received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The
regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled
drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30
days after the date of the drill.

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little
interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to
look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to
hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr.,
who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National
Guard."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

Walt

[Krztalizer]

>
>Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

I was watching Buchanon and Scarborough skewer Bush on his show yesterday - the
pair of them were ticking off the list of what was wrong with Bush, from the
Conservative standpoint. It was almost exactly the same list of problems I have
with him, and it was not a short list.

I am now a 'reluctanct democrat' because I served under Bush Sr. and I was lied
to by that man and his circle of friends. I know him to be otherwise
honorable, but this was a personal thing. That led me to quit the Republican
party after years of support. If not for his stand on abortion rights and his
desire to incorporate his religion into his presidency, I would have returned
to the GOP to support Bob Dole; I remain estranged from my party of choice.

When this current guy surfaced, it was usually as some report of a drunk
incident or other tacky public faux pas that embarrassed his family. Then, in
front of God and everyone, he took over the presidency when it was clear there
was no national mandate - yet he alienated that other half of the country by
ramrodding his own agenda through in a manner that has made us reviled around
the world. When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission
Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt, and he got Powell to perjure himself in
front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick. He told me and everyone
else that field commanders in the Iraqi Army were capable of deploying those
agents. He showed us photos of tractor trailors, and pronounced them mobile
chemical warfare labs. A dozen other statements that have now been shown
wrong. Powell is an honorable man, that Bush and Cheney got to lie, for their
purposes. He is a Republican I could vote for in a heartbeat, after I heard
him explain why he did what that.

I have watched with disbelief as my country sank into the hands of the same
Bonesmen that lied to us last time (remember Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?)
and I am holding my breath to see if we are going to get clear of this
nightmare. The other night, Cheney tried to convince the nation that a vote
for Kerry could lead to an attack by the terrorists - without mentioning that
his own DHS has foretold many times that we are definitely going to be struck
again, not if, but when. Cheney was trying to scare the "sheep people" into
thinking that somehow, a vote for Bush would mean we'd somehow sidestep that
inevitability. What kind of a tactic is that? Certainly not very honest of
him.

Kerry has a hell of a lot more leadership behind him than GWB had when he took
over the White House - warts and all, I can't see the country plunging to its
doom simply because yet another career politician took over, but a few more
years under George, Dick, and Don is about the worst thing I can imagine.
Well, maybe Gore - that would be worse.

The folks that served _with_ Kerry said he earned the medals and if others that
weren't there, _on his boat_ disagree, it shouldn't matter, since the Navy
reviewed all the details at the time, and awarded them to him. That the
Republicans would now get the Navy to open a formal review of those medals is
deeply insulting, to everyone that every got one. If I disagree with the
current administration, does that mean the Navy will now revoke my Navy Comm?

Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that is
a poor judge of character.

Bush's characterization of his service ("I fulfilled all my obligations")
really doesn't toe in with what his documents show - and its bothersome to me
that these records have to come dribbling out a couple at a time, each
accompanied by a polite, "sorry, honestly, this is the last of them," note.

To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know why he
flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102? That is one ugly
bird: it now sits in a tiny air and naval museum in Del Rio, Texas, all but
forgotten. Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
available. That two seater was supposedly not that great in the air and I
wonder why he spent so much time in it. Curious.

v/r
Gordon

<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 08 Sep 2004 22:06:06 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>>Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

An opinion, but it's yours.
>
>I was watching Buchanon and Scarborough skewer Bush on his show yesterday - the
>pair of them were ticking off the list of what was wrong with Bush, from the
>Conservative standpoint. It was almost exactly the same list of problems I have
>with him, and it was not a short list.

Pat Buchanan? Gimme a break. He went way over the edge during his 2000
Republican/Independent/Reform/who'll have me candidacy. But, they get
paid to enterain, don't they.
>
>I am now a 'reluctanct democrat' because I served under Bush Sr. and I was lied
>to by that man and his circle of friends.

Your experience is formative, but to become a "reluctanct" democrat
because you were unhappy with Bush 41 policy seems to overlook the
essential difference between the two party ideologies. One party seeks
government solutions to social problems and a redistribution of
wealth, while the other party prefers individual responsibility and
minimal government intervention.

(Admittedly, in forming a myriad of policies that seek to create an
appeal to a winning election majority there is considerable overlap
between the two ideologies.)

> I know him to be otherwise
>honorable, but this was a personal thing. That led me to quit the Republican
>party after years of support. If not for his stand on abortion rights and his
>desire to incorporate his religion into his presidency, I would have returned
>to the GOP to support Bob Dole; I remain estranged from my party of choice.

Sort of makes you a Republican version of Zell Miller. But, if you
were really a Republican, how can becoming a Democrat today fit your
basic idea of the role of government in society?
>
>When this current guy surfaced, it was usually as some report of a drunk
>incident or other tacky public faux pas that embarrassed his family.

When did he "surface"? George W. gave up drinking more than 20 years
ago, about the time he was rising to public prominence.


> Then, in
>front of God and everyone, he took over the presidency when it was clear there
>was no national mandate - yet he alienated that other half of the country by
>ramrodding his own agenda through in a manner that has made us reviled around
>the world.

You'll need to admit that once elected by our Constitutional process
(Electoral College not popular vote) then, by definition, there is
sufficient mandate to govern. Recognize also that a President doesn't
rule by fiat, but requires legislation that is subject to the
checks-and-balances of the Constitution.

As for "reviled around the world"--that seems to be a bit of
hyperbole. Seems that there are still literally millions around the
world who would love to come here and become citizens.

> When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission
>Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt,

As a former Navy type yourself, it is surprising that you never
encountered a similar "Mission Accomplished" banner on return from a
combat deployment--particularly won in which your ship suffered no
combat aircraft losses. It further seems reasonable that a President
who is, in fact, a rated USAF pilot would be able to wear the Nomex
and come aboard in an aircraft.


> and he got Powell to perjure himself in
>front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick.

One perjures in a court of law. Neither the UN nor the Congress have a
perjury issue.

> He told me and everyone
>else that field commanders in the Iraqi Army were capable of deploying those
>agents. He showed us photos of tractor trailors, and pronounced them mobile
>chemical warfare labs. A dozen other statements that have now been shown
>wrong. Powell is an honorable man, that Bush and Cheney got to lie, for their
>purposes. He is a Republican I could vote for in a heartbeat, after I heard
>him explain why he did what that.

One can be mistaken without being a liar. When intelligence estimates
from a variety of sources reach the same conclusions it isn't lying to
use those conclusions for decison-making or concensus building. The
US, the Brits, and even the French all thought so. Hell, even Kerry
was convinced.
>
>I have watched with disbelief as my country sank into the hands of the same
>Bonesmen that lied to us last time (remember Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?)

If it's Bonesmen you object to, don't examine Kerry's Yale years too
closely. He's one as well.

>Kerry has a hell of a lot more leadership behind him than GWB had when he took
>over the White House - warts and all, I can't see the country plunging to its
>doom simply because yet another career politician took over, but a few more
>years under George, Dick, and Don is about the worst thing I can imagine.
>Well, maybe Gore - that would be worse.

I guess you weren't covered by the rapist, baby-killer, war-criminal
rhetoric. Lucky you. Yeah, that would be my choice for a guy I'd go to
war with....NOT.
>
>The folks that served _with_ Kerry said he earned the medals and if others that
>weren't there, _on his boat_ disagree, it shouldn't matter, since the Navy
>reviewed all the details at the time, and awarded them to him.

You should know as well as most that simply being "on the boat" is not
necessarily knowing what his job was, what his responsibility was,
what his performance was, etc. Certainly "on the boat" is good, but in
formation is equally good, on the mission is equally good, supervising
is equally good, in the chain-of-command is equally good for
evaluating a leader.


> That the
>Republicans would now get the Navy to open a formal review of those medals is
>deeply insulting, to everyone that every got one. If I disagree with the
>current administration, does that mean the Navy will now revoke my Navy Comm?

I've got a Silver Star (pause for Art to "sheesh") and I don't object
to the Navy conducting a formal review. Why is this any different than
the Dems demanding that Bush' records be examined? In fact, why hasn't
Kerry signed off on a DD-180 to release the full records?
>
>Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that is
>a poor judge of character.

C'mon. He was in "combat" for four months and then bailed out on his
crew. His first "year" tour on the Gridley he was in-theater for five
weeks of his year posting.
>
>Bush's characterization of his service ("I fulfilled all my obligations")
>really doesn't toe in with what his documents show - and its bothersome to me
>that these records have to come dribbling out a couple at a time, each
>accompanied by a polite, "sorry, honestly, this is the last of them," note.

The "characterization" is as much from people with no clue about the
military or the relationship of the ANG to the NG to the USAF.
>
>To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know why he
>flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102?

No problem there at all. He had to train in the airplane. That means
he flew the two-seater during operational qualfication. Every F-102
equipped unit had a couple of "tubs" and if they weren't used for
check-out or periodic check rides, they could fill the flying
schedule.

> That is one ugly
>bird: it now sits in a tiny air and naval museum in Del Rio, Texas, all but
>forgotten. Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
>of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
>available. That two seater was supposedly not that great in the air and I
>wonder why he spent so much time in it. Curious.

So, do you suppose that someone qualifies in a single-seat fighter by
just going out and firing one up because they prefer single seat?
There are a number of single-seat aircraft with no 2-seat variant
(A-10 currently) and back in the old days, the F-86 and F-84, but for
most one-holers there are a couple of 2-seaters around.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Pete]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote

> >
> >To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know
why he
> >flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102?
>
> No problem there at all. He had to train in the airplane. That means
> he flew the two-seater during operational qualfication. Every F-102
> equipped unit had a couple of "tubs" and if they weren't used for
> check-out or periodic check rides, they could fill the flying
> schedule.

We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.

Pete

[Bob Coe]

"Krztalizer" > wrote
>
> Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
> of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
> available.

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

[Krztalizer]

>
>> Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
>> of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
>else
>> available.
>
>Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
>you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

The one that comes to mind first is Diz Laird, who thought once you had a
"friend" in the cockpit, it was no longer a "fighter". I've sat at tables with
fighter aces at their reunions in San Diego, Mesa, San Antonio and other places
and Diz' comments were in line with what the guys were saying. That said,
almost anyone with a history of flying would fly in a motorized ****can, if
that was the only thing available. I can't imagine why Bush would go through
training and then walk away from a once in a lifetime opportunity to fly the
Deuce, or any other jet fighter.

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Ian MacLure]

(WalterM140) wrote in
om:

> Records show pledges unmet

All the record shows is that Walterm140 is an idiot who
knows nought whereof he whines.

IBM

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

[Krztalizer]

>
>>Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
>>you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin Olds,
who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

Besides, I didn't say the guys wouldn't ride in a two-seater, I said

>I don't know any
>>> of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
>>else
>>> available.

Did you miss that part of my comment,
Bob?

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Ian MacLure]

"Pete" > wrote in
:

[snip]

> We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.

I was only ever close to a 106 at an airshow in Plattsburg back
in the 80's. I was surprised. I'd always pictured it as a much
larger aircraft.

IBM

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

[Bob Coe]

"Krztalizer" > wrote
> >
>>> Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
>>> of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
>>else
>>> available.
>>
>>Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
>>you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.
>
> The one that comes to mind first is Diz Laird, who thought once you had a
> "friend" in the cockpit, it was no longer a "fighter". I've sat at tables with
> fighter aces at their reunions in San Diego, Mesa, San Antonio and other places
> and Diz' comments were in line with what the guys were saying. That said,
> almost anyone with a history of flying would fly in a motorized ****can, if
> that was the only thing available. I can't imagine why Bush would go through
> training and then walk away from a once in a lifetime opportunity to fly the
> Deuce, or any other jet fighter.

Believe me! It happens all the time. In the late 90's F-15 and F-16 pilots
were jumping out in record numbers because of all the bull**** orbits in Iraq.
When the training is not realistic, the fun goes out of flying pretty fast. There's
just a ****load of additional duties that pilots have to perform, and some
peckerhead is always coming-up with a new ground training requirement
that must be bean-counted to ****ing death. Charts and slides, briefings to
people who can't wipe their own ass. It all adds up to the fact that flying is
5% of the job description, and 95% is non-mission-related.

I tell you what... Spend 90 days overseas wearing diapers and ****ting all
over yourself, and ****ing all over yourself while sitting on a seat kit for
14 hours waiting for some raghead to fire a round at you. Please! Let me
get rid of this ****ing ordinance so I can empty my ****ing diapers.

There's only a very special breed that will do that, and they usually will take it
because they want to be a General one day, and of course fix everything :-)

[Bob Coe]

"Krztalizer" > wrote
> >
>>>Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
>>>you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.
>
> I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin Olds,
> who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"

> Besides, I didn't say the guys wouldn't ride in a two-seater, I said
>
>>I don't know any
>>>> of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
>>>else
>>>> available.
>
> Did you miss that part of my comment,
> Bob?

Well, I was thinking: here's an F-102, and here's a T-33... Hmm, decisions,
decisions...

[Pete]

"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
> "Pete" > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
> > We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.
>
> I was only ever close to a 106 at an airshow in Plattsburg back
> in the 80's. I was surprised. I'd always pictured it as a much
> larger aircraft.
>
> IBM

The museum at Wright-Pat has one of our birds (S/N 58-0787) .
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm

Pete

[B2431]

>From: "Pete"
>Date: 9/9/2004 12:44 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ian MacLure" > wrote in message
...
>> "Pete" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.
>>
>> I was only ever close to a 106 at an airshow in Plattsburg back
>> in the 80's. I was surprised. I'd always pictured it as a much
>> larger aircraft.
>>
>> IBM
>
>The museum at Wright-Pat has one of our birds (S/N 58-0787) .
>http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm
>
>Pete

We had the F-106 at Langley while I was there. 48 FIS? The first time I heard
one of those puppies lit afterburner I thought something had blown up.

It was one tough girl.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>
>>>
>>>Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.
>
>An opinion, but it's yours.
>>

Actually, I wasn't the person that wrote that, Ed. The original poster did.

>>I was watching Buchanon and Scarborough skewer Bush on his show yesterday -
>the
>>pair of them were ticking off the list of what was wrong with Bush, from the
>>Conservative standpoint. It was almost exactly the same list of problems I
>have
>>with him, and it was not a short list.
>
>Pat Buchanan? Gimme a break. He went way over the edge during his 2000
>Republican/Independent/Reform/who'll have me candidacy. But, they get
>paid to enterain, don't they.

Well, I believe he still goes around under the label of Conservative
Republican, as does Scarborough.

>>I am now a 'reluctanct democrat' because I served under Bush Sr. and I was
>lied
>>to by that man and his circle of friends.
>
>Your experience is formative, but to become a "reluctanct" democrat
>because you were unhappy with Bush 41 policy seems to overlook the
>essential difference between the two party ideologies.

If I was a mindless automaton, perhaps, but if you were a boy scout and you and
several other boy scouts lied to me personally, I wouldn't associate myself
with you or them anymore, regardless of how much I think they are a great
organization. There are vast differences between all degrees of Republicans or
Democrats -- I fell in line with many more Republican policies than Democrats,
but I have a couple sticking points that are making it impossible to throw my
support behind either party. The current "yer with us, or agin us" attitude of
the GOP certainly doesn't help.

> One party seeks
>government solutions to social problems and a redistribution of
>wealth, while the other party prefers individual responsibility and
>minimal government intervention.

I find it difficult to consider the Patriot Act or invading Iraq and tagging on
hundreds of Billions of dollars to the national debt "minimal government
intervention".

>(Admittedly, in forming a myriad of policies that seek to create an
>appeal to a winning election majority there is considerable overlap
>between the two ideologies.)
>

Thats the gray area in which I fall, between the main platforms.

>> I know him to be otherwise
>>honorable, but this was a personal thing. That led me to quit the
>Republican
>>party after years of support. If not for his stand on abortion rights and
>his
>>desire to incorporate his religion into his presidency, I would have
>returned
>>to the GOP to support Bob Dole; I remain estranged from my party of choice.
>
>Sort of makes you a Republican version of Zell Miller.

I don't recall ever going on national television and denouncing every part of
my currently-claimed political affilliation? I have never stood on a stage
claiming to be from one party and loudly, overwhelmingly toss my support to the
other team. Zell is a politician and a showman - I am neither.

> But, if you
>were really a Republican, how can becoming a Democrat today fit your
>basic idea of the role of government in society?

I didn't become a Democrat today - it happened slowly, over time, watching
Bush41's background guys get away with murder, then waste millions of dollars
trying to impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob, but the last straw was
Cheney refusing to let the GAO know what went on during the Texas oil lobby's
meetings with him while he formulated our nations energy policy. I would
support a three legged dog like Clinton before I would agree to let Cheney have
four more years to shape our future energy policy. And how long was "the great
uniter" in office before he gutted the EPA, and began full scale efforts to
roll back Roe v Wade, knowing it is the single most devisive issue in modern US
history? That's not the actions of a uniter.

>>When this current guy surfaced, it was usually as some report of a drunk
>>incident or other tacky public faux pas that embarrassed his family.
>
>When did he "surface"? George W. gave up drinking more than 20 years
>ago, about the time he was rising to public prominence.

We must come from different parts of the country, because GWB had a reputation
for partying hard long before 1984. It wasn't a good reputation.

>> Then, in
>>front of God and everyone, he took over the presidency when it was clear
>there
>>was no national mandate - yet he alienated that other half of the country by
>>ramrodding his own agenda through in a manner that has made us reviled
>around
>>the world.
>
>You'll need to admit that once elected by our Constitutional process
>(Electoral College not popular vote) then, by definition, there is
>sufficient mandate to govern.

Sufficient to govern? Ok, but when you know 49% of the voters disagree with
your policies, how compassionate or unifying is it to basically **** on
everyone that didn't vote for him? Such a meager victory should have taught
him humility - instead, he took it as a God-given right to jam his agenda, and
his war against Saddam, down everyone's neck. He told Congress that he didn't
feel military action was inevitable in Iraq, even as he planned the invasion he
knew he was going to order, in the face of widespread national disunity on the
issue. Now, here we are.

>Recognize also that a President doesn't
>rule by fiat, but requires legislation that is subject to the
>checks-and-balances of the Constitution.

Like when Cheney essentially tells the GAO to f-off, or when the entire
administration uses a large stack of "mistaken" evidence to convince Congress
to go along with him?

>As for "reviled around the world"--that seems to be a bit of
>hyperbole.

No sir. Its not just in Muslim countries, either. All over the world, people
do not look at us the same as prior to our invasion of an oil state. At a time
when Al Qaida was an active, determined threat, he diverted resources to go
after his sworn family enemy, Saddam, placing him higher in priority than
wiping out the organization that caused 9-11; General Franks said in an
interview that units were stripped away from the hunt for Bin Laden in the
spool up for the Iraq invasion - as long as he is out there, he remains Threat
#1. I think it was a strategic goof to back-burner Bin Laden and spend
inconcievable amounts of money going after a country that had NOT attacked us.
NK is a far greater threat than Saddam ever was; that will probably be our next
war.

>Seems that there are still literally millions around the
>world who would love to come here and become citizens.

Millions out of billions, with far more folks wondering what the hell we are
doing and where this is all heading. For every person wanting to immigrate to
America today, there are just as many that want to kill an American, for
general purposes. The total number in that category sure seems to have gone up
in the last 20 months.

>> When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission
>>Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt,
>
>As a former Navy type yourself, it is surprising that you never
>encountered a similar "Mission Accomplished" banner on return from a
>combat deployment--particularly won in which your ship suffered no
>combat aircraft losses.

It was inappropriate - we hadn't accomplished finding Bin Laden, once his
stated #1 goal and the reason that carrier had gone out in the first place. We
hadn't even found Saddam - whose forces still bleed us today. If the "Mission"
had been to plunge us into a protracted ground war in Asia, then yes, its been
"accomplished".

>It further seems reasonable that a President
>who is, in fact,

WAS. And he walked off the job by choice - you hold that against Kerry, so
hold it against Bush as well.

> a rated USAF pilot would be able to wear the Nomex
>and come aboard in an aircraft.

I recall a lot of people calling John Glenn's final flight into space a giant
PR stunt - on a grander scale, a sitting US President that goes for a joyride
to a photo op is not what I would consider presidential.

>> and he got Powell to perjure himself in
>>front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick.
>
>One perjures in a court of law. Neither the UN nor the Congress have a
>perjury issue.

So lie like a rug then, hmm? I consider when a US Government official lies
directly to Congress and the governments of our allies alike about national and
global security to be a bad thing.

>> He told me and everyone
>>else that field commanders in the Iraqi Army were capable of deploying those
>>agents. He showed us photos of tractor trailors, and pronounced them mobile
>>chemical warfare labs. A dozen other statements that have now been shown
>>wrong. Powell is an honorable man, that Bush and Cheney got to lie, for
>their
>>purposes. He is a Republican I could vote for in a heartbeat, after I heard
>>him explain why he did what that.
>
>One can be mistaken without being a liar.

So we went to war through a series of mistakes? Why is that better? Powell
may not be a serial liar, but during his UN speech, he made enough 'mistakes'
to basically render our stated motive for war moot.

>When intelligence estimates
>from a variety of sources reach the same conclusions it isn't lying to
>use those conclusions for decison-making or concensus building.

He told us the reason we were going to war was that Iraq possessed and was
getting prepared to use chemical weapons and biological weapons, was actively
ramping up a nuke program, and it was imperative to strike before he could do
so. The *actual* reason was that Bush 43 had made up his mind to invade Iraq
long before those intel estimates said anything - his own memo from the
earliest days of his administration shows that.

>The
>US, the Brits, and even the French all thought so. Hell, even Kerry
>was convinced.

He mistakenly believed the President. We all have to learn from such mistakes.

>>I have watched with disbelief as my country sank into the hands of the same
>>Bonesmen that lied to us last time (remember Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's
>hand?)
>
>If it's Bonesmen you object to, don't examine Kerry's Yale years too
>closely. He's one as well.

Bonesmen make good leaders - I have a problem with THESE Bonesmen , who I don't
feel serve the American population at all.

>>Kerry has a hell of a lot more leadership behind him than GWB had when he
>took
>>over the White House - warts and all, I can't see the country plunging to
>its
>>doom simply because yet another career politician took over, but a few more
>>years under George, Dick, and Don is about the worst thing I can imagine.
>>Well, maybe Gore - that would be worse.
>
>I guess you weren't covered by the rapist, baby-killer, war-criminal
>rhetoric. Lucky you. Yeah, that would be my choice for a guy I'd go to
>war with....NOT.

In the news two days ago, a report came out that the Pentagon knew and covered
up a large-scale problem with wartime atrocities in SVN by Tiger Force; I would
never paint all vets of a conflict with the same brush (either positively or
negatively), but I think you and I both know that there were atrocities by both
sides in that war. A small percentage of almost every fighting force I can
think of has fallen into such depravity. I think Kerry's comments 30+ years
ago were ill-concieved and immature; but back then, lots of people were trying
to sort out what was happening, while the Pentagon and McNamara were feeding us
all bull****. Remember, "What the Major really means.."? I care a lot less
about what Kerry did in combat 30 years ago or what he said in its aftermath:
what concerns me today, right now, is what Bush has done since he took office,
and what Cheney has been doing in the background. I am not a "Kerry
supporter", but I will support him if that is what I can do to help remove
Cheney from office.

History looks back with a strong lens and I believe that one day we are going
to discover things about this administration that will justify my intense
misgivings about them.

>>The folks that served _with_ Kerry said he earned the medals and if others
>that
>>weren't there, _on his boat_ disagree, it shouldn't matter, since the Navy
>>reviewed all the details at the time, and awarded them to him.
>
>You should know as well as most that simply being "on the boat" is not
>necessarily knowing what his job was,

C'mon, Ed - on a small riverine craft that's like saying you don't know if the
guy in the rack beside you farted. Within a few days of joining a small boat
crew, you know more about the rest of the guys than anyone you went all through
school with.

> what his responsibility was,
>what his performance was, etc.

Do you believe that no one on his boat was in a position to determine if his
actions were meritorious?

>Certainly "on the boat" is good, but in
>formation is equally good,

The guys that were in formation with the A-10 that went off to crash and die on
his own on a snowy mountainside were unable to give any indication of what
happened to the man flying directly beside them in their formation. I am
confident that, if he had a backseater, that person could have added at least
something to the inquiry. The guy at your elbow is going to have a better view
of what you are doing than the guy in that other boat over there, and being in
the same general area in another small boat, in the dark, just isn't going to
convince me they had a better view.

>on the mission is equally good, supervising
>is equally good, in the chain-of-command is equally good for
>evaluating a leader.

Funny you bring that up - those guys signed off on his medals and made
supportive statements right up until he made his abrasive postwar comments.
Right up to then, they agreed he was a fine small unit commander, that
exhibited bravery under fire. I say if we are going to refight his whole life,
then we should have to accept that at the time of the actions, he was seen as a
solid performer.

I lot of us regret what we did in the 1970s, and Kerry quit the anti-war
veterans group when they spun out of control. His statements in front of
Congress cannot be seen as pointed at every single warrior that served over
there - I am not going to try to heal the wounds his comments made, because
they impugned you and the men with which you served. It was undoubtably a
wrong act on Kerry's part and I believe he would be miles ahead to step forward
and say he took a stand for what he believed and in the process went over the
line and disrespected the vast majority of those that served with their moral
honor intact.

The ongoing investigation into Tiger Force for exactly the same sort of abuses
that Kerry claimed back then shows that he was not inventing it out of whole
cloth - the Pentagon's reports came back with affirmations of the Tiger Force
crimes, recommendations for charges, etc., and the case against the
participants, the very people that did this "Abu Ghraib"-type of malevolent
behavior, were never brought to justice.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

This is relevent, because it is exactly the same type of behavior that Kerry
portrayed to Congress. Its reprehensible, but his comments certainly applied
to this particular unit. It wouldn't explain Kerry's non-efforts to heal the
wounds he caused with his comments, which I think is something he is going to
have to do.

>> That the
>>Republicans would now get the Navy to open a formal review of those medals
>is
>>deeply insulting, to everyone that every got one. If I disagree with the
>>current administration, does that mean the Navy will now revoke my Navy
>Comm?
>
>I've got a Silver Star (pause for Art to "sheesh") and I don't object
>to the Navy conducting a formal review.

How would you have felt if your feelings over our three-legged former President
caused the AF to reopen your record, for the purpose of re-evaluating your
awards? What if Clinton had ordered a formal investigation of Senator McCain's
conduct in the Hanoi Hilton? My point is, every single one of us would have
gone through the roof - your record is your record, and political foes
shouldn't be in a position to direct a branch of the military to put you
through the wringer, just for opposing them in an election.

>Why is this any different than
>the Dems demanding that Bush' records be examined?

Part of it is that he is the highest official in the land, and he should be
held to the highest standard in the land. Like when the GOP hounded Clinton -
I think its part of the territory when you are at the top, you had better be
above reproach or have the strength of character to admit when you were wrong.


>In fact, why hasn't
>Kerry signed off on a DD-180 to release the full records?

Beats me. But if there was anything in there that would help Bush, it would
have been leaked by now.

You know it would.

>>Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that
>is
>>a poor judge of character.
>
>C'mon. He was in "combat" for four months and then bailed out on his
>crew.

Not something I would have done, or appreciated. I am not here to fight his
battles for him - my view is that Bush AND Kerry have made poor choices over
the years. That doesn't take away the pair of Queens in his hand - he IS a
combat vet and Bush is not. He WAS awarded medals for bravery in combat and
Bush has not. All things totalled up, I can't vote for Cheney in any case.

>His first "year" tour on the Gridley he was in-theater for five
>weeks of his year posting.

???? Wait a second, Ed - now you are quantifying the service of someone else,
setting it as less than worthy because he wasn't in theatre as long as you
think he should - that's what you crack on Art about. If Kerry was riding
around on a tin can for a few weeks or months, it still counts.

The first ribbon I got, I didn't wear for years - VS-31 got a Battle E on the
Ike during their 1978 Med Cruise and for the rest of that year. I joined
towards the end of the deployment and was told I got the Battle E, certificate
included, a few months later. I knew I wasn't in the unit long enough to have
earned it, but I got gigged on my final inspection in the squadron because I
was not wearing it - I stood out because every single other person was wearing
the ribbon, and I had none. I wore it after that. I would point at it and
tell folks I got that one for Mess Crankin' at Jax (Cecil Field, actually).

>>Bush's characterization of his service ("I fulfilled all my obligations")
>>really doesn't toe in with what his documents show - and its bothersome to
>me
>>that these records have to come dribbling out a couple at a time, each
>>accompanied by a polite, "sorry, honestly, this is the last of them," note.
>
>The "characterization" is as much from people with no clue about the
>military or the relationship of the ANG to the NG to the USAF.

In February, the White House released documents, saying "This is all there is".
Its not the first time, and its not just nit-picking, its a valid point. How
many FOI requests does it take to get the whole story? There are months he
didn't drill and after a million dollars in flight training, he doesn't go for
a physical and drops out of flying. That bothers me, Ed.

>>To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know why
>he
>>flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102?
>
>No problem there at all. He had to train in the airplane. That means
>he flew the two-seater during operational qualfication.

Understood - I was curious about the comparitively small amount of flight time
in the actual F-102 - it looked like he was more of a TF-102 pilot. I'm not
trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, I wondered why so much time in
the TF and so little in the F; you've set me straight.

> Every F-102
>equipped unit had a couple of "tubs" and if they weren't used for
>check-out or periodic check rides, they could fill the flying
>schedule.

I didn't realize there were so many - I watched a program on them that made it
sound that there were scant few (63 built is a lot more than they stated).
Shows what happens when I watch tv... I did check out the Del Rio TF-102;
strange that it is not listed as a preserved example.?

>> That is one ugly
>>bird: it now sits in a tiny air and naval museum in Del Rio, Texas, all but
>>forgotten. Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know
>any
>>of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
>else
>>available. That two seater was supposedly not that great in the air and I
>>wonder why he spent so much time in it. Curious.
>
>So, do you suppose that someone qualifies in a single-seat fighter by
>just going out and firing one up because they prefer single seat?

No sir, and Colonel, I am not going to be disrespectful about your profession.
I know the drill. Tons of training to reach the top rung of the ladder - as
you did. His flight hours as quoted seems like his flight time was primarily
trainers and comparitively few sorties in the F-102, and I was wondering aloud
why anyone would prefer a "tub", once they qualified on the for-real fighter
version.

>There are a number of single-seat aircraft with no 2-seat variant
>(A-10 currently) and back in the old days, the F-86 and F-84, but for
>most one-holers there are a couple of 2-seaters around.

The Wings program on the F-102 claimed that the widened cockpit was a botched
job, causing seriously degraded performance. Was it really that much
different?

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[George Z. Bush]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...

Give 'em hell, Gordon. We're pretty much on the same page, and my past personal
political history and experience very closely imitates yours. The only
difference between us is that I no longer have either the patience or the energy
to get into the point by point refutations that you so admirably have done. So,
keep up the good work, Gordon.....they may have stolen our party from us and
left only the name behind with which to confuse the public, but that doesn't
entitle them to a free ride.

Like I said, keep up the good work, and "nol illegitimati carborundum" (don't
let the *******s wear you down)!! (^-^)))

George Z.

PS - I apologize for posting this only tangentially-related aviation topic in
this forum. I tried to communicate these views to you via email without success
and felt that I had no other options left if I wanted to let you know how I felt
about your efforts.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:24:27 -0500, "Bob Coe" > wrote:

>"Krztalizer" > wrote
>> >
>>>>Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
>>>>you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

Here's one. I haven't flown a day since I left the AF. While flying an
airplane is undeniably fun, just flying an airplane isn't the same as
flying operationally. I'll often tell folks who ask why I didn't fly
with the airlines if they would ask Mario Andretti why he didn't go to
work for Greyhound after he left F1/IRC racing.
>>
>> I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin Olds,
>> who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

Do you know Robin? I'm afraid that I can't picture the Robin Olds I
know saying that unless it was a necessary warning when something
unusual was about to occur. Robin is the consummate professional in
fighter aviation and knew (and knows) that the F-4 is a two-person
airplane and both parties have a critical role to perform.

Although I've heard many times about single-seat drivers telling the
WSO to go cold mike, I've never known a single one who did so. It's
urban legend.
>
>I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
>said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"

Your wife may have been going through an emotional crisis, or maybe
she hasn't met many warriors. Lesser men will often say the same thing
after an encounter with Robin.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

>Here's one. I haven't flown a day since I left the AF. While flying an
>airplane is undeniably fun, just flying an airplane isn't the same as
>flying operationally.

You're right, but you are undeniably missing something. Or you simply
don't "love" flying. And that's OK too. I never get tired of admiring
the terrain and wondering how long it took settlers to get from A to
B, or watching the magnitude of forest fires, flying by Mount Logan,
or my personal favorite...looking straight above the jet as the Aurora
Borealis literally dances; meteor showers viewed from FL410 are pretty
neat too.

Not opertional? I'm pretty sure C-130 guys hauling beans and bullets
think they're operational. I'd even bet BUFDRVR thinks launching ALCMs
or JDAMs from FL350 thinks he's operational. I think "slam dunk"
arrivals are pretty operational, as are single engine landings, and
CAT II/III landings, and Resolution Advisories from TCAS in the
traffic pattern, or wind shear advisories, and picking your way thru
TRWs forming a line from Winnipeg Manitoba to Omaha too. Guys carrying
H&K .40 cals in the cockpit and airlines working on MANPADs
countermeasures is something operational. We just can't "jettison the
jet" (eject) if things turn to ****.

> I'll often tell folks who ask why I didn't fly with the airlines if
> they would ask Mario Andretti why he didn't go to
>work for Greyhound after he left F1/IRC racing.

That's pretty humble, comparing yourself to Mario 8-) But I'd bet you
a million bucks that Mario would do it in a heartbeat if it were the
only way he could keep driving.

Respectfully, I'd submit you don't think being an airline wienie is
exciting enough after your combat experience, and that's cool. I've
flown with at least a hundred of your contemporaries (including Van
Heywood from your first book, one of my favorites) and guys like
myself with ZERO combat experience...flying fighters was fun, but so
is the 757...and it has a mission.

Different strokes...


Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Krztalizer
confessed the following:

>I find it difficult to consider the Patriot Act or invading Iraq and tagging on
>hundreds of Billions of dollars to the national debt "minimal government
>intervention".

SHACK! I joined the ACLU because of the Patriot Act.

>I didn't become a Democrat today - it happened slowly, over time, watching
>Bush41's background guys get away with murder, then waste millions of dollars
>trying to impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob, but the last straw was
>Cheney refusing to let the GAO know what went on during the Texas oil lobby's
>meetings with him while he formulated our nations energy policy. I would
>support a three legged dog like Clinton before I would agree to let Cheney have
>four more years to shape our future energy policy. And how long was "the great
>uniter" in office before he gutted the EPA, and began full scale efforts to
>roll back Roe v Wade, knowing it is the single most devisive issue in modern US
>history? That's not the actions of a uniter.

Uh...what he said.

>Sufficient to govern? Ok, but when you know 49% of the voters disagree with
>your policies, how compassionate or unifying is it to basically **** on
>everyone that didn't vote for him? Such a meager victory should have taught
>him humility - instead, he took it as a God-given right to jam his agenda, and
>his war against Saddam, down everyone's neck. He told Congress that he didn't
>feel military action was inevitable in Iraq, even as he planned the invasion he
>knew he was going to order, in the face of widespread national disunity on the
>issue. Now, here we are.

Uh...what he said.

>No sir. Its not just in Muslim countries, either. All over the world, people
>do not look at us the same as prior to our invasion of an oil state. At a time
>when Al Qaida was an active, determined threat, he diverted resources to go
>after his sworn family enemy, Saddam, placing him higher in priority than
>wiping out the organization that caused 9-11; General Franks said in an
>interview that units were stripped away from the hunt for Bin Laden in the
>spool up for the Iraq invasion - as long as he is out there, he remains Threat
>#1. I think it was a strategic goof to back-burner Bin Laden and spend
>inconcievable amounts of money going after a country that had NOT attacked us.
>NK is a far greater threat than Saddam ever was; that will probably be our next
>war.

****ing A Bubba!

Okay so you get the picture. Damn Gordon, I never realized you were so
wise. [8-)

Robey

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:24:27 -0500, "Bob Coe" > wrote:
>
> >"Krztalizer" > wrote
> >> >
> >>>>Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots
that
> >>>>you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.
>
> Here's one. I haven't flown a day since I left the AF. While flying an
> airplane is undeniably fun, just flying an airplane isn't the same as
> flying operationally. I'll often tell folks who ask why I didn't fly
> with the airlines if they would ask Mario Andretti why he didn't go to
> work for Greyhound after he left F1/IRC racing.
> >>
> >> I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is
Robin Olds,
> >> who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".
>
> Do you know Robin? I'm afraid that I can't picture the Robin Olds I
> know saying that unless it was a necessary warning when something
> unusual was about to occur. Robin is the consummate professional in
> fighter aviation and knew (and knows) that the F-4 is a two-person
> airplane and both parties have a critical role to perform.
>
> Although I've heard many times about single-seat drivers telling the
> WSO to go cold mike, I've never known a single one who did so. It's
> urban legend.
> >
> >I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
> >said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"
>
> Your wife may have been going through an emotional crisis, or maybe
> she hasn't met many warriors. Lesser men will often say the same thing
> after an encounter with Robin.

Uhhmm...that comment from Bob was not related to Olds, but to the other
pilot mentioned in the discussion.

Brooks
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 9/9/2004 8:34 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Like I said, keep up the good work, and "nol illegitimati carborundum" (don't
>
>let the *******s wear you down)!! (^-^)))
>
>George Z.
>

Illigitimus non tatum carborundum.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:28:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Uhhmm...that comment from Bob was not related to Olds, but to the other
>pilot mentioned in the discussion.

It certainly sounded like it was related to Olds. I found it hard to
believe because he is a consummate gentleman, although also probably
the most aggressive air warrior you may ever have the privilege to
meet.

Coincidentally (and I didn't know it this AM), I went to the local
Daedalians meeting for lunch at USAFA. The guest speakers today were a
tag-team match of Bob Titus (3 MiGs in SEA and lots of test pilot
experience including the zero-length launch of the F-100) and Robin.
Both charmed the gathering of military aviatiors for quite a while.

There was some young punk named Ritchie in the front row who claimed
to have some F-4 time as well!

A pretty impressive lunch bunch.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:28:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >Uhhmm...that comment from Bob was not related to Olds, but to the other
> >pilot mentioned in the discussion.
>
> It certainly sounded like it was related to Olds. I found it hard to
> believe because he is a consummate gentleman, although also probably
> the most aggressive air warrior you may ever have the privilege to
> meet.

You may be right; I took it as referring to "Diz", but on second reading it
could go either way.

Brooks

>
> Coincidentally (and I didn't know it this AM), I went to the local
> Daedalians meeting for lunch at USAFA. The guest speakers today were a
> tag-team match of Bob Titus (3 MiGs in SEA and lots of test pilot
> experience including the zero-length launch of the F-100) and Robin.
> Both charmed the gathering of military aviatiors for quite a while.
>
> There was some young punk named Ritchie in the front row who claimed
> to have some F-4 time as well!


> A pretty impressive lunch bunch.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

[Bob Coe]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:28:00 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
>>Uhhmm...that comment from Bob was not related to Olds, but to the other
>>pilot mentioned in the discussion.
>
> It certainly sounded like it was related to Olds. I found it hard to
> believe because he is a consummate gentleman, although also probably
> the most aggressive air warrior you may ever have the privilege to
> meet.

Yes, it was Olds, and yes, my wife is easily offended, and I said that to
make her feel she was still on top, and my sword was valiantly in place
to defend her honor, knowing full well that to explain his humor to her
would be a waste of time and energy. Sorry, I should have said that in the
first message, as it does make it sound like General Olds was something
that he is clearly not. But it would have been as long winded as this reply.

> Coincidentally (and I didn't know it this AM), I went to the local
> Daedalians meeting for lunch at USAFA. The guest speakers today were a
> tag-team match of Bob Titus (3 MiGs in SEA and lots of test pilot
> experience including the zero-length launch of the F-100) and Robin.
> Both charmed the gathering of military aviatiors for quite a while.
>
> There was some young punk named Ritchie in the front row who claimed
> to have some F-4 time as well!
>
> A pretty impressive lunch bunch.

Are you shocked at how old they look now? I can't believe how fast time flies.
The kids in my neighborhood call me Grandpa Coe, and I still think I'm 20
years old in spirit, hee

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 17:35:25 -0500, "Bob Coe" > wrote:


>Are you shocked at how old they look now? I can't believe how fast time flies.
>The kids in my neighborhood call me Grandpa Coe, and I still think I'm 20
>years old in spirit, hee
>

Yep. Every year when I go to the River Rats reunion, I keep running
into this collection of fat, balding, gray-haired, glasses-wearing old
farts wearing the name tags of a bunch of guys who are much younger.

Then someone sends me a picture of myself after the doings and I
wonder who the old, fat, etc. etc. guy is wearing my nametag.

It's an honor to know them all.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Krztalizer]

Thanks, George. These days, stating your political beliefs is basically
inviting a load of hurt, but I refuse to believe our country would be better
off without the debate.

v/r
Gordon

[Krztalizer]

>
>>> I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin
>Olds,
>>> who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".
>
>Do you know Robin?

He chased me out of his ready room in the mid-70s when he was running the
Triple Nickle - since then I have met him several times but I seriously doubt
that he remembers every fan. I grew up thinking (knowing) he was the best damn
fighter pilot I would ever meet. Until I met Swede Vejtasa and became friends
with him, I never doubted that Col. Olds was the top of the food chain.

The comments he was making we in the context of when **** hit the fan and how
overloaded a pilot could get in the middle of NVN airspace. With the RWR and
ECM going off, folks yelling on the radio, etc., he talked about how
distracting it could be to have a backseater. Other people at the reunion
mentioned his "strap in and hold on" crew brief, although that is decades after
the events and could be partially puffed up to make a good story. I've heard
that happens.

>I'm afraid that I can't picture the Robin Olds I
>know saying that unless it was a necessary warning when something
>unusual was about to occur. Robin is the consummate professional in
>fighter aviation and knew (and knows) that the F-4 is a two-person
>airplane and both parties have a critical role to perform.

He was already into F-15s when I met him the first time. It would not have
surprised me to have actual fangs drop down out of the corners of his mouth.

>Although I've heard many times about single-seat drivers telling the
>WSO to go cold mike, I've never known a single one who did so. It's
>urban legend.

I would hope so - its not much of a team if it was just the driver.

>>I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
>>said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"
>
>Your wife may have been going through an emotional crisis, or maybe
>she hasn't met many warriors.

sorry, Ed - I don't know where that came from. I don't think I wrote the quote
there that you replied to as it doesn't sound familiar at all.

> Lesser men will often say the same thing
>after an encounter with Robin.

No way! He makes a larger than life impression on the folks I have seen him
with. Yeager maybe, but not Col. Olds (err.. General?).

v/r
Gordon

<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Krztalizer]

>
>****ing A Bubba!
>
>Okay so you get the picture. Damn Gordon, I never realized you were so
>wise.

Shhhhh, I already have Cheney peeking in the mail slot!

:)

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Krztalizer
confessed the following:

>Shhhhh, I already have Cheney peeking in the mail slot!

BTW have you seen these poll results at the BBC site?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm

Makes one wonder how supporters of gwb and his dick dismiss their
unpopularity around the world. The obvious answer is they don't care.

This is the first time in my life I've donated money to a political
campaign. http://www.idiots4bush.com/bumper_stickers1

Robey

[Krztalizer]

>
>Coincidentally (and I didn't know it this AM), I went to the local
>Daedalians meeting for lunch at USAFA.

_Dog_. :) I would have killed to be a fly on the wall.

I never made it into the Order of the Daedalians - our crew was First Loser one
year. Sure felt great to be considered in the running!

> The guest speakers today were a
>tag-team match of Bob Titus (3 MiGs in SEA and lots of test pilot
>experience including the zero-length launch of the F-100) and Robin.

That would have been worth a good admission.

>Both charmed the gathering of military aviatiors for quite a while.
>
>There was some young punk named Ritchie in the front row who claimed
>to have some F-4 time as well!

He was really nice to my son - sent an inspiring letter and copies of his best
speeches. The photos were a pleasant bonus - the kid loved them.

>A pretty impressive lunch bunch.

And you are in amongst them, Ed. Have a good night.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 10 Sep 2004 01:43:17 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>Do you know Robin?
>
>He chased me out of his ready room in the mid-70s when he was running the
>Triple Nickle - since then I have met him several times but I seriously doubt
>that he remembers every fan. I grew up thinking (knowing) he was the best damn
>fighter pilot I would ever meet. Until I met Swede Vejtasa and became friends
>with him, I never doubted that Col. Olds was the top of the food chain.
>
>The comments he was making we in the context of when **** hit the fan and how
>overloaded a pilot could get in the middle of NVN airspace. With the RWR and
>ECM going off, folks yelling on the radio, etc., he talked about how
>distracting it could be to have a backseater. Other people at the reunion
>mentioned his "strap in and hold on" crew brief, although that is decades after
>the events and could be partially puffed up to make a good story. I've heard
>that happens.

A lot of Robin Olds stories are just like that. Two years ago in Las
Vegas I was talking with him and a small group of River Rats. One of
the guys brought up the story about Robin having 7th AF print up a
bunch of propaganda leaflets to be dropped in NVN challenging "Colonel
Tomb" to a fight.

Robin was very clear that it never happened. And, he went on to
elaborate that his mission was NOT to chase MiGs, but was to hit
assigned targets and MOST IMPORTANTLY, to get his crews in and out of
the target area safely. It wasn't about personal glory and never
should be.
>
>>I'm afraid that I can't picture the Robin Olds I
>>know saying that unless it was a necessary warning when something
>>unusual was about to occur. Robin is the consummate professional in
>>fighter aviation and knew (and knows) that the F-4 is a two-person
>>airplane and both parties have a critical role to perform.
>
>He was already into F-15s when I met him the first time. It would not have
>surprised me to have actual fangs drop down out of the corners of his mouth.

I don't know that he ever got into F-15s. After he came back from Ubon
in '67 he pinned on Brig. General and become Commandant of Cadets at
USAFA. He served there until 1971 when he got reassigned as Director
of Safety at Norton AFB where he retired. He probably flew the
airplane, but never had an assignment as primary aircrew in Eagles.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Krztalizer]

>
>I don't know that he ever got into F-15s. After he came back from Ubon
>in '67 he pinned on Brig. General and become Commandant of Cadets at
>USAFA. He served there until 1971 when he got reassigned as Director
>of Safety at Norton AFB where he retired. He probably flew the
>airplane, but never had an assignment as primary aircrew in Eagles.

I wish I could explain it - I know he was there! Our CAP unit visited and I
wandered off the tour (this was at Luke, I would think in approximately 1974 or
75?) -- Col Olds was definitely there, it was the first butt chewing I recieved
from anyone other than my parents. I thought he was the skipper of the
squadron, but in retrospect, I don't remember how he was introduced to us. We
toured everywhere on the base, including the flight line, Combat Camera, and
many other places - I was lagging behind at the ready room investigating the
photos of various aircraft from gun camera photos. He stood in the doorway and
snapped something along the lines of "who left (or let) this kid in my ready
room?!" and I got reamed pretty good for not staying with the group. I know it
was him - just not entirely certain of the date of it happening. I'm certain
it was during a tour of the 555th at Luke, and they were immensely proud of
their brand new Eagles.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
>
> I wish I could explain it - I know he was there! Our CAP unit visited and
> I
> wandered off the tour (this was at Luke, I would think in approximately
> 1974 or
> 75?) -- Col Olds was definitely there, it was the first butt chewing I
> recieved
> from anyone other than my parents.
>

I don't see how Colonel Olds could chew your butt in 1974 or 1975 if he had
been promoted to Brigadier in 1968.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >I don't know that he ever got into F-15s. After he came back from Ubon
> >in '67 he pinned on Brig. General and become Commandant of Cadets at
> >USAFA. He served there until 1971 when he got reassigned as Director
> >of Safety at Norton AFB where he retired. He probably flew the
> >airplane, but never had an assignment as primary aircrew in Eagles.
>
> I wish I could explain it - I know he was there! Our CAP unit visited and
I
> wandered off the tour (this was at Luke, I would think in approximately
1974 or
> 75?) -- Col Olds was definitely there, it was the first butt chewing I
recieved
> from anyone other than my parents. I thought he was the skipper of the
> squadron, but in retrospect, I don't remember how he was introduced to us.
We
> toured everywhere on the base, including the flight line, Combat Camera,
and
> many other places - I was lagging behind at the ready room investigating
the
> photos of various aircraft from gun camera photos. He stood in the
doorway and
> snapped something along the lines of "who left (or let) this kid in my
ready
> room?!" and I got reamed pretty good for not staying with the group. I
know it
> was him - just not entirely certain of the date of it happening. I'm
certain
> it was during a tour of the 555th at Luke, and they were immensely proud
of
> their brand new Eagles.

Your memory is apparently about as reliable as that of your buddy Art; Olds
could not have been a colonel at the time, as he had been promoted to BG in
1968. He *retired* in 1973, for gosh sakes--and he had spent his last couple
of years on active duty at Norton AFB as Safety Director, before that
serving as commandant at the USAFA (from 1968 on, IIRC)--he was not at Luke
AFB commanding a unit.

You might take the USAF's word for it if you won't take anyone else's:

www.af.mil/history/person. asp?dec=1960&pid=123006521

Brooks

>
> v/r
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR

[Jarg]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...

> BTW have you seen these poll results at the BBC site?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm
>
> Makes one wonder how supporters of gwb and his dick dismiss their
> unpopularity around the world. The obvious answer is they don't care.
>

> Robey

You are right, I certainly hope the president and vice-president of the
United States don't care what European polls show since they are both
responsible to the citizens of the United States, not those of Europe.

Jarg

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Records Show Bush Guard Commitment Unmet
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 9/10/2004 10:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
>
>> BTW have you seen these poll results at the BBC site?
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm
>>
>> Makes one wonder how supporters of gwb and his dick dismiss their
>> unpopularity around the world. The obvious answer is they don't care.
>>
>
>> Robey
>
>You are right, I certainly hope the president and vice-president of the
>United States don't care what European polls show since they are both
>responsible to the citizens of the United States, not those of Europe.
>
>Jarg


Only the wealthy citizens of the United States.



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

[Jarg]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Only the wealthy citizens of the United States.
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Anything you say comrade Kramer. Death to the bourgeois capitalist dogs,
power to the proletariat!

Jarg

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Jarg"
> confessed the following:

>You are right, I certainly hope the president and vice-president of the
>United States don't care what European polls show since they are both
>responsible to the citizens of the United States, not those of Europe.

I would like to remind you I asked how **supporters** of gwb and his
dick (not how shrub and dick) dimiss the international opposition to
shrub & dick.

I suspect you did NOT take note that 35 nations, including Canada,
Mexico, China, Japan, India, etc (none part of Euriope the last time
I checked) were included. But it is interesting to note that even Tony
Blair's citizens overwhelmingly disapprove of our president.

I also suspect that you did NOT note the Univesity of Maryland (not
located in Europe the last time I checked) was a participant in the
polling.

It's hard to be the world leader if the rest of the world says, "****
you, america." The invasion of Iraq has clearly painted our nation as
agressors to the rest of the world...they are unimpressed with shrub &
dick's excuses for removing that despotic asshole Hussein from power.

Robey

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Records Show Bush Guard Commitment Unmet
>From: "Jarg"
>Date: 9/10/2004 10:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Only the wealthy citizens of the United States.
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Anything you say comrade Kramer. Death to the bourgeois capitalist dogs,
>power to the proletariat!
>
>Jarg

Guess you haven't noticed huh?


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

[Jarg]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Jarg"
> > confessed the following:
>
>>You are right, I certainly hope the president and vice-president of the
>>United States don't care what European polls show since they are both
>>responsible to the citizens of the United States, not those of Europe.
>
> I would like to remind you I asked how **supporters** of gwb and his
> dick (not how shrub and dick) dimiss the international opposition to
> shrub & dick.
>


And I answered your question, you just don't want to hear my answer. I
think President Bush and VIce President Cheney are doing a great job and
hope they spend little or no time worrying about how popular they are in
Europe.


> I suspect you did NOT take note that 35 nations, including Canada,
> Mexico, China, Japan, India, etc (none part of Euriope the last time
> I checked) were included. But it is interesting to note that even Tony
> Blair's citizens overwhelmingly disapprove of our president.
>


No, as you guess earlier, I just don't care.


> I also suspect that you did NOT note the Univesity of Maryland (not
> located in Europe the last time I checked) was a participant in the
> polling.
>

So????


> It's hard to be the world leader if the rest of the world says, "****
> you, america." The invasion of Iraq has clearly painted our nation as
> agressors to the rest of the world...they are unimpressed with shrub &
> dick's excuses for removing that despotic asshole Hussein from power.
>
> Robey


I competely disagree with your idea that President Bush should try to win
some worldwide popularity contest so the United States can provide world
leadership. His job is to work for US interests. And anyway, true leaders
often have to make unpopular decisions.

Jarg

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Jarg"
confessed the following:

>And I answered your question, you just don't want to hear my answer.

No...I completely understand your answer. I'm not afraid of your
opinion.

> I think President Bush and VIce President Cheney are doing a great job

This is not a surprise to me either. I'm convinced they ****ed up by
invading Iraq. I'm convinced our economy has suffered with them at the
helm. Our status as world leader is in the ****ter.

>No, as you guess earlier, I just don't care.

No surprise. The surprising part is that you exhibit ZERO intellectual
interest it what might cause this overwhelming disapproval of shrub
and dick...even in the UK. 800 pound gorillas might not care, but
folks thinking shrub and dick are world leaders should.

>> I also suspect that you did NOT note the Univesity of Maryland (not
>> located in Europe the last time I checked) was a participant in the
>> polling.
>>
>
>So????

The point...it was NOT just a European poll. It was international. You
make repeated references to Europe, but the sentitment is
international.

I also understand that you could careless if **every single
non-american human being** on this planet disapproves of shrub and
dick.

>I competely disagree with your idea that President Bush should try to win
>some worldwide popularity contest so the United States can provide world
>leadership.

This ain't about winning a popularity contest. But you can't be a
world leader if other nations refuse to follow your "lead." You're
simply marching to your own drummer. That is what shrub and dick are
doing. They are not leading the world. You can abandon dimplomacy and
take unilateral action in the name of self interest...just don't get
upset with other nations for their refusal to applaud or participate.

>His job is to work for US interests.

Absolutely...I and many other of the citizens of this fine country
think shrub and dick have "****ed up." While his intentions might be
to work for our best interests...he failed miserably. But hey, he's
got god on his side, or would that be the islamist ****s?

> And anyway, true leaders often have to make unpopular decisions.

Sure, and if nobody follows your lead, you're simply acting like the
800 pound gorilla. You can do it, but at some point our fine country
will NEED the support and cooperation of those nations we ****ed off.

Robey

[Krztalizer]

>
>I don't see how Colonel Olds could chew your butt in 1974 or 1975 if he had
>been promoted to Brigadier in 1968.

Because I always think of people as a certain rank - I have been looking at his
photo on my den wall for the past twenty years showing him as a Colonel, so
that's how I refer to him. At 12 or 13, I wasn't that adept at military rank
identification -- he was already familiar to me due to his WWII and VN exploits
and for whatever reason, my memory fixed his rank as Colonel, and I never had a
reason to go back and correct my faulty identification.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Krztalizer]

>
>You might take the USAF's word for it if you won't take anyone else's:

Yeah, Brooks - I have a long history on this newsgroup of not accepting
corrections.

[Jarg]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Jarg"
> confessed the following:
>
>>And I answered your question, you just don't want to hear my answer.
>
> No...I completely understand your answer. I'm not afraid of your
> opinion.
>
>> I think President Bush and VIce President Cheney are doing a great job
>
> This is not a surprise to me either. I'm convinced they ****ed up by
> invading Iraq. I'm convinced our economy has suffered with them at the
> helm. Our status as world leader is in the ****ter.
>


You are entitled to your opinions no matter how incorrect they are.


>>No, as you guess earlier, I just don't care.
>
> No surprise. The surprising part is that you exhibit ZERO intellectual
> interest it what might cause this overwhelming disapproval of shrub
> and dick...even in the UK. 800 pound gorillas might not care, but
> folks thinking shrub and dick are world leaders should.
>


Oh, I know very well what it causing this. I grew up overseas and lived in
Europe as an adult. It is a mixture of a anti-American propaganda that puts
our press's to shame, envy, and fear of our power as a nation. It has been
present to verying degrees for as long as I can remember. I'm sure every
leading nation (Rome, Great Britain, Spain, etc) have had to deal with
similar attitudes from the rest of the world.
As for your snide remarks about my intellectual curiosity, the are the
typical condescention of your ilk - you still have to believe that people
with views different from you are in some way inferior. The good news is
you are probably bright enough to eventually grow out of it.


>>> I also suspect that you did NOT note the Univesity of Maryland (not
>>> located in Europe the last time I checked) was a participant in the
>>> polling.
>>>
>>
>>So????
>
> The point...it was NOT just a European poll. It was international. You
> make repeated references to Europe, but the sentitment is
> international.
>


Regardless, it is not a poll of the President's constituency.


> I also understand that you could careless if **every single
> non-american human being** on this planet disapproves of shrub and
> dick.
>


Got that right!


>>I competely disagree with your idea that President Bush should try to win
>>some worldwide popularity contest so the United States can provide world
>>leadership.
>
> This ain't about winning a popularity contest. But you can't be a
> world leader if other nations refuse to follow your "lead." You're
> simply marching to your own drummer. That is what shrub and dick are
> doing. They are not leading the world. You can abandon dimplomacy and
> take unilateral action in the name of self interest...just don't get
> upset with other nations for their refusal to applaud or participate.
>
>>His job is to work for US interests.
>
> Absolutely...I and many other of the citizens of this fine country
> think shrub and dick have "****ed up." While his intentions might be
> to work for our best interests...he failed miserably. But hey, he's
> got god on his side, or would that be the islamist ****s?
>


Hey, is this Let's Spout Every Left Wing Cliche About The Religious Right We
Can Think Of Day? I must have missed the memo! Anyway, many other fine
citizens will disagree with you and reeelect President Bush and
Vice-President Cheney.


>> And anyway, true leaders often have to make unpopular decisions.
>
> Sure, and if nobody follows your lead, you're simply acting like the
> 800 pound gorilla. You can do it, but at some point our fine country
> will NEED the support and cooperation of those nations we ****ed off.
>
> Robey


Being the 800 lb gorilla beats the alternatives we have had.
Multilateralism only works when the interests of the various parties align.
This was not the case in Iraq.

Jarg

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Jarg"
confessed the following:

>Oh, I know very well what it causing this. I grew up overseas and lived in
>Europe as an adult.

Hey don't feel like the Lone Ranger there pardner, I lived in France
and the PI as a kid, Germany and Korea as an adult...

> It is a mixture of a anti-American propaganda that puts
>our press's to shame, envy, and fear of our power as a nation.

They report...their readers/viewers decide. It's the FoxNews way,
wouldn't you say? The WMD, al-Qaeda links, Nuke program reasons were
proven to be incorrect WRT Iraq. That's hardly propaganda, that's just
how it happened.

>As for your snide remarks about my intellectual curiosity, the are the
>typical condescention of your ilk - you still have to believe that people
>with views different from you are in some way inferior.

Oh you misunderstood. Not meant to be condescending in any way. Your
initial salvo was simply "who cares what Europeans think." Your
response...finally...on this third exchange is much more. I think you
are neither superior nor inferior, you simply resonded with an
"uninterested" retort.

>Regardless, it is not a poll of the President's constituency.

Running around in circles, here.

>Hey, is this Let's Spout Every Left Wing Cliche About The Religious Right We
>Can Think Of Day?

Wow...ONE remark comparing god is on shrub's side to the islamist
****s' "god willing" doesn't even come close. I have no use for either
POV, both are equally invalid IMO. One guy prays for god's help to
destroy his enemy and the other guy prays to this same god to destroy
his enemy.

>Being the 800 lb gorilla beats the alternatives we have had.

Naah. Getting tied up in a guerilla war with a bunch of muslims is a
lousy alternative. Trying to foist american style democracy in the
middle of SWA sounds good on paper, but will prove to be problematic
IMO. We're the ****ing infidels to muslims. I don't think they'll be
impressed with stories of Thomas Jefferson, or John Locke's treatise
of government.

>Multilateralism only works when the interests of the various parties align.
>This was not the case in Iraq.

shrub ****ed away ALL of the international goodwill we as a nation
received after 9/11. The rationale for invading Iraq changed several
times, to the final justification being, "we've freed 25 million
people." Meanwhile 43 million americans are without health insurance.
The "uniter" has become the "divider."

If shrub is re-elected America will have one long row to hoe.

Robey

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >You might take the USAF's word for it if you won't take anyone else's:
>
> Yeah, Brooks - I have a long history on this newsgroup of not accepting
> corrections.

Well, if you are going to persist in this "Olds was commanding a unit at
Luke in the early seventies" bit in the face of the cold, hard facts of his
own bio, then you are well on your way to acheiving an Art-like status,
which is not something to be really proud of IMO. But hey, to each his own.

Brooks

[Krztalizer]

>Well, if you are going to persist in this "Olds was commanding a unit at
>Luke in the early seventies" bit in the face of the cold, hard facts of his
>own bio,

I've already said I don't remember what year it was, but the event isn't some
wistful fantasy. Its difficult to imagine who I am confusing him with - my CAP
squadron visited Luke several times in the 1970s and he was one of my childhood
heroes. I know that during one of those boyhood visits, a man I am still
convinced to be the commander of the 555th yelled at me for being in 'his
readyroom'. The gun cam photos on the wall had Olds' name on them - during
that tour, we were heard plenty about him and until this day, I was positive
that he was the man that barked at me. I've seen General Olds several times
since, although only one or two other times in person, and I always believed it
was the same guy from that day at Luke. I explained why I got the rank wrong
- I guess I should tape General stars on the photo he sent my son.

> then you are well on your way to acheiving an Art-like status,
>which is not something to be really proud of IMO. But hey, to each his own.

Ahh, I see -- strictly no mistakes allowed. This reminds me a bit of the six
year argument that followed my post concerning a torpedo that broached at the
bottom of our helicopter. I got ripped on regular occasions and folks made it
clear that what I remembered simply couldn't happen. Then a photo showed up of
the same model of torpedo some 20-40 in the air, following a broach. Someplace
among my CAP unit's history, there is a faded photo of the 307th drill team,
standing with Robin Olds. If I had any way to track down the Woodruffs or
Rosemary Grzowski, I could share it. Like that photo of the leaping torpedo,
it'll turn up. Until then, I will accept that Robin Olds wasn't there.

Gordon.

[Jack]

Robey Price wrote:

> I never get tired of admiring
> the terrain and wondering....

Wow, that's like..."Operational"!!!
[or "Aerospace", in a previous era]


> I think "slam dunk"
> arrivals are pretty operational,
> as are single engine landings....

Oh, I thoroughly agree, Robey: single engine landings in the 757 _are_
pretty much the same as single engine landings in the F-100, for
example. About the same degree of interest is shown by the participants,
and the outcome is usually not seriously in doubt. Heart rate is about
the same -- yeah, I'd say they are about equally non-events, most of the
time.

But I don't know about those "slam dunk" arrivals: they'll take a lot
out of a man. The toughest thing about flying the 757 is getting new
F/Os to believe what is about to happen to them as they start the
letdown for LAX. Why, setting there watching the poor F/O trying to
program the jet to do what she could barely do by hand-flying it is
enough to get a guy laughing so hard he damn near spills his coffee.


> CAT II/III landings, and Resolution Advisories from TCAS in the
> traffic pattern....

God, Robey, how do you stand the mental strain?


> ...I'd bet you a million bucks that Mario would [work for Greyhound]
> in a heartbeat if it were the only way he could keep driving.

I'd bet the few dollars in my pocket right now that he'd think you were
an idiot and he'd probably say so, but go ahead and ask him.


> ...flying fighters was fun, but so
> is the 757...and it has a mission.

The toughest thing about flying a fighter would be what exactly, Robey?
Maybe hunting around for a mission? And especially one that gives you a
chance to wonder about the early settlers or watch the Northern Lights?
Yeah, that part could be a challenge.

I think I can hear Rasimus snorting and mumbling something best left
unwritten, all the way over here.


Jack

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >Well, if you are going to persist in this "Olds was commanding a unit at
> >Luke in the early seventies" bit in the face of the cold, hard facts of
his
> >own bio,
>
> I've already said I don't remember what year it was, but the event isn't
some
> wistful fantasy. Its difficult to imagine who I am confusing him with -
my CAP
> squadron visited Luke several times in the 1970s and he was one of my
childhood
> heroes. I know that during one of those boyhood visits, a man I am still
> convinced to be the commander of the 555th yelled at me for being in 'his
> readyroom'. The gun cam photos on the wall had Olds' name on them -
during
> that tour, we were heard plenty about him and until this day, I was
positive
> that he was the man that barked at me. I've seen General Olds several
times
> since, although only one or two other times in person, and I always
believed it
> was the same guy from that day at Luke. I explained why I got the rank
wrong
> - I guess I should tape General stars on the photo he sent my son.
>
> > then you are well on your way to acheiving an Art-like status,
> >which is not something to be really proud of IMO. But hey, to each his
own.
>
> Ahh, I see -- strictly no mistakes allowed.

No, mistakes are allowed; we all make them, and most of us generally own up
to them when they are pointed out with good evidence. Art does not, and your
initial response to everyone who pointed out yours in this case indicate
your reluctance--maybe not yet at Art-like levels, but well on the way.

This reminds me a bit of the six
> year argument that followed my post concerning a torpedo that broached at
the
> bottom of our helicopter. I got ripped on regular occasions and folks
made it
> clear that what I remembered simply couldn't happen. Then a photo showed
up of
> the same model of torpedo some 20-40 in the air, following a broach.
Someplace
> among my CAP unit's history, there is a faded photo of the 307th drill
team,
> standing with Robin Olds. If I had any way to track down the Woodruffs or
> Rosemary Grzowski, I could share it. Like that photo of the leaping
torpedo,
> it'll turn up. Until then, I will accept that Robin Olds wasn't there.

So now it is not a case of him allegedly commanding the Triple Nickel at the
time in question, as you originally claimed to vividly remember, but a case
of just "well, he *was* there"? I can see why you feel a distinct connection
with Kerry these days--this is beginning to sound a bit like his
"Cambodia-seared-I-said-*seared*-into-my-memory" bit, which then of course
became, "Well, I was in the area *between* the borders" before becoming
"Maybe I have the date wrong", all of which have been brought into further
doubt by his last in-country journal entry where he said he really wondered
what it was like on the far side of that Cambode border... You bring up the
torpedo issue--great. The one I recall from you was your "No way anybody is
going to use armor in urban areas" argument--recent events in both Iraq and
the West Bank/Gaza point to the fallacy of that stance. But hey, be like Art
if you want, and refuse to ackowledge when you are wrong--that is your
decision to make.

Brooks

>
> Gordon.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 11 Sep 2004 07:11:31 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>I've already said I don't remember what year it was, but the event isn't some
>wistful fantasy. Its difficult to imagine who I am confusing him with - my CAP
>squadron visited Luke several times in the 1970s and he was one of my childhood
>heroes. I know that during one of those boyhood visits, a man I am still
>convinced to be the commander of the 555th yelled at me for being in 'his
>readyroom'. The gun cam photos on the wall had Olds' name on them - during
>that tour, we were heard plenty about him and until this day, I was positive
>that he was the man that barked at me. I've seen General Olds several times
>since, although only one or two other times in person, and I always believed it
>was the same guy from that day at Luke. I explained why I got the rank wrong
>- I guess I should tape General stars on the photo he sent my son.

Without getting between you and Kevin who appear to be having a lot of
good ol' classic RAM fun, let me state that Robin was not stationed at
Luke in the '70s and was not a member or squadron commander of the
Nickel.

Note that the 555th is a squadron--a unit size would be commanded by a
Lt. Col, not an O-6 or BG. Even when he was in SEA as a Colonel, Robin
commanded the 8th Wing, not the 555th which was at Udorn.

And, just as an aside, I'm not sure that I've ever been in a USAF
squadron in the periof mid-60's through late '80s that had a
"readyroom." There were "briefing rooms", the "lounge", the "ops area"
or "ops counter" (where all good guys know you don't stand, you must
lean on it) and maybe the "squadron briefing area".

But, it isn't inconceivable that visiting Luke at the time, you might
have encountered Robin on some sort of visit as well.

You're fortunate to have met one of the great ones.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jack
confessed the following:

>Wow, that's like..."Operational"!!!
>[or "Aerospace", in a previous era]

Uh, no...that's part of the wonder and awe some folks can experience
while flying. Flying airliners is all about money (their payckeck) to
some folks, but some of us also fly little bitty airplanes on days
off. Revenue flying is operational...getting to smile 'cause you love
flying is just a bonus. Sounds silly to you, but lots of folks envy me
'cause I smile when I go to work.

>God, Robey, how do you stand the mental strain?

Got be tough...takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude...and the
right seniority number. Just think of me as a manly man, doing manly
things in a manly manner.

> > ...I'd bet you a million bucks that Mario would [work for Greyhound]
> > in a heartbeat if it were the only way he could keep driving.
>
>I'd bet the few dollars in my pocket right now that he'd think you were
>an idiot and he'd probably say so, but go ahead and ask him.

Send him over after you two have dinner tonight.

>The toughest thing about flying a fighter would be what exactly, Robey?

Well since I never flew combat...in the Phantom, I thought night AAR
in the wx was sporting, as was a no-**** single engine approach. I
thought compressor stalls at FL450 during Viper FCFs was sporting, as
was landing min fuel in a snow storm after diverting. Then again,
intramural crud at the O'Club bar on friday nights was certainly more
physical.

Gosh Jack...wanna let me play, now?

>Maybe hunting around for a mission? And especially one that gives you a
>chance to wonder about the early settlers or watch the Northern Lights?
>Yeah, that part could be a challenge.
>
>I think I can hear Rasimus snorting and mumbling something best left
>unwritten, all the way over here.

Everybody's got their own little sack of rocks to tote around. Maybe
he's singing Monty Python's "Lumberjack" song.

Hugs and Kisses...stud.

robey

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:08:18 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>Well since I never flew combat...in the Phantom, I thought night AAR
>in the wx was sporting,

And, then drop off and head north to a turn point near Yen Bai and try
to muck around in the dark supporting a BUFF strike or three near
Hanoi while they shoot SAMs and guns at you and some fool is mucking
up the radio with MiG calls and the beepers are going off....

> as was a no-**** single engine approach. I
>thought compressor stalls at FL450 during Viper FCFs was sporting, as
>was landing min fuel in a snow storm after diverting. Then again,
>intramural crud at the O'Club bar on friday nights was certainly more
>physical.

Confess now. At least once you must have snuck into the men's room and
read the rules on the wall over the urinal didn't you?
>
>>I think I can hear Rasimus snorting and mumbling something best left
>>unwritten, all the way over here.
>
>Everybody's got their own little sack of rocks to tote around. Maybe
>he's singing Monty Python's "Lumberjack" song.

Unbloody likely. But, can we talk about this parrot you sold me?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

>And, then drop off and head north to a turn point near Yen Bai and try
>to muck around in the dark supporting a BUFF strike or three near
>Hanoi while they shoot SAMs and guns at you and some fool is mucking
>up the radio with MiG calls and the beepers are going off....

And that folks is why I genuinely hold guys like Ed in such high
esteem...while you were doing that I was cutting articles out of the
Pacific Stars & Stripes about the air war (still got'em)...I sat on
the steps of Base Ops at Clark watching transient Phantoms come and
go.

>Confess now. At least once you must have snuck into the men's room and
>read the rules on the wall over the urinal didn't you?

Our rules were posted on the wall abeam the crud table. But as the FNG
1Lt on my first friday night in the sqdn, I called "Balls" on my Ops O
thereby eliminating him from the game (much to the delight of every
player...except the Ops O). Judgement: None Noted

>Unbloody likely. But, can we talk about this parrot you sold me?

He's just resting.

Robey

[Krztalizer]

>
>Without getting between you and Kevin who appear to be having a lot of
>good ol' classic RAM fun, let me state that Robin was not stationed at
>Luke in the '70s and was not a member or squadron commander of the
>Nickel.

I've spent days going over this in my head trying to figure out how I could be
THIS wrong and the best assumption I can come to is that my thirty year old
memories of an event from my childhood combined more than one visit to Luke
into a single event. I know we were introduced to General Olds, but as a kid,
I had known of him as a Colonel, so that is how he stayed in my memory. It
would not surprise me if they introduced him as the former commanding officer
of the 555th, and I dropped the word 'former' somewhere in the past three
decades, or he could have been standing at the elbow of the CO of the 555th and
I got it wrong over the years. We were visiting the 555th and that is where
the "ready room" (I was Navy long enough that any room reserved for pilots with
rows of chairs and photos of gun cam footage all over the place, plaques, etc.,
gets lumped under the heading of "ready room" regardless of what the correct
USAF term may be) event took place.

>
>But, it isn't inconceivable that visiting Luke at the time, you might
>have encountered Robin on some sort of visit as well.
>
>You're fortunate to have met one of the great ones.

I agree, Ed. And if you ever make BGen, I apologize in advance for recalling
you as a Colonel.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 13 Sep 2004 16:10:08 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>I agree, Ed. And if you ever make BGen, I apologize in advance for recalling
>you as a Colonel.

No apologies necessary--I made Major early, then demonstrated my
typical warrior lack of judgement by: 1.) never getting promoted again
and 2.) not getting out of the AF and making millions of dollars
flying for the airlines and the ANG on weekends, thereby becoming the
senior Major in the entire USAF.

So, any correction is that I don't want to be guilty of accepting a
higher rank than I ever earned.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org