Combat Ready Bush?

[WaltBJ]

Anyone know if G W Bush ever attained combat readiness in the F102?
FWIW the ADC F102 program was 10 transition missions (no weapons
system training) followed by 36 combat crew training missions. The
last mission was a tac-eval check which qualified the stud as combat
ready and to sit alert. If GW didn't compete the training teaching him
to fly was a complete waste. BTW even if his outfit had gone to Nam he
wouldn't have gone as a crew member unless he was combat-ready.
Walt BJ

[Kevin Brooks]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone know if G W Bush ever attained combat readiness in the F102?
> FWIW the ADC F102 program was 10 transition missions (no weapons
> system training) followed by 36 combat crew training missions. The
> last mission was a tac-eval check which qualified the stud as combat
> ready and to sit alert. If GW didn't compete the training teaching him
> to fly was a complete waste. BTW even if his outfit had gone to Nam he
> wouldn't have gone as a crew member unless he was combat-ready.
> Walt BJ

I have no earthly idea why you posted this same general set of questions
twice in two different posts...Yes, he completed his training. No, there was
not much question of his *unit* being sent to Vietnam--they were instead
sending individual volunteers as part of Palace Alert (and not only to
Vietnam--PA could just as easily have sent an ANG pilot to Europe, Japan, or
Iceland).

Brooks

[Robey Price]

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

>Anyone know if G W Bush ever attained combat readiness in the F102?

I believe the date of his MR status was June 1970...22 months later he
flew his last sortie.

>If GW didn't compete the training teaching him to fly was a complete waste.

How 'bout 12 months UPT plus 7 months elapsed (Nov - Jun) to become
MR and then ONLY 22 months honing your craft. Anybody that did that
was wasting JP-4, hours that some other swing dick could have flown.
How do you lose interest in flying fighters so fast?

Robey

[Jack]

Robey Price wrote:

> How do you lose interest in flying fighters so fast?

Just so we understand: you ask that because you never did it? Or because
you never did anything else?

If you are somewhere in between, you probably know that full time active
duty fighter pilots were in short supply relative to our needs, and guys
who could do it, but wouldn't have done it as a career, were called upon
to fill in. When the requirement decreased they went back to their
higher priorities. That's what the ANG is for, yesterday and today.


Jack

[Cub Driver]

On 8 Sep 2004 19:57:23 -0700, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Anyone know if G W Bush ever attained combat readiness in the F102?

Yes. See www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

(It was the F-102A. Bush also had some hours in the TF-102A.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[WaltBJ]

Jack > wrote in message >...
> Robey Price wrote:
> How do you lose interest in flying fighters so fast?
> > > > Just so we understand: you ask that because you never did it? Or because you never did anything else?
> > If you are somewhere in between, you probably know that full time active
> duty fighter pilots were in short supply relative to our needs, and guys
> who could do it, but wouldn't have done it as a career, were called upon
> to fill in. When the requirement decreased they went back to their
> higher priorities. That's what the ANG is for, yesterday and today.
>> Jack

Flying fighters is an idiosyncratic thing. Some love it, some put up
with it, some hate it. A lot rpt lot of ANG pilots joined up just to
fly fighters because the active force had no spots for them. Some fly
airliners as a job, fighters for fun. In 1976-1980 I worked with 4 ANG
and 1 Reserve outfit and can tell you that back then 2 of those
outfits would have given any of the active fighter squadrons a run for
their money. They were top-notch performers and full of people who
wanted to excel.
Walt BJ
Walt BJ

[[email protected]]

Robey Price > wrote in message >...

> How do you lose interest in flying fighters so fast?
>
> Robey

Sir,
It is said that he found a more satisfying 'high'.
Do the annual military aviator physicals include drug tests for coke?

[Ed Rasimus]

On 11 Sep 2004 07:01:35 -0700, wrote:

>Robey Price > wrote in message >...
>
>> How do you lose interest in flying fighters so fast?
>>
>> Robey
>
>Sir,
>It is said that he found a more satisfying 'high'.
>Do the annual military aviator physicals include drug tests for coke?

First, if your unit is transitioning to a new aircraft and you don't
have sufficient retainability to qualify for the re-qual, you don't
get trained. It isn't losing interest.

Second, if your unit is becoming a training squadron vice an
operational squadron and you don't have sufficient experience to
become an instructor in the training unit, you don't get upgraded. It
isn't losing interest.

Third, drug testing was not routine during the period in question. It
was available to commanders on a "suspicion" basis but seldom
applicable to aircrews. Random drug testing for lower rank enlisted
came into practice in '73-74 and was expanded to all ranks by the end
of the decade long after Bush was discharged from the ANG.

Fourth, even when drug testing was instituted, it was NEVER part of a
flight physical which was a scheduled event--hence a druggie could
clean up before the physical. Drug testing was separate, done under
controlled conditions and with samples handled in a total different
chain than urinalysis from annual physicals.

Fifth, some folks don't have an all-encompassing interest in flying
fighters for a career. They may have other goals and ambitions.
Nothing at all unusual about that.


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:

>First, if your unit is transitioning to a new aircraft and you don't
>have sufficient retainability to qualify for the re-qual, you don't
>get trained. It isn't losing interest.

Bull**** and you know it. A 6 year obligation gives you sufficient
retainability. Period. The unit spent the time and money to send you
to UPT, the prudent thing (vice "fraud, waste, and abuse") would be to
get a return on the ANG's/AF's investment. gwb lost interest, he never
said he was ineligble. gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.
There is no evidence that he even attempted to fulfill that "promise."
He never said he lost interest, but his action sure did.

For a guy that is reportedly well thought of as an F-102 pilot, the
unit didn't make the "fraternity rush" to keep him. A guy doesn't show
up or make an attempt to fly, the obvious conclusion is he lost
interest.

>Second, if your unit is becoming a training squadron vice an
>operational squadron and you don't have sufficient experience to
>become an instructor in the training unit, you don't get upgraded. It
>isn't losing interest.

As the training officer in a line squadron I processed paperwork to
make guys IPs with less than 500 hours...some approved some not. The
111th FIS still had F-102s on hand thru 1973. Plenty of time for a guy
that wanted to make the transition to get the minimum 500 hours. And
the USAF/ANG these nice things called "waivers."

Want proof? A co-worker flew F-15 Albinos, never dropped a bomb in his
life. Got hired as an A-7 RTU IP at Tuscon when the wing was
converting to F-16s. He flew the SLUF for 10 months. Then he
transitioned to the F-16. ANG/AFRes units hire C-5 pilots to be FACs,
F-16 guys to fly C-130s, C-141 pilots to fly A-10s.

If a unit thinks highly enough of a guy/gal they will hire them. ANG
units favor folks already in the unit...happens all the time.

>Fifth, some folks don't have an all-encompassing interest in flying
>fighters for a career. They may have other goals and ambitions.
>Nothing at all unusual about that.

True enough, but everyone I ever met kept flying as long as they
could.

Robey

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:37:54 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>confessed the following:
>
>>First, if your unit is transitioning to a new aircraft and you don't
>>have sufficient retainability to qualify for the re-qual, you don't
>>get trained. It isn't losing interest.
>
>Bull**** and you know it.

A very logical, reasoned and well-crafted entry to the argument. Can't
you at least save the scatology until the end/

> A 6 year obligation gives you sufficient
>retainability. Period.

It give you great retainability after 4.5 years--you've got a year and
a half to go. BUT, and this is an important distinction, Bush was an
ANG pilot and not a full-timer. So, that means the transition would
require full-time VOLUNTARY activation for the check-out and then
would return only minimal IP effectiveness or operational return in
the new system.

> The unit spent the time and money to send you
>to UPT, the prudent thing (vice "fraud, waste, and abuse") would be to
>get a return on the ANG's/AF's investment.

In 1971, I was running the USAF Undergraduate Rated Officer Assignment
shop at Randolph--a MAJCOM staff position that handled input and
graduate assignment for USAF flying training programs. The annual
pilot training production for all services was slashed from a peak of
near 5500/year in USAF to half of that. The Navy was similarly
slashed.

While the USAF chose to turn off production at the recruiter--stop
further input, the NAVY chose to walk into Pensacola one morning and
release more than 400 student officers in pilot training, some who
were within two weeks of graduation. Several of those with all that
training time and money invested petitioned for service transfer and
the USAF picked them up.

The point is that during '71-'73, the AF was overwhelmed with pilots.
We had no shortage, in fact we were creating the "Rated Supplement" to
warehouse pilots in "career broadening" ground jobs because there were
no cockpit slots available.

Lots of folks were leaving the active duty force and eager to seek ANG
and AFRES slots. Many had loads of experience and since the airlines
were over-loaded with applicants they were looking for jobs.

> gwb lost interest, he never
>said he was ineligble. gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.

No one ever signed up for active or reserve duty to a "life long
commitment." No one. You had an active duty service commitment. It
varied at times, but could also be modified either to shorten or
lengthen based on needs of the service. When I came on active duty in
'64 it was four years. Later it went to six. Sometimes it was
curtailed to reduce the force. Never was it "life long"--Can I return
your "bull****" with interest at this point?


>
>>Second, if your unit is becoming a training squadron vice an
>>operational squadron and you don't have sufficient experience to
>>become an instructor in the training unit, you don't get upgraded. It
>>isn't losing interest.
>
>As the training officer in a line squadron I processed paperwork to
>make guys IPs with less than 500 hours...some approved some not. The
>111th FIS still had F-102s on hand thru 1973. Plenty of time for a guy
>that wanted to make the transition to get the minimum 500 hours. And
>the USAF/ANG these nice things called "waivers."
>
>Want proof? A co-worker flew F-15 Albinos, never dropped a bomb in his
>life. Got hired as an A-7 RTU IP at Tuscon when the wing was
>converting to F-16s. He flew the SLUF for 10 months. Then he
>transitioned to the F-16. ANG/AFRes units hire C-5 pilots to be FACs,
>F-16 guys to fly C-130s, C-141 pilots to fly A-10s.

Once again you are garbling full-time (the F-15A guy) who probably
accrued 1000 hours operational by the time he separated going to work
as an RTU IP (a full-time Guard slot).

When needs are high, one thing happens. When supply exceeds demand,
something else occurs.

"I know a guy" isn't a good basis for generalizations.
>
>If a unit thinks highly enough of a guy/gal they will hire them. ANG
>units favor folks already in the unit...happens all the time.
>
>>Fifth, some folks don't have an all-encompassing interest in flying
>>fighters for a career. They may have other goals and ambitions.
>>Nothing at all unusual about that.
>
>True enough, but everyone I ever met kept flying as long as they
>could.

Good for you. A lot of guys I know kept flying for as long as they
could. A lot of others sought fame and fortune up the staff-officer
career ladder to become generals. Still others got out and became
doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs. A lot of guys walk away from
their last ride in a fighter and never look back. So what?



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:

>A very logical, reasoned and well-crafted entry to the argument. Can't
>you at least save the scatology until the end/

touche'

We'll agree to disagree about gwb's interest versus the fact of rated
sup and the exodus to the airlines.

>> gwb lost interest, he never
>>said he was ineligble. gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.
>
>No one ever signed up for active or reserve duty to a "life long
>commitment." No one. You had an active duty service commitment.>

Poorly worded on my part. I'm not talking about the form we all signed
for accepting training. I'm talking about a "letter" of intent where
gwb professed that he wanted to fly and that he had a desire to make
flying a "life long" pursuit, and the best way to accomplish that was
as a pilot in the TX ANG.

>Once again you are garbling full-time (the F-15A guy) who probably
>accrued 1000 hours operational by the time he separated going to work
>as an RTU IP (a full-time Guard slot).

Nope you assumed incorrectly...the co-worker was a fulltime airline
wienie flying as a part-time RTU IP.

>"I know a guy" isn't a good basis for generalizations.

I know several, many exceptions...it proves ANG units can and do make
exceptions. So we'll ageree to disagree.

>Good for you.

Thanks...I thought so.

>A lot of guys I know kept flying for as long as they
>could.... So what?

So what? Well you and I disagree on the motives of gwb's lack of
interest.

Robey

[Bob]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:37:54 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>confessed the following:
>
>>First, if your unit is transitioning to a new aircraft and you don't
>>have sufficient retainability to qualify for the re-qual, you don't
>>get trained. It isn't losing interest.
>
>Bull**** and you know it. A 6 year obligation gives you sufficient
>retainability. Period. The unit spent the time and money to send you
>to UPT, the prudent thing (vice "fraud, waste, and abuse") would be to
>get a return on the ANG's/AF's investment. gwb lost interest, he never
>said he was ineligble. gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.
>There is no evidence that he even attempted to fulfill that "promise."
>He never said he lost interest, but his action sure did.
>
>For a guy that is reportedly well thought of as an F-102 pilot, the
>unit didn't make the "fraternity rush" to keep him. A guy doesn't show
>up or make an attempt to fly, the obvious conclusion is he lost
>interest.
>
>>Second, if your unit is becoming a training squadron vice an
>>operational squadron and you don't have sufficient experience to
>>become an instructor in the training unit, you don't get upgraded. It
>>isn't losing interest.
>
>As the training officer in a line squadron I processed paperwork to
>make guys IPs with less than 500 hours...some approved some not. The
>111th FIS still had F-102s on hand thru 1973. Plenty of time for a guy
>that wanted to make the transition to get the minimum 500 hours. And
>the USAF/ANG these nice things called "waivers."
>
>Want proof? A co-worker flew F-15 Albinos, never dropped a bomb in his
>life. Got hired as an A-7 RTU IP at Tuscon when the wing was
>converting to F-16s. He flew the SLUF for 10 months. Then he
>transitioned to the F-16. ANG/AFRes units hire C-5 pilots to be FACs,
>F-16 guys to fly C-130s, C-141 pilots to fly A-10s.
>
>If a unit thinks highly enough of a guy/gal they will hire them. ANG
>units favor folks already in the unit...happens all the time.
>
>>Fifth, some folks don't have an all-encompassing interest in flying
>>fighters for a career. They may have other goals and ambitions.
>>Nothing at all unusual about that.
>
>True enough, but everyone I ever met kept flying as long as they
>could.

I notice that Bush flew T-33s towards the last. I wonder if that
included hauling around a chaff tank and jamming pod?
For active duty that would seem to be a job to keep your flying time
up and look ahead for brighter days when you might be able to get back
into the cockpit of something else full time. For Bush it might have
seemed like there was no light at the end of the tunnel. When you are
hauling a chaff tank and pod around on a T-33 and you have flown a set
profile for interceptor training I don't imagine there is much fun
flying afterwards with all that junk hanging off the wings...

[Ian MacLure]

wrote in
om:

> Robey Price > wrote in message
> >...
>
>> How do you lose interest in flying fighters so fast?
>>
>> Robey
>
> Sir,
> It is said that he found a more satisfying 'high'.
> Do the annual military aviator physicals include drug tests for coke?

Depends what time period you are asking about.
Today the answer would be yes.
In the early 70's it depends apparently.

IBM

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

[[email protected]]

Sir,

I'd like to start my counter-argument with the President's motivation
for entering the ANG. G.W. Bush stated to the Dallas Morning News
that, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
order to get a deferment.
Nor was I willing to go to Canada." (MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271520/ )

If G.W. Bush could pass a Class A flight physical, he could have
joined practically any active-duty unit that deployed to SEA. Simply,
George Bush did not answer his country's call in its most difficult
times.

Whether or not he was a good fighter pilot becomes irrelevant if he
was vaulted over 500 other candidates for a intensely competetive ANG
billet with a 25% score in his pilot's aptitude test. (Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer)

After earning the coveted US Air Force wings at the cost of several
hundred thousand dollars to the American Taxpayers, he completes less
than 200 flight hours in F-102 Daggers





Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >
> Third, drug testing was not routine during the period in question. It
> was available to commanders on a "suspicion" basis but seldom
> applicable to aircrews. Random drug testing for lower rank enlisted
> came into practice in '73-74 and was expanded to all ranks by the end
> of the decade long after Bush was discharged from the ANG.
>
> Fourth, even when drug testing was instituted, it was NEVER part of a
> flight physical which was a scheduled event--hence a druggie could
> clean up before the physical. Drug testing was separate, done under
> controlled conditions and with samples handled in a total different
> chain than urinalysis from annual physicals.
>
> Fifth, some folks don't have an all-encompassing interest in flying
> fighters for a career. They may have other goals and ambitions.
> Nothing at all unusual about that.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

[[email protected]]

Wouldn't it be abnormal for a tactical aviator to rack up less than
200 hours in jets for the period he was in service, six years from
1968 to 1973?(Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_guard_flights_7
)

Drug tests for aviators were implemented in April 1972. (Salon
Magazine http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/ ) His
next exam was for October of 1972, which he refused to attend, earning
him disqualification from flight status. He left the ANG in 1973, the
threat of injury or death in Vietnam having passed with the cease-fire
signed on January 1973.

Does he deserve to lead America when he himself refused to hear the
call to defend her?

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message
om...
> Sir,
>
> I'd like to start my counter-argument with the President's motivation
> for entering the ANG. G.W. Bush stated to the Dallas Morning News
> that, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in
> order to get a deferment.
> Nor was I willing to go to Canada." (MSNBC
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271520/ )

Yeah, and John Kerry is on record as saying the only reason he volunteered
for Swift boat duty was because at that time they were only involved in war
on its periphery, so that would be a great way for him to get his "combat
veteran" ticket punched without having to actually expose himself to combat.
So what?

>
> If G.W. Bush could pass a Class A flight physical, he could have
> joined practically any active-duty unit that deployed to SEA. Simply,
> George Bush did not answer his country's call in its most difficult
> times.

You are apparently of a mistaken view as to what "answering his country's
call" really means. He volunteered for ANG flight duty,and he made it
through the training program, versus taking his chances on the draft
lottery--how do you know he might not have drawn a lottery number that did
NOT get him drafted in the end? So in essence, he volunteered for a Guard
hitch, ensuring he was "answering his country's call", versus taking his
chances in regards to either being drafted or not. He went beyond that by
asking to volunteer for Palace Alert, but he did not have the necessary
experience to make him competitive for that program at that time. And before
you step on your crank, you might recall that when he joined the Guard, some
twenty thousand Guardsmen ( from both Army and Air contingents) had just
been sent off to active duty in Vietnam, with another ten thou or so ending
up elsewhere, in places like Korea (which was anything but a "cold" warzone
in the late sixties). he did answer his country's call--he just did not do
so in the exceedingly narrow view that you have chosen. So, what about all
of those active duty personnel who served at the same time, but never made
it to Vietnam--do you think *they* were not answering the call, either?
Maybe you think those active military personnel should have been able to
just decide for themselves where their duty locations were to be? I don't
think so.

>
> Whether or not he was a good fighter pilot becomes irrelevant if he
> was vaulted over 500 other candidates for a intensely competetive ANG
> billet with a 25% score in his pilot's aptitude test. (Washington Post
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer)
>

That has yet to be proven--how many of those 500 could (a) pass the flight
aptitude test, (b) were willing to fly, and (c) were willing to take the
extensive time required for active duty for training (ADT) that went along
with getting qualified as a F-102 pilot? I doubt you can provide a concrete
answer to even one of those questions, and if you can't, then your claim
that he was unfairly vaulted over those other guys is baseless.


> After earning the coveted US Air Force wings at the cost of several
> hundred thousand dollars to the American Taxpayers, he completes less
> than 200 flight hours in F-102 Daggers

So? You might care to read Ed's posts today in regards to the pilot
situation at the time, and then you'd have to recall that his unit had just
been changed from being an active air defense player to its new role of
serving as a training element for ANG interceptor crews. It was looking at
losing its remaining F-102's in the near term, and when you have a choice
between paying to requalify a junior part-time ANG pilot with little
expereince versus maybe instead taking some O-3 who just got off an active
duty tour with beaucoup hours in the aircraft you are transitioning to,
which do you think is the better deal for said taxpayers?

This ignores the fact that Guardsmen do move sometimes, and those moves can
require them to find a new unit closer to their new abodes. It is a
*part-time* job, for gosh sakes, not their most self-absorbing activity in
life.

Brooks

>
>
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >
> > Third, drug testing was not routine during the period in question. It
> > was available to commanders on a "suspicion" basis but seldom
> > applicable to aircrews. Random drug testing for lower rank enlisted
> > came into practice in '73-74 and was expanded to all ranks by the end
> > of the decade long after Bush was discharged from the ANG.
> >
> > Fourth, even when drug testing was instituted, it was NEVER part of a
> > flight physical which was a scheduled event--hence a druggie could
> > clean up before the physical. Drug testing was separate, done under
> > controlled conditions and with samples handled in a total different
> > chain than urinalysis from annual physicals.
> >
> > Fifth, some folks don't have an all-encompassing interest in flying
> > fighters for a career. They may have other goals and ambitions.
> > Nothing at all unusual about that.
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> > "When Thunder Rolled"
> > "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> > Both from Smithsonian Books
> > ***www.thunderchief.org

[B2431]

>From:
>Date: 9/11/2004 6:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Wouldn't it be abnormal for a tactical aviator to rack up less than
>200 hours in jets for the period he was in service, six years from
>1968 to 1973?(Associated Press
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_
guard_flights_7
>)
>
>Drug tests for aviators were implemented in April 1972. (Salon
>Magazine http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/ ) His
>next exam was for October of 1972, which he refused to attend, earning
>him disqualification from flight status. He left the ANG in 1973, the
>threat of injury or death in Vietnam having passed with the cease-fire
>signed on January 1973.
>
>Does he deserve to lead America when he himself refused to hear the
>call to defend her?

So what military service do you have? You display an amazing lack of
understanding how the system works.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

> wrote in message
om...
> Wouldn't it be abnormal for a tactical aviator to rack up less than
> 200 hours in jets for the period he was in service, six years from
> 1968 to 1973?(Associated Press
>
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_guard_flights_7
> )

Having a hard time adding up hours today? He had some 320 plus hours in the
F-102, plus whatever hours he chalked up in the T-33, T-37, and T-38.

>
> Drug tests for aviators were implemented in April 1972. (Salon
> Magazine http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/ ) His
> next exam was for October of 1972, which he refused to attend, earning
> him disqualification from flight status. He left the ANG in 1973, the
> threat of injury or death in Vietnam having passed with the cease-fire
> signed on January 1973.

Your "source" merely refers to an old AF Reg without detailing what it said.
I'll take the words of folks like Ed, who say that drug testing was not a
normal part of the flight physical program. A little further research on
your own part will show that drug testing really did not get to be
widespread until late in the 1970's, long after Bush had left duty. And
IIRC, the only testing that was very widespread in those latter days was for
THC, which you don't get from cocaine, which is the narcotic that y'all
folks are always claiming Bush was regularly using. Even in the late
eighties, when I was on active duty, cocaine testing was the exception
because at *that* time you had to do the urinalysis within something like
72-96 hours of use in order to get a positive result (it has gotten better
since then); well aware of that because the CID guy who came to meet with me
about a suspected troopie cokehead (life as a battalion SDO was sometimes
quite interesting) was quite emphatic about having to do the test within a
very short timespan.

>
> Does he deserve to lead America when he himself refused to hear the
> call to defend her?

You have made it abundantly clear that you have no earthly idea what the
"call" is. Merely signing up for selective service and heeding the results
is one way of answering the "call", as is volunteering for service, even in
the Guard/Reserves. Bush joined the Guard after the first mobilization of
reservists was announced in early 1968, and before the second mobilization
was conducted. Between twenty and thrity thousand troops and airmen were
activated during those call ups, and an awful lot of them ended up in
Vietnam--about one hundred of them died there. If that ain't one way of
answering your "call", then I don't know what the hell you think one is.

Brooks

[lego]

> > Sir,
> > It is said that he found a more satisfying 'high'.
> > Do the annual military aviator physicals include drug tests for coke?
>
> Depends what time period you are asking about.
> Today the answer would be yes.
> In the early 70's it depends apparently.
>
> IBM

Actually the answer today and for the past 15 years (in my case) has
been no. I've never been drug tested at a flight physical. I've been
randomly drug tested several (probably 20+) times in my career but
again never at a physical.

Lego
Viper driver

[BUFDRVR]

sharpest101 wrote:

>Do the annual military aviator physicals include drug tests for coke?

No...and they never did.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Robey Price wrote:

> gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.

You're kidding right? What AF Form was this AF FORM LLC? I can't figure out why
guys make stuff up in newsgroups like this, as if your not going to be called
on your BS.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

sharpest101 wrote:

>Drug tests for aviators were implemented in April 1972. His
>next exam was for October of 1972

Drug test aren't scheduled for reasons that any rational person could see.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(BUFDRVR) confessed the following:

>Robey Price wrote:
>
>> gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.
>
>You're kidding right? What AF Form was this AF FORM LLC? I can't figure out why
>guys make stuff up in newsgroups like this, as if your not going to be called
>on your BS.

Try to keep up cupcake...I responded to Ed's challenge in this vein,
responding thusly:

Poorly worded on my part. I'm not talking about the form we all signed
for accepting training. I'm talking about a "letter" of intent where
gwb professed that he wanted to fly and that he had a desire to make
flying a "life long" pursuit, and the best way to accomplish that was
as a pilot in the TX ANG.

Carry on...

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(BUFDRVR) confessed the following:

>Robey Price wrote:
>
>> gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.
>
>You're kidding right? What AF Form was this AF FORM LLC? I can't figure out why
>guys make stuff up in newsgroups like this, as if your not going to be called
>on your BS.

Check here for a document titled "Statement of Intent"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/10-5_2000_Personnel_File.pdf

Page 7 of 25 cupcake...made it up did I? Bull**** was it? Sorry
BUFDRVR what's that you said?

Feel free to type "mea culpa."

Your turn.

[Robey Price]

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


> GWB's interest or lack thereof is kind of irrelevant in this
> context because the requirements of the serivce had changed
> radically between 1968 and 1972, So, even if he wanted to do nothing
> else with his life but fly fighters its questionable whether
> there would have been room for him. Reducing the pilot cadre
> by half means a lot of folks get benched including as has been
> pointed out nearly fully trained carrier pilots by the hundreds.

Not true, I've "rushed" ANG units and I've been in an ANG unit. They
spend the money (charged to their accounts) to send somebody thru UPT
and RTU, they'll keep you if you say...damn straight I want to fly
XXX.

Robey

[lego]

> > Actually the answer today and for the past 15 years (in my case) has
> > been no. I've never been drug tested at a flight physical. I've been
> > randomly drug tested several (probably 20+) times in my career but
> > again never at a physical.
>
> So what you are saying is that as someone who has been taking military
> flight physicals for the last 15 years there has never to your certain
> knowledge been any requirement to provide a specimen for a drug
> urinalysis nor, during the course of your physicals have you ever been
> asked to provide one?
> If so, that pretty well shuts down any "mandatory pee in a bottle
> during your routine physical" claims.
> Not, mind you that I expect the Dhimmicreep shills to take notice of
> this evidence.
>
> IBM
>
> Was talking to some Kalifornia Republican folks at a street fair
> today. Latest polls have Bush within 3 points of Trotskerry in
> Kalifornia. If true, this is not good for Trotskerry.
> Means it won't even be close.
>

Correct. There is no mandatory drug test at flight physicals... at
least for the last 15 years. Before that - I have no idea. Again
doesn't prove or dispove anything 30 years ago... just lets people
know what the facts are today in the AF.

Lego
Viper Driver




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

[BUFDRVR]

Robey Price wrote:

>Check here for a document titled "Statement of Intent"

Yep, so what? I fail to see where he said (and you claimed he said) that
military flying was going to be a "life long commitment". He specifically
"intended" to finish his ADSC (which he did) and make *flying* a life long
comittment. So your beef with Lt. Bush was that he failed to get a civilian
rating or pursue the airlines? He certainly didn't do anything in that letter
that some how comitted him to do anything than serve his ADSC.

>Page 7 of 25 cupcake...made it up did I?

Yes. You claimed he was obligated to life long membership in the Air National
Guard because of this document, that has been shown to be false.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(BUFDRVR) confessed the following:

>Robey Price wrote:
>
>>Check here for a document titled "Statement of Intent"
>
>Yep, so what?

So what? Who sarcastically asked,"What AF Form was this AF FORM LLC? I
can't figure out why guys make stuff up in newsgroups like this...?"

Answer...it wasn't made up.

> I fail to see where he said (and you claimed he said) that
>military flying was going to be a "life long commitment".

"gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.
There is no evidence that he even attempted to fulfill that "promise."
He never said he lost interest, but his action sure did."

> He specifically "intended" to finish his ADSC (which he did) and make *flying* a life long
>comittment.

...."by serving as a memeber of the Air National Guard as long as
possible."

You left that part out.

>So your beef with Lt. Bush was that he failed to get a civilian
>rating or pursue the airlines? He certainly didn't do anything in that letter
>that some how comitted him to do anything than serve his ADSC.

No my beef is a congressman's son, with a 1966 Disorderly Conduct
arrest for drunkenness (later dropped), scored the freakin' bare
minimum 25 on the pilot part of the AFOQT, got picked for a great gig
as a fighter pilot and flew only 22 months after becoming MR, then
lost interest. Simple. I'm ignoring the allegations that he was
snorting coke at the time and didn't even take his physical in August
resulting in his grounding.

The pedant will point out, traditional reservist do NOT have ADSC,
they have a MSO (military service obligation) see page 16 of 33 here
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/1-Enlistment_Packet.pdf

>Yes. You claimed he was obligated to life long membership in the Air National
>Guard because of this document, that has been shown to be false.

**** can't you read BD? My grief is that gwb lost interest after 22
months. He signed the letter that ends "by serving as a memeber of the
Air National Guard as long as possible."

Bottom Line: you challenged the veracity of my claim he signed some
bull**** letter...he did. You BD were left ****ing flat footed, now
arguing the semantics of things I didn't claim. You started off
arguing there was no letter...when confronted with the facts you now
argue what he meant by signing the letter.

Pitiful!

[Leslie Swartz]

Not during a mandated drawdown they won't.

Robey, why are you persisting in this?

This is the wrong newsgroup to be playing fast and loose with stuff most of
us understand first hand.

Please, enlighten us all on how the ANG fills unfunded positions flying
fighter jets . . .

Steve Swartz


"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ian
> MacLure > confessed the following:
>
>
>> GWB's interest or lack thereof is kind of irrelevant in this
>> context because the requirements of the serivce had changed
>> radically between 1968 and 1972, So, even if he wanted to do nothing
>> else with his life but fly fighters its questionable whether
>> there would have been room for him. Reducing the pilot cadre
>> by half means a lot of folks get benched including as has been
>> pointed out nearly fully trained carrier pilots by the hundreds.
>
> Not true, I've "rushed" ANG units and I've been in an ANG unit. They
> spend the money (charged to their accounts) to send somebody thru UPT
> and RTU, they'll keep you if you say...damn straight I want to fly
> XXX.
>
> Robey

[Robey Price]

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

>Not during a mandated drawdown they won't.

Nobody is claiming that...well except you now.

You have information on the manning document of the 111th FIS during
its conversion from Dueces to Voodoos? I have not seen what you're
addressing. Where can we find these documents? Who said their staffing
was "a mandated drawdown?" We'll agree that the Rated Sup was
commencing for the active duty guys, and controlled OERs were the
rage, but the 111th FIS was in the midst of converting to an RTU sqdn.
I suspect their manning document showed an increase in manpower.

>Robey, why are you persisting in this?

Because I am skeptical of gwb [period]. I'm sincerely surprised that
the guy gets a "free pass" from aviators of his generation.

>This is the wrong newsgroup to be playing fast and loose with stuff most of
>us understand first hand.

What fast and loose? The guy got the benefit of dad's congressional
gig to get into a fighter cockpit with an alchohol related bust in
1966, and the freakin' bare minimum AFOQT score...then he stopped
flying after 22 months as a full up qualified F-102 pilot. Those are
facts.

>Please, enlighten us all on how the ANG fills unfunded positions flying
>fighter jets . . .

Quoi? Where was this RIF in the TX ANG you're suggesting (unfunded
positions)? There is no paperwork indicating the 111th FIS was losing
manpower (pilot slots)...they were converting. They spent the money to
train gwb (UPT and RTU) and the return on their investment was 22
months as an MR (or "Qualified" for the pedant) F-102 pilot. Four
years out of his 6 year OMS.

I honestly have no idea where this notion of "unfunded positions" is
coming from. As a unit converts a guy goes from being slotted from his
"old" F-102 slot to his "new" F-101 slot or perhaps in the case of the
TX ANG at the time T-33 or C-54 positions they had. Those
qualifications (T-33 or C-54) are noted on the aeronautical orders
published in the gwb related stuff I've referenced. The unit could
waive the minimum hours to convert or have him fly as a target pilot
until his time is up. He made no effort...he had no interest.

Regarding ANG hiring for positions...I got hired for a specific billet
in Sep 1990 only to have the NGB (National Guard Bureau) cut that
position a week before the UTA weekend. The unit turned around and
hired me for another specific position...without that I would not have
been picked up by the ANG. In that same unit, a 1Lt was FEB'd, lost
his flying slot and put into a support position rather than being cut
loose (it was a ****ing match of sorts, the unit got their service
obligation out of the Lt).

I suppose an argument can be made that gwb's superiors in the 111th
FIS were aware that he was not interested or that his personal life
made him less than welcome (but there is no documentation of that).
Why jettison the son of the congressman of your district? Hey because
you can.

Now if you're trying to say the 111th FIS was NOT interested in
keeping gwb...hey I might buy that. I actually like that. They got
"influenced" to take gwb; his pilot AFOQT was the minimum; UPT
performance was average; he wasn't anything special; folks noticed his
"give a ****" attitude; and the conversion to the F-101 was a
convenient way to wipe their hands of him. Sorry congressman, the
rules are the rules (this time) ours hands are tied, we can't keep
Junior. Plausible, logical...and deniable.

Hey...I do like that.

Robey

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Robey Price wrote:
>
> >Check here for a document titled "Statement of Intent"
>
> Yep, so what? I fail to see where he said (and you claimed he said) that
> military flying was going to be a "life long commitment". He specifically
> "intended" to finish his ADSC (which he did) and make *flying* a life long
> comittment. So your beef with Lt. Bush was that he failed to get a
civilian
> rating or pursue the airlines? He certainly didn't do anything in that
letter
> that some how comitted him to do anything than serve his ADSC.

Actually, he did get a civilian ticket. From Dan's (great) website: "As is
usual with military pilots, Bush also received a "commercial" certificate on
Dec 8, 1969. He was rated for single- and multi-engine airplanes, and for
flying on instruments without visual reference to the ground."

http://www.vivabush.org/bushf102.htm

>
> >Page 7 of 25 cupcake...made it up did I?
>
> Yes. You claimed he was obligated to life long membership in the Air
National
> Guard because of this document, that has been shown to be false.

Gee, I'd be careful there Bufdrvr...when a *guy* starts calling another guy
"cupcake", it makes you wonder as to how much contact his loafers have with
the ground. Don't be droppin' no soap around him...

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

Robey Price wrote:

>>Yep, so what?
>
>So what? Who sarcastically asked,"What AF Form was this AF FORM LLC? I
>can't figure out why guys make stuff up in newsgroups like this...?"

No, the answer still is; so what? That piece of paper did not obligate Bush to
do *anything*.

>Answer...it wasn't made up.

No, the document wasn't made up, but the fact that you are trying to create
some kind of commitment from it sure is.

>"gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment.

No, he said he was making flying a life long commitment. All he said about the
TANG was that he would serve his entire ADSC/MSO.

>There is no evidence that he even attempted to fulfill that "promise."
>He never said he lost interest, but his action sure did."

Its already been pointed out to you and several others that the mission of the
111th was changing and would not be condusive to traditional guardsmen. It
appears that even if Bush had wanted to fly more than anyone on the planet he
would not have been able to with the 111th.

>**** can't you read BD?

Yes.

>He signed the letter that ends "by serving as a memeber of the
>Air National Guard as long as possible."

Kind of hard to do if your unit first becomes an RTU, then transitions. I'm
willing to bet there were at least 2 dozen other guys in that unit that wound
up just like Lt. Bush.

>Bottom Line: you challenged the veracity of my claim he signed some
>bull**** letter...he did.

The letter he signed didn't commit him to anything, you claimed it did.

>You BD were left ****ing flat footed, now
>arguing the semantics of things I didn't claim.

No, actually you did claim he commited himself for life.

>You started off
>arguing there was no letter...when confronted with the facts you now
>argue what he meant by signing the letter.

I argued that there was no service obligation form where you could commit for
life. I was right.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(BUFDRVR) confessed the following:


>No, the document wasn't made up, but the fact that you are trying to create
>some kind of commitment from it sure is.

No..."gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long
commitment."

His stated intention is not the same thing as saying, he signed a
friggin' contract. I've never claimed that. I claim he stated his
intention to pursue flying as something more than 22 months as a full
up MR pilot.

>Its already been pointed out to you and several others that the mission of the
>111th was changing and would not be condusive to traditional guardsmen. It
>appears that even if Bush had wanted to fly more than anyone on the planet he
>would not have been able to with the 111th.

Not true...ANG RTUs have always had a mix of full-time and traditional
guard guys. gwb could have been selected to make the move...or not,
depending on the discretion of the commander.

>Kind of hard to do if your unit first becomes an RTU, then transitions.

Not at all, the unit still had T-33s for targets, he could have raised
and lowered the gear from the right seat of the C-54. He had options
if he wanted to fulfill that obligation...the only thing you seem to
think he's signed on for in the "Statement of Intent."

>>Bottom Line: you challenged the veracity of my claim he signed some
>>bull**** letter...he did.
>
>The letter he signed didn't commit him to anything, you claimed it did.

No, I claimed he signed a statement of intent...in this statement it
said "he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long commitment."
and clarified that to Ed thusly, "I'm talking about a "letter" of
intent where gwb professed that he wanted to fly and that he had a
desire to make flying a "life long" pursuit, and the best way to
accomplish that was as a pilot in the TX ANG.

Notice I never claim he signed some contract obligating him to
actually do something.

He signed a statement of intent. That intent was to pursue flying...as
a member of the Texas ANG as long as possible. I'm NOT suggesting he
wanted to be an airline puke, or a crop duster. I'm saying he intended
to be a TXANG pilot as long as possible...otherwise why even include
that phrase?

>>You BD were left ****ing flat footed, now
>>arguing the semantics of things I didn't claim.
>
>No, actually you did claim he commited himself for life.

No...you've inferred something I did not state.

>I argued that there was no service obligation form where you could commit for
>life. I was right.

No your first salvo was "What AF Form was this AF FORM LLC? I can't
figure out why guys make stuff up in newsgroups like this, as if your
not going to be called on your BS."

I argue that the second sentence ..."the goal of making flying a
lifetime pursuit...by serving as a memeber of the Air National Guard
as long as possible." Is significantly longer than..."fulfill my
obligation to the utmost ability."

That is all!

[B2431]

y are you persisting in this?

<snip>


>What fast and loose? The guy got the benefit of dad's congressional
>gig to get into a fighter cockpit

Prove it

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Robey Price
>Date: 9/13/2004 11:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(BUFDRVR) confessed the following:
>
>
>>No, the document wasn't made up, but the fact that you are trying to create
>>some kind of commitment from it sure is.
>
>No..."gwb signed a statement of intent in 1968,
>saying he planned to make flying in the TX ANG a life long
>commitment."
>

For those of us who remember job loyalty and pride there's a thing called
"selling one's self" when applying for employment. You have to tell the
employer you will do everything for him. The letter you present is just that.

I used to own a business. If you came in applying for a job and just told me
what you wanted you wouldn't get it. If you told me what you would do for me
you would have a better chance.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:00:01 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Leslie
>Swartz" confessed the following:
>
>>Not during a mandated drawdown they won't.
>
>Nobody is claiming that...well except you now.
>
> You have information on the manning document of the 111th FIS during
>its conversion from Dueces to Voodoos? I have not seen what you're
>addressing. Where can we find these documents? Who said their staffing
>was "a mandated drawdown?" We'll agree that the Rated Sup was
>commencing for the active duty guys, and controlled OERs were the
>rage, but the 111th FIS was in the midst of converting to an RTU sqdn.
>I suspect their manning document showed an increase in manpower.

You have stated that you entered UPT too late to participate in
Vietnam. That means that the period you are discussing for GWB's
service was prior to your tenure. I've provided input first on the
state of pilot production in '68 when he entered service and later in
'70-'72 when I was OPR for Air Training Command
pilot/nav/helicopter/survival assignments.

The Rated Supplement was cranked up during '69 as we started the
drawdown from SEA. Remember that Nixon was elected in '68 and took
office in Jan '69. He started the Vietnamization process and we
gradually saw numbers decline with the biggest cuts coming at the end
of '70 for the FY '71 Program Flying Training. As I've previously
stated, USAF chose to shut down from the source by cutting
acquisitions while USN simply chopped across the force. Bottom line is
that we had excess pilots everywhere in the active force and a lot of
guys (following your logic) didn't want to go rated supplement if
there was an opportunity to get out and maybe go with the Guard or
AFRES. So, we had suprlus pilots.

And, just to be historically accurate, controlled OERs didn't come
about until 1976-77. So, you're about five years off in throwing that
mis-fact into the discussion.
>
>>Robey, why are you persisting in this?
>
>Because I am skeptical of gwb [period]. I'm sincerely surprised that
>the guy gets a "free pass" from aviators of his generation.

He gets a free pass from this aviator because I know what it takes to
go through UPT, survival, operational training and mission qual (as do
you.) I know that it takes more than six months basic in the Army
Guard followed by a couple of years of monthly meetings. You know it
as well.

He also gets a pass because a very close friend of mine who also did
the 100 North in a F-105 as a 1/Lt was the president's IP in Tweets at
Moody and has told me quite clearly about the president's flying and
his personality. He speaks with great respect about the man.
>
>Quoi? Where was this RIF in the TX ANG you're suggesting (unfunded
>positions)? There is no paperwork indicating the 111th FIS was losing
>manpower (pilot slots)...they were converting. They spent the money to
>train gwb (UPT and RTU) and the return on their investment was 22
>months as an MR (or "Qualified" for the pedant) F-102 pilot. Four
>years out of his 6 year OMS.

And, as stated above, four years after his acqusition conditions had
changed considerably. Further in a Guard slot a requal couldn't be
accomplished in monthly training periods but would require full time
activation for the training and then acceptance by the individual of
an additional service commitment.
>
>
>Regarding ANG hiring for positions...I got hired for a specific billet
>in Sep 1990 only to have the NGB (National Guard Bureau) cut that
>position a week before the UTA weekend. The unit turned around and
>hired me for another specific position...without that I would not have
>been picked up by the ANG. In that same unit, a 1Lt was FEB'd, lost
>his flying slot and put into a support position rather than being cut
>loose (it was a ****ing match of sorts, the unit got their service
>obligation out of the Lt).

And, you should note that 18 years later your anecdotal experience is
pretty irrelevant. I can also cite a very competent Viper driver I
knew on active duty who got an $80k bonus for accepting a six year
additional service commitment in 1988, then in 1989 got offered a
$250k buyout to leave the service during a reduction in force. One
year they paid him to stay, the next year they paid him to leave.
Still irrelevant to the issue.
>

> Now if you're trying to say the 111th FIS was NOT interested in
>keeping gwb...hey I might buy that. I actually like that. They got
>"influenced" to take gwb; his pilot AFOQT was the minimum;

Maybe you saw the DCS/Ops for the TANG during that period appear on
Fox News yesterday stating that while there was a considerable wait
list for enlisted Guard slots, there was a shortage of QUALIFIED pilot
candidates during the period that Bush was accepted.

> UPT
>performance was average;

Last I saw he finished 24 out of 58 in his class. That's pretty good
(at least in the estimation of this former UPT IP.)

> he wasn't anything special; folks noticed his
>"give a ****" attitude;

The attitude sounds like a fighter pilot to 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,
(B2431) confessed the following:


>For those of us who remember job loyalty and pride there's a thing called
>"selling one's self" when applying for employment. You have to tell the
>employer you will do everything for him. The letter you present is just that.

Fair enough...you're telling me you don't actually have to mean what
you say. You only have to say what the employer wants to hear.

>I used to own a business. If you came in applying for a job and just told me
>what you wanted you wouldn't get it. If you told me what you would do for me
>you would have a better chance.

Interesting...honesty is not the virtue you admire...enthusiasm is
what polishes your apple.

Robey

[B2431]

>From: Robey Price
>Date: 9/14/2004 11:02 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(B2431) confessed the following:
>
>
>>For those of us who remember job loyalty and pride there's a thing called
>>"selling one's self" when applying for employment. You have to tell the
>>employer you will do everything for him. The letter you present is just
>that.
>
>Fair enough...you're telling me you don't actually have to mean what
>you say. You only have to say what the employer wants to hear.

If all you want is a job, yes. Then again who is to say Bush didn't mean what
he wrote then changed his mind 3 years later?

>
>>I used to own a business. If you came in applying for a job and just told me
>>what you wanted you wouldn't get it. If you told me what you would do for me
>>you would have a better chance.
>
>Interesting...honesty is not the virtue you admire...enthusiasm is
>what polishes your apple.

I didn't say that at all. I expect honesty. Please note I said you would have a
better chance. If I didn't believe you were being honest you would not be
hired.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Robey Price]

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

>You have stated that you entered UPT too late to participate in
>Vietnam. That means that the period you are discussing for GWB's
>service was prior to your tenure.

True.

> I've provided input first on the state of pilot production in '68
> when he entered service and later in '70-'72 when I was OPR
> for Air Training Command pilot/nav/helicopter/survival assignments.

Nice background, but not germane to gwb's actions. ANG guys already
had their assignments when they showed up at UPT, I don't see how you
would have had anything to do with ANG follow-on assignments.

> Remember that Nixon was elected in '68 and took
>office in Jan '69.

Gee I had forgotten that Ed...8-)

> Bottom line is that we had excess pilots everywhere... we had suprlus pilots.

Never claimed there weren't. Conditions change, as do options
available. ANG units have latitude/options in accepting pilots that
active duty units don't. They've always had different options.

>And, just to be historically accurate, controlled OERs didn't come
>about until 1976-77. So, you're about five years off in throwing that
>mis-fact into the discussion.

Five years? OK if you say so. In Sep 1974 a 1Lt T-38 IP at Moody was
passed over for Capt, because of his "controlled" 2 OER...his wife was
a senior in my AFROTC Det. On an escorted tour in Oct 1974 at Moody by
another T-38 IP, he explained why he was going into Hospital
Administration...two things...Rated Sup and f*cking controlled OERs
(his words).

Whether I'm off by 5 years as you claim, or if you might be mistaken;
the inclusion of controlled OERs was not to swing the discussion,
merely to indicate my awareness of manning and promotion issues. It
wasn't germane to the issue of gwb's actions or inactions.

I'll happily stipulate that controlled OERs are NOT nor have they ever
been an issue WRT gwb's service in the TX ANG. OK?

But with all your insight into the machinations of AFMPC, you had no
working knowledge of how the state of Texas handled their manpower
issues. Correct?

Or are you suggesting you made phone calls to ANG units to help
friends get a flying slot? Not pointing fingers, just curious .

>He gets a free pass from this aviator...

And that is truly distrubing. No ****.

>And, as stated above, four years after his acqusition conditions had
>changed considerably.

Ture...for active duty slugs...not so true for guys already in place
with an ANG flying slot.

> Further in a Guard slot a requal couldn't be accomplished in
> monthly training periods but would require full time activation
> for the training...

Not true Ed, gwb had already flown the T-33, he finished a T-33
syllabus in Feb 70. He could have stayed and flown as a target
pilot...or raised and lowered the gear on the squadron/wing C-54.
Guess the TX ANG C-54 or T-33s couldn't find their way to Maxwell or
Dannelly Field...no approach plates.

These options were apparently not considered. Or maybe they were and
gwb wasn't really wanted by the unit. Did you even consider either of
these options?

Hmmm, two years to go on this guy, he can fly the T-33, we have
training to support with the T-33...no brainer...stick gwb in the
cockpit of the T-33. That wasn't so hard.

>Maybe you saw the DCS/Ops ... there was a shortage of QUALIFIED pilot
>candidates during the period that Bush was accepted.

And I've heard Roy Barnes say he went to bat for gwb...but you're
right if the minimums weren't good enough, lower them, and use
political connections.

Or this http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/

>Last I saw he finished 24 out of 58 in his class. That's pretty good
>(at least in the estimation of this former UPT IP.)

Ed, you trying to use some of that new fangled community college math
I been hearin' 'bout? 41% from the top is pretty good? Fair to say
you're not teaching statisics or probability. 8-)

Suffice to say, it saddens me that guys like you...men that I truly
respect for your service are not the least bit critical. A former Sqdn
CO that was a T-38 IP at Moody when gwb was there also shares my
opinion (and this from a guy that will vote for gwb).

The real issue isn't gwb's ANG history, it's the course our nation is
taking.

I think you and I have flogged this ad nauseum. With all due respect I
yield the parting shot to you. I've lost my enthusiasm for this
discussion...terminal illness in my immediate family.

Take Care

Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(B2431) confessed the following:

>If all you want is a job, yes.

OK

>Then again who is to say Bush didn't mean what he wrote then changed
> his mind 3 years later?

Can I get an amen brothas and sistas? You sir, have just paraphrased
what I have been arguing for so long. gwb lost interest...he changed
his mind...he didn't want to be a fighter pilot anymore. He didn't
come out and say it...but his actions spoke for him.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Robey

[Robey Price]

Oops...mea culpa...lest somebody suggest I've invented another
anti-gwb conspiracy.

>And I've heard Roy Barnes say he went to bat for gwb..

Make that Ben Barnes...Roy is from my home.

Robey

[B2431]

>From: Robey Price

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
(B2431) confessed the following:
>
>>If all you want is a job, yes.
>
>OK
>
>>Then again who is to say Bush didn't mean what he wrote then changed
>> his mind 3 years later?
>
>Can I get an amen brothas and sistas? You sir, have just paraphrased
>what I have been arguing for so long. gwb lost interest...he changed
>his mind...he didn't want to be a fighter pilot anymore. He didn't
>come out and say it...but his actions spoke for him.
>
>Thank you, thank you, thank you.
>
>Robey

You initially said that letter implied a life long commitment, now you are
claiming a win when it turns out to not be the case?

The letter wasn't binding in either case.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:16:59 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>confessed the following:
>
>> I've provided input first on the state of pilot production in '68
>> when he entered service and later in '70-'72 when I was OPR
>> for Air Training Command pilot/nav/helicopter/survival assignments.
>
>Nice background, but not germane to gwb's actions. ANG guys already
>had their assignments when they showed up at UPT, I don't see how you
>would have had anything to do with ANG follow-on assignments.

The germane aspect is that I was on active duty during the period in
question and directly involved with the issues of pilot training,
requirements, availability and surpluses. Thank God, however, that you
have now provided yet another refutation to Art's contention that Bush
somehow should have requested/demanded assignment to some other weapon
system.
>
>> Bottom line is that we had excess pilots everywhere... we had suprlus pilots.
>
>Never claimed there weren't. Conditions change, as do options
>available. ANG units have latitude/options in accepting pilots that
>active duty units don't. They've always had different options.

Bingo. Breakthrough! Yes, ANG units could release pilots with minimum
experience and accept pilots with much greater operational/combat
experience. It's the crux of the issue.
>
>>And, just to be historically accurate, controlled OERs didn't come
>>about until 1976-77. So, you're about five years off in throwing that
>>mis-fact into the discussion.
>
>Five years? OK if you say so. In Sep 1974 a 1Lt T-38 IP at Moody was
>passed over for Capt, because of his "controlled" 2 OER...his wife was
>a senior in my AFROTC Det. On an escorted tour in Oct 1974 at Moody by
>another T-38 IP, he explained why he was going into Hospital
>Administration...two things...Rated Sup and f*cking controlled OERs
>(his words).
>
>Whether I'm off by 5 years as you claim, or if you might be mistaken;
>the inclusion of controlled OERs was not to swing the discussion,
>merely to indicate my awareness of manning and promotion issues. It
>wasn't germane to the issue of gwb's actions or inactions.

Got listed for O-4 BTZ in October of '74. Pinned on nearly two years
later in Aug of '76. First controlled OER came in spring of '76 and
second, kiss-of-death came in early '77. I'm INTIMATELY familiar with
controlled OERs. They made me the senior major in the USAF when I
retired.

>But with all your insight into the machinations of AFMPC, you had no
>working knowledge of how the state of Texas handled their manpower
>issues. Correct?

Other than, as stated above, being directly involved with USAF
personnel policy with regard to aircrew manning and usage.
>
>Or are you suggesting you made phone calls to ANG units to help
>friends get a flying slot? Not pointing fingers, just curious .
>
>>He gets a free pass from this aviator...
>
>And that is truly distrubing. No ****.

Why should it be disturbing? I can give you several hundred names of
Vietnam combat tactical aviators who are highly ****ed at Kerry's
record of accusations and aid/comfort to the enemy. I can also suggest
that I can evaluate political issues from the involved perspective of
someone teaching the discipline and with one bachelor's and two
master's degrees in the area. Your mileage may vary.
>
>>And, as stated above, four years after his acqusition conditions had
>>changed considerably.
>
>Ture...for active duty slugs...not so true for guys already in place
>with an ANG flying slot.

And an end-of-service date plus other commitments.
>
>> Further in a Guard slot a requal couldn't be accomplished in
>> monthly training periods but would require full time activation
>> for the training...
>
>Not true Ed, gwb had already flown the T-33, he finished a T-33
>syllabus in Feb 70. He could have stayed and flown as a target
>pilot...or raised and lowered the gear on the squadron/wing C-54.
>Guess the TX ANG C-54 or T-33s couldn't find their way to Maxwell or
>Dannelly Field...no approach plates.

When "Phantom Flights" comes out in February, you can read about my
experiences sentenced to "fly" the T-29 while assigned at Randolph.
Maybe Bush didn't consider bus-driving and target droning as flying?
>
>>Maybe you saw the DCS/Ops ... there was a shortage of QUALIFIED pilot
>>candidates during the period that Bush was accepted.
>
>And I've heard Roy Barnes say he went to bat for gwb...but you're
>right if the minimums weren't good enough, lower them, and use
>political connections.
>
>Or this http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/bush.professor/

"Yoshi Tsurumi"? Harvard, that bastion of conservative thought and
faculty? "Environmental Analysis for Management"? And, while he didn't
like Bush, the student was "lazy and unprepared" the student chose to
confide in the hallway to Yoshi that the fix was in?? Does this sound
like a spin job?
>
>>Last I saw he finished 24 out of 58 in his class. That's pretty good
>>(at least in the estimation of this former UPT IP.)
>
>Ed, you trying to use some of that new fangled community college math
>I been hearin' 'bout? 41% from the top is pretty good? Fair to say
>you're not teaching statisics or probability. 8-)

"If the minimum wasn't good enough it wouldn't be the minimum". Upper
half of UPT is pretty good in my book. Hell, upper 80% was all it took
to be plowed back into a UPT instructor. Upper half was good enough
for back-seat F-4s, FACs, recce, transport and almost every other
command. With 1/3 of the class that I was in from Germany, we had guys
from the bottom of the class go across town to Luke to fly Zippers for
the Luftwaffe.

Yes, being in the upper half of a highly competitive UPT class is
pretty good.
>

>The real issue isn't gwb's ANG history, it's the course our nation is
>taking.

Bingo again! Yes, and fighting terrorism on the "other guy's turf"
beats the crap out of fighting a "more sensitive" war. The French and
Germans have already clearly stated that even a Kerry election won't
get them involved.

Taking more of my tax dollars to support welfare queens isn't where I
want to go.


>
>I think you and I have flogged this ad nauseum. With all due respect I
>yield the parting shot to you. I've lost my enthusiasm for this
>discussion...terminal illness in my immediate family.

Best wishes for you and yours. I hope things work out for you and your
family illnesses are quickly resolved. Most sincere best wishes.

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

[OXMORON1]

Ed and Robey discussed:
>>>Last I saw he finished 24 out of 58 in his class. That's pretty good
>>>(at least in the estimation of this former UPT IP.)
>>
>>Ed, you trying to use some of that new fangled community college math
>>I been hearin' 'bout? 41% from the top is pretty good? Fair to say
>>you're not teaching statisics or probability. 8-)
>
>"If the minimum wasn't good enough it wouldn't be the minimum". Upper
>half of UPT is pretty good in my book. Hell, upper 80% was all it took
>to be plowed back into a UPT instructor. Upper half was good enough
>for back-seat F-4s, FACs, recce, transport and almost every other
>command. With 1/3 of the class that I was in from Germany, we had guys
>from the bottom of the class go across town to Luke to fly Zippers for
>the Luftwaffe.
>
>Yes, being in the upper half of a highly competitive UPT class is
>pretty good.
>>
>
'nother thing to remember, the ANG trainees had their assignment locked up
prior to entering UPT or UNT. The object was to learn the skill, especially the
flight portion.
There was not a lot of benefit for an ANG type to be a Distinguished Graduate
compared to the Active Duty types. The ANG types were not there to get a
Regular Commission with the DG laurels (well maybe a few were:-o).
Also the primary function of class standing as I saw it was to have the proper
position for the assignment lottery a little over halfway through the course.
The last guy in the class got to stand up a say "Of course I want the AC-47
slot"
If you want to throw politics into the mix then explain how the Academy Grad,
general's son was in the bottom half of his nav school class, picked a C-123
slot and got a C-141 slot on graduation. RHIP

Rick