General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry

[S. Sampson]

In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had defiantly
given his medals back to the U.S. government during one of his many
protests. New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in September
2002 that the senator invited him to view 40 minutes of films Kerry
made depicting his war exploits. Keller wrote that anti-war doves
would still support the man they remembered for "throwing his war
ribbons onto the steps of the Capitol."

When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
Senate office.

Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."

Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.

Come to think of it, if he continues to posture as a war hero, he'll lose
the friendship of Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, and the Daily World.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: "S. Sampson"
>Date: 1/30/04 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03>
>
>In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had defiantly
>given his medals back to the U.S. government during one of his many
>protests. New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in September
>2002 that the senator invited him to view 40 minutes of films Kerry
>made depicting his war exploits. Keller wrote that anti-war doves
>would still support the man they remembered for "throwing his war
>ribbons onto the steps of the Capitol."
>
>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
>Senate office.
>
>Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
>Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
>
>Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
>Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
>presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
>
And just what were your war exploits? Anything? What he did in combat no one
denies. And he is a hero and a fine soldier and leader of men as a result. And
where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against Lt. Kerry?.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 Jan 2004 22:40:41 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>From: "S. Sampson"
>>Date: 1/30/04 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03>
>>
>>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
>>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
>>Senate office.
>>
>>Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
>>Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
>>
>>Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
>>Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
>>presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
>>
> And just what were your war exploits? Anything? What he did in combat no one
>denies. And he is a hero and a fine soldier and leader of men as a result. And
>where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against Lt. Kerry?.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Well, Art, I think my military achievements qualify me to speak, and I
agree fully with General Patton's estimation of the honor and
integrity of Senator Kerry. The simple hypocrisy of the medal throwing
incident, using someone else's medals, followed by the prominent
display of the awards in his office for political expediency reduces
the man in my mind.

And, I might add that several hundred military aviators from the
period that I regularly correspond with in an email listserv, AF,
Navy, Marine and Army, are united in their disdain for the Senator.
The former POWs in the group in particular are bothered by the acts of
Senator Kerry.

As for the possession of the awards in the first place, we might wish
to recall that LBJ had a Silver Star as well, although his was won for
being a passenger on a mission in the combat zone, not necessarily a
combat mission. And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
days--it's a puzzlement.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 1/30/04 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time

>And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
>reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
>days--it's a puzzlement.

I don't believe a word of it. Do you? And are you saying that every silver star
ever awarded is now null and void? Or only those awarded to members of opposite
political parties?


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 30 Jan 2004 23:13:58 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 1/30/04 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
>>reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
>>days--it's a puzzlement.
>
>I don't believe a word of it. Do you? And are you saying that every silver star
>ever awarded is now null and void? Or only those awarded to members of opposite
>political parties?

Unfortunately I do believe a word of it. The sources that I read
seemed pretty well documented.

And, I don't say that every Silver Star awarded is null and void. I
will, however, say that I know of a lot of decorations that were not
earned. The issue with Kerry, as Patton and others have noted, is that
he was overly eager to shed his uniform, join the anti-war movement
while hundreds of thousands of his brothers-in-arms were still in
battle, undermining their support very publicly, allying himself with
the likes of jane fonda, discarding his medals (oops, someone else's
medals) and now, when it suits his somewhat flexible politics,
recloaking himself in the mantle of a hero.

FWIW, mine haven't been thrown over any fences and they aren't on any
public office walls. They are in a drawer, but still valued. Probably
like yours. And, I've kept faith with my comrades.

Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
don the Nomex and carry a helmet.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 1/30/04 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
> >reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
> >days--it's a puzzlement.
>
> I don't believe a word of it.

Little surprise there.

> Do you?

He wrote it, didn't he?

> And are you saying that every silver star ever awarded is now null and
void?

No, he is merely pointing out the obvious fact that not *every* Silver Star
was evidence of heroism, and his example of LBJ is an appropriate one in
this case. The curious nature of those Purple Hearts received with
reportedly no absence from duty does make his awards situation questionable.

> Or only those awarded to members of opposite political parties?

I suspect Ed would be equally disgusted if a Republican had behaved in the
manner in which Kerry has in regards to his self-serving maneuvers (i.e.,
tossing what he now claims were someone else's medals over the fence in a
well publisized protest event, then displaying his medals and braying about
his military expertise).

Before you accuse Ed of subverting his notions of integrity based upon his
alleged political affiliation, you might care to glance in a mirror and ask
yourself that same question. And BTW, what happened to your recent one-man
campaign against off-topic/political posting? Rather short "battle" you
fought there, eh?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus
>
>On 30 Jan 2004 22:40:41 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>>From: "S. Sampson"
>>>Date: 1/30/04 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03>
>>>
>>>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
>>>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
>>>Senate office.
>>>
>>>Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
>>>Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
>>>
>>>Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
>>>Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
>>>presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
>>>
>> And just what were your war exploits? Anything? What he did in combat no
>one
>>denies. And he is a hero and a fine soldier and leader of men as a result.
>And
>>where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against Lt. Kerry?.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Well, Art, I think my military achievements qualify me to speak, and I
>agree fully with General Patton's estimation of the honor and
>integrity of Senator Kerry. The simple hypocrisy of the medal throwing
>incident, using someone else's medals, followed by the prominent
>display of the awards in his office for political expediency reduces
>the man in my mind.
>
>And, I might add that several hundred military aviators from the
>period that I regularly correspond with in an email listserv, AF,
>Navy, Marine and Army, are united in their disdain for the Senator.
>The former POWs in the group in particular are bothered by the acts of
>Senator Kerry.
>
>As for the possession of the awards in the first place, we might wish
>to recall that LBJ had a Silver Star as well, although his was won for
>being a passenger on a mission in the combat zone, not necessarily a
>combat mission. And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
>reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
>days--it's a puzzlement.
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
I agree Kerry stabbed us in the back.

As for missed duty for purple hearts I lost no duty for my first purple heart.
Then again I didn't think anyone put me in for one. First and second degree
burns don't always result in being taken out of action. I just spent the next
two days being reminded by the pain just how stupid I was.

Johnson didn't earn that silver star in my opinion.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[cypher745]

Didn't Patton die in 1945??

Making all of this a little suspect.


"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03...
> In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had defiantly
> given his medals back to the U.S. government during one of his many
> protests. New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in September
> 2002 that the senator invited him to view 40 minutes of films Kerry
> made depicting his war exploits. Keller wrote that anti-war doves
> would still support the man they remembered for "throwing his war
> ribbons onto the steps of the Capitol."
>
> When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
> the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
> Senate office.
>
> Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
> Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
>
> Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
> Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
> presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
>
> Come to think of it, if he continues to posture as a war hero, he'll lose
> the friendship of Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, and the Daily World.
>
>

[Vaughn]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03...
> In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had ...

Could we please stick to military aviation and can the OT political
crap?

[S. Sampson]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> And just what were your war exploits? Anything?

I never had to fix bayonets, and the only close call on my demise
was a Patriot missile misfire, and a Scud. I served 21 years faithfully, as
an aircrewmember in every war from 78 to 93. While I never dropped
ordinance, my crew did assist in four Mig kills, and two SAR saves.

When I retired I did not show up at anti-government rallies and throw
my medals at the steps of Congress.

> What he did in combat no one denies. And he is a hero and a fine
> soldier and leader of men as a result.

So you don't think giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a bad thing?
If Lt Kerry is a good American, then Jane Fonda is also a fine American.

> And where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against
> Lt. Kerry?

This seems important to you, but it's merely a rephrasing of the first
question above. I never went to anti-government rallies and throw my
medals at Congress, and then turn around and declare myself a war
hero. Does that count?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:36:36 GMT, "cypher745"
> wrote:

>Didn't Patton die in 1945??
>
>Making all of this a little suspect.
>
Patton's son, George Patton III, rose to the rank as well.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[OXMORON1]

cypher745 asked:

>Didn't Patton die in 1945??

That was his relative, grandfather I think.
IIRC has father died earlier in a plane crash.
His Grandfather would have said much more with a lot nore flair and profanity.

oxmoron1
MFE

[S. Sampson]

"cypher745" > wrote
>
> Didn't Patton die in 1945??
>
> Making all of this a little suspect.

That was his father, who would have slapped him unconscious,
and then filled his head with lead from two Ivory handled revolvers.

[Kevin Brooks]

"cypher745" > wrote in message
. com...
> Didn't Patton die in 1945??
>
> Making all of this a little suspect.

No, what is suspect is your knowledge. George S. Patton, Jr. died in 1945;
his son (note the use of "III") also graduated from USMA and also retired as
a general officer, having served a couple of tours in Vietnam (first as
Regimental Commander of the 11th ACR, then as a BG IIRC serving as an ADC).

Brooks


>
>
> "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> news:OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03...
> > In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had defiantly
> > given his medals back to the U.S. government during one of his many
> > protests. New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in September
> > 2002 that the senator invited him to view 40 minutes of films Kerry
> > made depicting his war exploits. Keller wrote that anti-war doves
> > would still support the man they remembered for "throwing his war
> > ribbons onto the steps of the Capitol."
> >
> > When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
> > the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
> > Senate office.
> >
> > Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
> > Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
> >
> > Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
> > Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
> > presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
> >
> > Come to think of it, if he continues to posture as a war hero, he'll
lose
> > the friendship of Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, and the Daily World.
> >
> >
>
>

[S. Sampson]

"Vaughn" > wrote
>
> Could we please stick to military aviation and can the OT political
> crap?

Kerry says he knows something about Aircraft Carriers.

Eleanor Clift has done a pre-emptive strike on the Republicans:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/

[S. Sampson]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> And just what were your war exploits? Anything?

I am less of an American than General Patton III if that is
what you mean, but I respect his views on Kerry.

[Tex Houston]

"cypher745" > wrote in message
. com...
> Didn't Patton die in 1945??
>
> Making all of this a little suspect.

Without further comment...

George S. Patton Jr.

George S. Patton III

Tex

[cypher745]

Ancestry of George S. Patton

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Henry III Plantagenet
[King of England]
1216-1272
|
+---------------------------------+
| |
Edward I Plantagenet Edmund
Plantagenet
[King of England] [Earl of
Lancaster]
1239-1307
1244/5-1296
| |
+-----------------------+ |
| | |
Edward II Plantagenet Elizabeth Plantagenet Henry
Plantagenet
[King of England] [Princess] [Earl of
Lancaster]
1284-1327 1282-1316
c1281-1345
| | |
Edward III Plantagenet | |
[King of England] | |
1312-1377 | |
| | |
+--------------------+ | |
| | | |
John of Gaunt Thomas Plantagenet Sir William de Bohun Alianor of
Lancsster
[Duke of Lancaster] [Earl of Gloucester] c1312-1360
1311/2-1372
1340-1399 1354/5-1397 | |
| | | |
Joan Beaufort Anne Plantagenet Elizabeth de Bohun--=--Richard
Fitzalan
c1379-1440 1383-1438 c1350-1385 |
1346-1397
| | |
George Nevill Sir John Bourchier Elizabeth Fitzalan
-1469 c1406-1474 c1366-1425
| | |
Henry Nevill----=---Joana Bourchier Joan Gousill
-1469 | c1442-1470 c1409-1459
| |
| +----------------------+
| | |
Richard Nevill, K.B. Katherine Stanley Sir John
Stanley
c1468-1530 1430-1498
c1439-c1485
| | |
Dorothy Nevill Christopher Savage---=---Anne
Stanley
1496-1532 -1513 | -
| |
Anne Dawney Christopher Savage
- -1546
| |
John Conyers Francis Savage
- -
| |
Eleanor Conyers Anthony Savage
1564-1611 -
| |
William Strother Anthony Savage
1597-1669 1605-1695
| |
William Strother---------------=--------------Dorothy Savage
1630-1702 | c1636->1716
|
Jeremiah Strother
c1655-1741
|
James Strother
c1707-1761
|
French Strother
1733-1799
|
Margaret French Strother
1758-1835
|
Lucy Slaughter
c1784-
|
Peggy French Williams
1804-1873
|
George Smith Patton
1833-1869
|
George Smith Patton, Jr.
1856-1927
|
George Smith Patton III
[U.S. Army General]
-1945

Brooks, please note the the use of III.

Have a good day.

[S. Sampson]

"cypher745" > wrote
> Ancestry of George S. Patton
>
> George Smith Patton III
> [U.S. Army General]
> -1945
>
> Brooks, please note the the use of III.
>
> Have a good day.

Your source is in error. The WWI and WWII hero was "Jr."
His father changed his middle name from William to Smith, and
therefore was not a "Jr."

[Kevin Brooks]

"cypher745" > wrote in message
. com...
> Ancestry of George S. Patton

<snip incorrect garbage>

> Brooks, please note the the use of III.
>
> Have a good day.

Check your sources, pal. Your batting average today ain't too hot, is it?

Brooks
>
>
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:52:27 -0700, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On 30 Jan 2004 22:40:41 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>>From: "S. Sampson"
>>>Date: 1/30/04 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03>
>>>
>>>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
>>>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
>>>Senate office.
>>>
>>>Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
>>>Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
>>>
>>>Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
>>>Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
>>>presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
>>>
>> And just what were your war exploits? Anything? What he did in combat no one
>>denies. And he is a hero and a fine soldier and leader of men as a result. And
>>where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against Lt. Kerry?.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Well, Art, I think my military achievements qualify me to speak, and I
>agree fully with General Patton's estimation of the honor and
>integrity of Senator Kerry. The simple hypocrisy of the medal throwing
>incident, using someone else's medals, followed by the prominent
>display of the awards in his office for political expediency reduces
>the man in my mind.
>
>And, I might add that several hundred military aviators from the
>period that I regularly correspond with in an email listserv, AF,
>Navy, Marine and Army, are united in their disdain for the Senator.
>The former POWs in the group in particular are bothered by the acts of
>Senator Kerry.
>
>As for the possession of the awards in the first place, we might wish
>to recall that LBJ had a Silver Star as well, although his was won for
>being a passenger on a mission in the combat zone, not necessarily a
>combat mission. And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
>reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
>days--it's a puzzlement.


Frank Burns' egg "shell fragments" come to mind ;-)

[cypher745]

Brooks,

Here is a link to my original source:

http://members.aol.com/dwidad/pattonped.html

And another one from the Patton society

http://www.pattonhq.com/pattontree.html

They both show the General patton of WWII fame as being the III.




h
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cypher745" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Ancestry of George S. Patton
>
> <snip incorrect garbage>
>
> > Brooks, please note the the use of III.
> >
> > Have a good day.
>
> Check your sources, pal. Your batting average today ain't too hot, is it?
>
> Brooks
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[t_mark]

> Eleanor Clift has done a pre-emptive strike on the Republicans:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/

It's not a very good one, and ignores the wider "problems" with Kerry as
this thread points out. It's not simply VVAW.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"cypher745" > wrote:
> "S. Sampson" > wrote in message
> news:OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03...
> > In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had defiantly
> > given his medals back to the U.S. government during one of his many
> > protests. New York Times columnist Bill Keller wrote in September
> > 2002 that the senator invited him to view 40 minutes of films Kerry
> > made depicting his war exploits. Keller wrote that anti-war doves
> > would still support the man they remembered for "throwing his war
> > ribbons onto the steps of the Capitol."
> >
> > When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
> > the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
> > Senate office.
> >
> > Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
> > Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
> >
> > Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
> > Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
> > presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
> >
> > Come to think of it, if he continues to posture as a war hero, he'll lose
> > the friendship of Ramsey Clark, Angela Davis, and the Daily World.
>
> Didn't Patton die in 1945??

George S. Patton, Jr. did, yes.

> Making all of this a little suspect.

Why? Patton had a son named George S. (Who took command of the 2nd
Armored Division in 1974.)

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"cypher745" > wrote:
> |
> George Smith Patton, Jr.
> 1856-1927
> |
> George Smith Patton III
> [U.S. Army General]
> -1945
>
> Brooks, please note the the use of III.

Your elaborate family tree appears to need some editing:

From the beginning of <http://www.generalpatton.com/biography.html>

"BIOGRAPHY OF GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON, JR.
One of the most complicated military men of all time, General George
Smith Patton, Jr. was born November 11, 1885 in San Gabriel, California."

> Have a good day.

Heh.

[Jack G]

For a full description of LBJ's Silver Star Mission see "Means of Assent" by
Robert A Caro. The Silver Star Johnson got was a gift from Douglas
MacArthur and was most assuredly not deserved. (Johnson was a congressman
from Texas at the time).

Jack


"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Jan 2004 22:40:41 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
> >>From: "S. Sampson"
> >>Date: 1/30/04 1:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <OnASb.13425$Q_4.11977@okepread03>
> >>
> >>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
> >>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
> >>Senate office.
> >>
> >>Retired General George S. Patton III would later angrily charge that
> >>Kerry's actions had "given aid and comfort to the enemy."
> >>
> >>Supremely arrogant and demonstrably contemptuous of the voting public,
> >>Kerry nevertheless regularly touts his military experience during his
> >>presidential run. But he forfeited the right to do that 30 years ago.
> >>
> > And just what were your war exploits? Anything? What he did in combat
no one
> >denies. And he is a hero and a fine soldier and leader of men as a
result. And
> >where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against Lt. Kerry?.
> >
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Well, Art, I think my military achievements qualify me to speak, and I
> agree fully with General Patton's estimation of the honor and
> integrity of Senator Kerry. The simple hypocrisy of the medal throwing
> incident, using someone else's medals, followed by the prominent
> display of the awards in his office for political expediency reduces
> the man in my mind.
>
> And, I might add that several hundred military aviators from the
> period that I regularly correspond with in an email listserv, AF,
> Navy, Marine and Army, are united in their disdain for the Senator.
> The former POWs in the group in particular are bothered by the acts of
> Senator Kerry.
>
> As for the possession of the awards in the first place, we might wish
> to recall that LBJ had a Silver Star as well, although his was won for
> being a passenger on a mission in the combat zone, not necessarily a
> combat mission. And Lt. Kerry's three Purple Hearts, it has been
> reported in a number of sources recently resulted in no missed duty
> days--it's a puzzlement.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Kevin Brooks]

"cypher745" > wrote in message
. com...
> Brooks,
>
> Here is a link to my original source:
>
> http://members.aol.com/dwidad/pattonped.html
>
> And another one from the Patton society
>
> http://www.pattonhq.com/pattontree.html
>
> They both show the General patton of WWII fame as being the III.

They are wrong. Again, check your sources. Just because some yahoo has
incorrect information and posts it on a webpage does not make it right.
"Brassey's Encyclopedia of Military History and Biography", pp. 762-765 has
the correct idenitification as "Jr". The freaking US Army lists him as "Jr"
(www.knox.army.mil/center/g3/museum/gspatton.htm ). Then there is:

Ayer, Frederick. BEFORE THE COLORS FADE. PORTRAIT OF A SOLDIER: GENERAL
GEORGE S. PATTON, JR. With a foreword by Omar N. Bradley. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. 266 p. 940.54092 Aye.

Unless you think Omar Bradley did not know who he was? You, and your
sources, are wrong...get it?

Brooks

[cypher745]

Brooks,


I think that we are both right.
He may have gone by Jr, but have been the third George Patton, or have gone
by Jr, and really have been the II.

If you look at the family tree from the Patton Society, you will notice that
his father's birth name was George William Patton. He later changed it to
George Smith Patton. The key Question here is when did he change his name?
If he changed it before the birth of our WWII hero, then his name is George
S Patton III. If he changed it afterwards, then his name is George S Patton
II with his grandfather being the first.

Technically this means, that the only way he could be a Jr. was if he was
indeed the III. Since, if his father's middle name was William at the time
of his birth he would not really be a Jr. You need to look no further than
our President and his dad to see that this is indeed the case.


Main Entry: 2junior
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, n. & adjective
1 a (1) : a person who is younger than another <a man six years my junior>
(2) : a male child : SON


As such the term Jr. would not apply between a grandfather and a grandson.








If you look at the source
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cypher745" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Brooks,
> >
> > Here is a link to my original source:
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/dwidad/pattonped.html
> >
> > And another one from the Patton society
> >
> > http://www.pattonhq.com/pattontree.html
> >
> > They both show the General patton of WWII fame as being the III.
>
> They are wrong. Again, check your sources. Just because some yahoo has
> incorrect information and posts it on a webpage does not make it right.
> "Brassey's Encyclopedia of Military History and Biography", pp. 762-765
has
> the correct idenitification as "Jr". The freaking US Army lists him as
"Jr"
> (www.knox.army.mil/center/g3/museum/gspatton.htm ). Then there is:
>
> Ayer, Frederick. BEFORE THE COLORS FADE. PORTRAIT OF A SOLDIER: GENERAL
> GEORGE S. PATTON, JR. With a foreword by Omar N. Bradley. Boston:
> Houghton-Mifflin, 1964. 266 p. 940.54092 Aye.
>
> Unless you think Omar Bradley did not know who he was? You, and your
> sources, are wrong...get it?
>
> Brooks
>
>
>

[John Keeney]

"cypher745" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Main Entry: 2junior
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Latin, n. & adjective
> 1 a (1) : a person who is younger than another <a man six years my junior>
> (2) : a male child : SON
>
>
> As such the term Jr. would not apply between a grandfather and a grandson.

Sure it could, common usage.

[IBM]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in
news:OGDSb.13437$Q_4.13216@okepread03:

[snip]

> Eleanor Clift has done a pre-emptive strike on the Republicans:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/

Eleanor Clift....
Oh ahm a shakin' in mah boots.....

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

[Cub Driver]

>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
>Senate office.

I'm not sure this is entirely true. What I heard said in the campaign
here in New Hampshire is that Kerry's citations (that is, the words,
not the metal and cloth) are on display in his office. They could have
been destroyed and replaced many times (so could his medals, for that
matter).

Kerry recently said (quoted in the Wall Street Journal) that he threw
away his own medals and those of two? other individuals who could not
be present that day (or perhaps who preferred not to be).

I don't know what the truth of this is. Perhaps he went back to the
pile afterward and retrieved his medals; I would hardly blame him for
that. How old was he, anyway? 25? Or perhaps he sent a clerk out to
replace them. The physical objects have no reality attached to them,
or very little. (I suppose that a Medal of Honor that was pinned on
you by the president has some specific merit as opposed to a
replacement.)

My own military honors were limited to the sharpshooter's medal, Good
Conduct medal, and National Defense medal, the latter two of which I
never bothered to collect (I was discharged in France). As a summer
soldier, I would never presume to critize a young man for what he did
with his medals. It was a time of guerrilla theater; Kerry had served
honorably, at risk to his life and limb, in a war that like so many of
us he later decided wasn't worth fighting.

As a Republican, I won't hold this episode against him. I am glad that
the Democrats have shaken off the flakes and opportunists and trial
lawyers and (seemingly) annointed a real leader.





all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> No president we've ever had is more qualified to
>don the Nomex and carry a helmet.

Just so nobody misunderstands my defense of Kerry on this particular
matter, I hasten to agree with you here.

(But note that Kerry is current as a pilot :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Didn't Patton die in 1945??

The quote supposedly was from Patton III.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Your source is in error. The WWI and WWII hero was "Jr."
>His father changed his middle name from William to Smith, and
>therefore was not a "Jr."

The Biographical Dictionary of World War II confirms that the famous
(infamous, if you prefer) general was George Smith Patton, Junior.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>He may have gone by Jr, but have been the third George Patton, or have gone
>by Jr, and really have been the II.

Naming doesn't happen that way. To be a Junior or II or III requires
that all your names be identical. That's why the 43rd president is not
George Bush Junior, though his father is also George Bush. The stuff
in between is different.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>> In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had ...
>
> Could we please stick to military aviation and can the OT political
>crap?

Nah, this is a good thread. We are talking about the military record
of a war veteran who if elected president will be the commander in
chief, of the air force as well as other branches.

Furthermore, he's a pilot.

I'm interested in Kerry, and I'm interested in what he did with his
medals.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

>I am glad that
>the Democrats have shaken off the flakes and opportunists and trial
>lawyers and (seemingly) annointed a real leader.

Kerry is no more a leader than Jane Fonda and hopefully this will become
apparent over the next 10 months.


BUFDRVR

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

[John Carrier]

> And just what were your war exploits? Anything? What he did in combat no
one
> denies. And he is a hero and a fine soldier and leader of men as a result.
And
> where do you stand in terms of military acheivement against Lt. Kerry?.

Actually Art, he was a sailor.

R / John

[S. Sampson]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
>
> Kerry is no more a leader than Jane Fonda and hopefully this will become
> apparent over the next 10 months.

It doesn't take me 10 minutes, but I concur.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
> >the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
> >Senate office.
>
> I'm not sure this is entirely true. What I heard said in the campaign
> here in New Hampshire is that Kerry's citations (that is, the words,
> not the metal and cloth) are on display in his office. They could have
> been destroyed and replaced many times (so could his medals, for that
> matter).

A couple of other reports indicate he has (or had) the medals themselves on
display. Not that it matters much--he tossed the medals, and by doing so
turned his back on what they represented (though if he did get three PH's
without suffering *any* lost duty days, they may indeed have been sort of
meaningless in *his* case!); turning around and then putting even the
citations upon his wall is just being two-faced.

>
> Kerry recently said (quoted in the Wall Street Journal) that he threw
> away his own medals and those of two? other individuals who could not
> be present that day (or perhaps who preferred not to be).
>
> I don't know what the truth of this is. Perhaps he went back to the
> pile afterward and retrieved his medals; I would hardly blame him for
> that. How old was he, anyway? 25? Or perhaps he sent a clerk out to
> replace them. The physical objects have no reality attached to them,
> or very little.

He openly held them in contempt when he tossed them. I did not hear of that
gent who returned his French decorations to the French Embassy last year
going back and retrieving them later--he stood by his actions, be they good
or bad. Kerry wanted to have his cake and eat it, too--but now that cake is
likely to cause him a bit of indigestion.

> (I suppose that a Medal of Honor that was pinned on
> you by the president has some specific merit as opposed to a
> replacement.)
>
> My own military honors were limited to the sharpshooter's medal, Good
> Conduct medal, and National Defense medal, the latter two of which I
> never bothered to collect (I was discharged in France). As a summer
> soldier, I would never presume to critize a young man for what he did
> with his medals. It was a time of guerrilla theater; Kerry had served
> honorably, at risk to his life and limb, in a war that like so many of
> us he later decided wasn't worth fighting.

Then let him live with that choice to discard his medals and not shamelessly
now try to parade them for his own benefit. My brother earned decorations in
that same conflict as did Kerry; he repeatedly risked his life as a Dustoff
pilot and was shot down once, and when his CO mentioned he thought he could
get him a PH for wrenching his back during the crash he differed. He never
threw his medals, one of which included a "V" device, over any fence when he
returned. He was buried with them. Maybe Kerry could show enough backbone to
likewise follow the course he set for himself and *live* without the medals
he discarded in such a public manner.

>
> As a Republican, I won't hold this episode against him. I am glad that
> the Democrats have shaken off the flakes and opportunists and trial
> lawyers and (seemingly) annointed a real leader.

In my book, a guy who discards his medals in a publicity stunt and then
later tries to parlay those same medals into improving his electability is
the supreme opportunist, regardless of which party he is affiliated with.

Brooks
>
>
>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:57:00 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>When pressed about what happened to his medals, Kerry now says
>>the medals he threw away were not his and that his are displayed in his
>>Senate office.
>
>I'm not sure this is entirely true. What I heard said in the campaign
>here in New Hampshire is that Kerry's citations (that is, the words,
>not the metal and cloth) are on display in his office. They could have
>been destroyed and replaced many times (so could his medals, for that
>matter).

>all the best -- Dan Ford

Only partially true, Dan. I don't know if they still do it, but at the
time period in question, the presentation medal was engraved on the
back with the name of the recipient. Kerry's SSM would have his name
on the back of the star. Mine has mine, as does my first and second
DFC. The third through fifth aren't engraved. The AM basic is. MSM and
AFCM aren't. It varies.

The higher the award (and the SSM is third), the more likely it was
engraved for presentation.

Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.

The handful of vets who have been gatherered for orchestrated events
in the primary season are going to be overwhelmed by thousands and
thousands of vocal vets who kept the trust and honored their
commitments. Clinton could protest as a student and civilian during
that period and reasonably defend those acts. Kerry as a commissioned
officer could not.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[BUFDRVR]

>I don't know if they still do it, but at the
>time period in question, the presentation medal was engraved on the
>back with the name of the recipient.

They don't do that anymore, at least for any of the awards I've received.


BUFDRVR

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

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Steve Hix wrote:

>In article >,
> "cypher745" > wrote:
>
>
>> |
>> George Smith Patton, Jr.
>> 1856-1927
>> |
>> George Smith Patton III
>> [U.S. Army General]
>> -1945
>>
>>Brooks, please note the the use of III.
>>
>>
>
>Your elaborate family tree appears to need some editing:
>
>From the beginning of <http://www.generalpatton.com/biography.html>
>
>"BIOGRAPHY OF GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON, JR.
>One of the most complicated military men of all time, General George
>Smith Patton, Jr. was born November 11, 1885 in San Gabriel, California."
>
>
>
>>Have a good day.
>>
>>
>
>Heh.
>

Wow, San Gabriel! Same place I was born. I'm just not as famous. Hmm,
I have maybe another 40 years to work on that!

[Cub Driver]

>But as it later turned out, the medals Kerry threw were not his own.
>Since that fact was revealed by the Wall Street Journal in 1984,

(Thanks for the posting.)

Interesting about the Wall Street Journal, since it was in the Journal
that I read this past week that Kerry tossed his own and those of two
others. But I suppose the more recent writer includes the ribbons
(which evidently he did discard).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Kerry is no more a leader than Jane Fonda and hopefully this will become
>apparent over the next 10 months.

I'm as anxious as you are to see how the campaign plays out. But I do
see a difference: Fonda took her protest to Hanoi, while Kerry took
his to Washington. There is a world of difference in that.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:17:53 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>Kerry is no more a leader than Jane Fonda and hopefully this will become
>>apparent over the next 10 months.
>
>I'm as anxious as you are to see how the campaign plays out. But I do
>see a difference: Fonda took her protest to Hanoi, while Kerry took
>his to Washington. There is a world of difference in that.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

Gosh, I never realized I has something in common with the bitch. I
went to Hanoi instead of Washington as well.

As I pointed out, the difference is that Kerry held a commission in
the service of his country. Sort of the legal difference we might draw
between Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose. One was an officer and one was
a citizen. Seems to me that there is some level of traitorous behavior
found in all four.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tom Cervo]

>Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
>but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
>Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
>to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
>anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
>warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
>million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
>the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public
servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is
warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in
rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell
the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame
him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude
in an American citizen is both base and servile.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to
stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should
be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the
truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Theodore Roosevelt
Kansas City "Star"
May 7, 1918

[Cub Driver]

>As I pointed out, the difference is that Kerry held a commission in
>the service of his country. Sort of the legal difference we might draw
>between Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose. One was an officer and one was
>a citizen. Seems to me that there is some level of traitorous behavior
>found in all four.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out during the campaign.
I don't have the bona fides to take a stand either way.

It's easy to understand how the vets in Kerry's campaign flocked to
him. I watched his New Hampshire victory speech on television. I
couldn't figure out what the guy in the ball cap was doing, standing
behind him to Kerry's left. Then I spotted what looked like an
American Legion cap, and I realized that they must be pushing vets
onstage.

I was thrilled, actually. It's going on forty years since I went to
Vietnam (as a civilian), and nearly that long since anyone has found
it worthwhile to exploit a Vietnam veteran for political gain. And
there were all the lefties (well, not the ones who were backing
*General* Clark) cheering! What a turnaround!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>But it is even more important to tell the
>truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
>Theodore Roosevelt
>Kansas City "Star"
>May 7, 1918

Easy for Teddy to say in 1918. I wonder what his opinion would have
been in, say, 1906?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[S. Sampson]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote
> >Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
> >but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
> >Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
> >to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
> >anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
> >warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
> >million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
> >the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.
>
> "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public
> servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is
> warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in
> rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
> ..snip..
> Theodore Roosevelt
> Kansas City "Star"
> May 7, 1918

Wonderful quote Tom. I don't think Lt. Kerry was protesting the President
though. He was protesting the government, and our forces in battle. Having
done his time, he then banded with a bunch of long-haired scum, who did more
to our flag then any Arab or Persian setting it on fire abroad. He broke faith, and
now he wants to be known as a warrior again. Theodore would have shot him
on sight, and the public would have applauded "Bully!"

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
> President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
> commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
> commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
> pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
> don the Nomex and carry a helmet.


His father?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[S. Sampson]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
> > President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
> > commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
> > commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
> > pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
> > don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
>
>
> His father?

Keep up man, keep up!

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:33 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
>> President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
>> commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
>> commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
>> pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
>> don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
>
>
>His father?

Good point. Now I have to nit-pick and create a rationale for who is
"most qualified".

Bush 41 is most qualified for a leather helmet and cotton flying suit.
Bush 43 is most qualified to wear the Nomex and carry a Kevlar helmet.
He also carries G-suit qualification and high altitude aviation
physiology training.

Both, however, are military rated pilots. Which places them
considerably above two stripe enlisted journalist assistants with
curtailed combat tours and personal body-guards in terms of their
military service.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tom Cervo]

>>But it is even more important to tell the
>>truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
>>Theodore Roosevelt
>>Kansas City "Star"
>>May 7, 1918
>
>Easy for Teddy to say in 1918. I wonder what his opinion would have
>been in, say, 1906?

Yeah, well, we all know how TR hated getting into fights.
But if he thought that disputing the executive branch harmed the military's
efforts or morale, he picked an odd time to speak out, considering that four of
his sons were at the front.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
news:wb9Tb.15597$Q_4.8597@okepread03...
>
> Keep up man, keep up!
>

I thought "His father?" was a valid response. George H. W. Bush was a
commissioned officer and USN torpedo bomber pilot. He's certainly no less
qualified than his son to don the Nomex and carry a helmet.

[Tom Cervo]

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
>> President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
>> commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
>> commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
>> pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
>> don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
>
>
>His father?

Been there, done that. He probably would have gone out on a helo, anyway, the
Lincoln being in sight of San Diego--a jet would have smacked of a "photo op".

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:38:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:
>
>It will be interesting to see how this plays out during the campaign.
>I don't have the bona fides to take a stand either way.
>
>It's easy to understand how the vets in Kerry's campaign flocked to
>him. I watched his New Hampshire victory speech on television. I
>couldn't figure out what the guy in the ball cap was doing, standing
>behind him to Kerry's left. Then I spotted what looked like an
>American Legion cap, and I realized that they must be pushing vets
>onstage.
>
>I was thrilled, actually. It's going on forty years since I went to
>Vietnam (as a civilian), and nearly that long since anyone has found
>it worthwhile to exploit a Vietnam veteran for political gain. And
>there were all the lefties (well, not the ones who were backing
>*General* Clark) cheering! What a turnaround!
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

Is is interesting, until the examination goes beneath the superficial.
Then you find that Kerry is appreciated by the left much more for his
anti-war activism and his left-of-Kennedy (patron saint of submerged
automobiles) Senate record. The military service is being exploited as
an additional benefit in the hopes of dragging some indiscriminate
vets into the fold.

Saw a "reunion" photo two days ago of JFKerry shaking hands with old
Swift boatmates. Both were decked out in fur collared leather Navy
flight jackets. What are the odds of both of these former enlisted
guys having the same jackets? Staged event? Probably.

As for Clark, wait for more high ranking officers to come forward and
join former CJCS Hugh Shelton with their comments on Clark's careerism
and "integrity." There's no real problem with the lefties accepting
him, he's the designated hitter for the former President and his
aspiring wife.

This is going to get really rough before its over.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:41:45 -0600, "S. Sampson" >
wrote:

>"Tom Cervo" > wrote
>> >Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
>> >but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
>> >Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
>> >to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
>> >anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
>> >warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
>> >million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
>> >the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.
>>
>> "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public
>> servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is
>> warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in
>> rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
>> ..snip..
>> Theodore Roosevelt
>> Kansas City "Star"
>> May 7, 1918
>
>Wonderful quote Tom. I don't think Lt. Kerry was protesting the President
>though. He was protesting the government, and our forces in battle. Having
>done his time, he then banded with a bunch of long-haired scum, who did more
>to our flag then any Arab or Persian setting it on fire abroad. He broke faith, and
>now he wants to be known as a warrior again. Theodore would have shot him
>on sight, and the public would have applauded "Bully!"
>

I agree. While Teddy's quote is excellent and very true, it should be
noted that it applies to the citizenry, not the commissioned officer
corps. The idea that the military is free to "support or oppose" as
they judge appropriate is the foundation of anarchy.

Kerry established a position. He did so in the strongest and most
visible of terms. He now should maintain that posture, for better or
for worse without attempting to have it both ways.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Bob McKellar]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:33 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >> Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
> >> President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
> >> commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
> >> commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
> >> pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
> >> don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
> >
> >
> >His father?
>
> Good point. Now I have to nit-pick and create a rationale for who is
> "most qualified".
>
> Bush 41 is most qualified for a leather helmet and cotton flying suit.
> Bush 43 is most qualified to wear the Nomex and carry a Kevlar helmet.
> He also carries G-suit qualification and high altitude aviation
> physiology training.
>
> Both, however, are military rated pilots. Which places them
> considerably above two stripe enlisted journalist assistants with
> curtailed combat tours and personal body-guards in terms of their
> military service.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Where in that hierarchy would graduate students fall?

Bob McKellar

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:52:44 -0500, Bob McKellar >
wrote:

>
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>> Bush 41 is most qualified for a leather helmet and cotton flying suit.
>> Bush 43 is most qualified to wear the Nomex and carry a Kevlar helmet.
>> He also carries G-suit qualification and high altitude aviation
>> physiology training.
>>
>> Both, however, are military rated pilots. Which places them
>> considerably above two stripe enlisted journalist assistants with
>> curtailed combat tours and personal body-guards in terms of their
>> military service.
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>Where in that hierarchy would graduate students fall?
>
>Bob McKellar
>
Of course we can't be certain about exact position on the hierarchy,
but given the composition of the group, we can probably assume they
are well below military aviators. The real conflict will come if we
start trying to create a super-hierarchy in which the exalted get
ranked.

Lemmee see, AF, USN, USMC, RAF, RAAF, Luftwaffe, airline, commercial,
private, fixed and rotary, etc. etc. All vying for the top spot. I'm
not going to propose a ranking and the sequence above does not
indicate any preference or promotion of any particular agenda.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[S. Sampson]

"Bob McKellar" > wrote
>
> Where in that hierarchy would graduate students fall?

Depends on whether they were commissioned or not.

[S. Sampson]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> His father flew combat in WW II, The sonlflew combat nowhere and went
> AWOL from his national guard unit and got away with it. If he can wear the
> Nomex suit, anyone can.

Show me the AWOL charges, boy. I understand he made up for missed duty
by doing 37 days straight. Doesn't sound like an AWOL case I ever heard of, boy.

Thousands of men and women became fighter/interceptor pilots in the U.S. Air Force,
and never flew combat. President Bush can compare his flight log flying single-place
jet aircraft to your log as a crew-dog any day. Don't get so uppity boy.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

>
> As for Clark, wait for more high ranking officers to come forward and
> join former CJCS Hugh Shelton with their comments on Clark's careerism
> and "integrity." There's no real problem with the lefties accepting
> him, he's the designated hitter for the former President and his
> aspiring wife.

LTG (ret) Paul Funk has already come forward--in fact, IIRC his
less-than-laudatory review of Clark came out before Hugh Shelton's did. In
the same article (again, IIRC, it was written by that fellow Galloway who
has a pretty good rep on the military side) a number of other former senior
officers had nothing good to say about him, but were unwilling to go public
until/unless he were to start winning. One of them said if that happens
he'll volunteer to follow Clark to every campaign location to "set the
record straight", so to speak.

>
> This is going to get really rough before its over.

I believe you may be right.

Brooks

>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Rich]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >> In May 1972, the Boston Phoenix reported that Kerry had ...
> >
> > Could we please stick to military aviation and can the OT political
> >crap?
>
> Nah, this is a good thread. We are talking about the military record
> of a war veteran who if elected president will be the commander in
> chief, of the air force as well as other branches.
>
> Furthermore, he's a pilot.
>
> I'm interested in Kerry, and I'm interested in what he did with his
> medals.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com


I certainly do not want, in any way, shape, or form, to denigrate the
service performed by the "Brown Water Navy" in Viet Nam. Pushing
patrol boats up and down the Mekong delta, from all accounts, was not
exactly healthy.

That being said, the concept that Kerry thinks he knows about about
aircraft carriers "I know a little something about aircraft carriers
for real" (from the E. Clift article) is so laughable it is pathetic.
Kerry didn't serve on a carrier, he served in patrol boats. Dan
points out, and I've no reason to doubt him, that Kerry is a pilot.
Okay, fine, but let's not translate that into his being a naval
aviator/carrier operator. In Kerry's case the equation: --Naval
Officer + pilot = Naval Aviator = knowledge of aircraft carriers-- is
a non starter. I'm not a naval aviator, don't claim to be, but I live
with a retired naval aviator, WWII fighter pilot & ace, post WWII
squadron commander, air group commander, aircraft carrier commander, &
carrier division commander - who really does know a little something
about aircraft carriers - and when he hears this Kerry "I know a
little something about aircraft carriers for real" business and he
just laughs & shakes his head.

Rich

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: "S. Sampson"
>Date: 2/1/04 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <wb9Tb.15597$Q_4.8597@okepread03>
>
>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> > Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
>> > President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
>> > commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
>> > commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
>> > pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
>> > don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
>>
>>
>> His father?
>
>Keep up man, keep up!
>
>
>

His father flew combat in WW II, The sonlflew combat nowhere and went AWOL from
his national guard unit and got away with it. If he can wear the Nomex suit,
anyone can.




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

[Mike Marron]

>"S. Sampson" > wrote:
>>"ArtKramr" > wrote

>> His father flew combat in WW II, The sonlflew combat nowhere and went
>> AWOL from his national guard unit and got away with it. If he can wear the
>> Nomex suit, anyone can.

>Show me the AWOL charges, boy. I understand he made up for missed duty
>by doing 37 days straight. Doesn't sound like an AWOL case I ever heard of, boy.

Damn straight.

Is any of this getting through that little blue bonnet of yours, boy?

>Thousands of men and women became fighter/interceptor pilots in the U.S. Air Force,
>and never flew combat. President Bush can compare his flight log flying single-place
>jet aircraft to your log as a crew-dog any day. Don't get so uppity boy.

Listen up son, and pay attention boy. How ya' ever gonna learn
anything if you always got your head in a book?

-Foghorn Leghorn

[Tom Cervo]

>LTG (ret) Paul Funk has already come forward--in fact, IIRC his
>less-than-laudatory review of Clark came out before Hugh Shelton's did. In
>the same article (again, IIRC, it was written by that fellow Galloway who
>has a pretty good rep on the military side) a number of other former senior
>officers had nothing good to say about him, but were unwilling to go public
>until/unless he were to start winning. One of them said if that happens
>he'll volunteer to follow Clark to every campaign location to "set the
>record straight", so to speak.

Years ago, Col. David H. Hackworth, the retired military man turned political
pundit, called Clark the "Perfumed Prince" because he was convinced Clark
screwed up in Kosovo. When Clark joined the Democratic presidential candidates,
Hackworth's quote got more play than a Beach Boys single in the 1970s. Then
Hackworth gave his real assessment of Clark after interviewing the general for
three hours.
"He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national
security tick-and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big
surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him
in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and
didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point
class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in
any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division
rifle company and was badly wounded.
Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war heroes,
says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on
the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was
awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but
he didn't quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and
brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers
at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best
on post-a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of
anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the
Green Machine into the magnificent sword Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully
during Round One of the Gulf War.
I asked Clark why he didn't turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the
big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking. His response: "I wanted
to serve my country."
He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises
to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding
prestige around the world. For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his
high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played,
there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit
shenanigans.
No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and
wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even
cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of
dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when
I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince."
Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was
wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen,
U.S. SecDef at the time.
At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and
treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs
with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the
dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's
owner. An appealing common touch.
But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type.
Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's- that of a
staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions?
Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as
president."

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: (Tom Cervo)
>Date: 2/1/04 7:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>Years ago, Col. David H. Hackworth, the retired military man turned political
>pundit, called Clark the "Perfumed Prince" because he was convinced Clark
>screwed up in Kosovo. When Clark joined the Democratic presidential
>candidates,
>Hackworth's quote got more play than a Beach Boys single in the 1970s. Then
>Hackworth gave his real assessment of Clark after interviewing the general
>for
>three hours.
>"He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes
>national
>security tick-and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big
>surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts
>him
>in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell
>Taylor.
>Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and
>didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West
>Point
>class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts
>in
>any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division
>rifle company and was badly wounded.
>Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war
>heroes,
>says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on
>the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was
>awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
>It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but
>he didn't quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best
>and
>brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of
>short-timers
>at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the
>best
>on post-a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of
>anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the
>Green Machine into the magnificent sword Norman Schwarzkopf swung so
>skillfully
>during Round One of the Gulf War.
>I asked Clark why he didn't turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and
>the
>big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking. His response: "I
>wanted
>to serve my country."
>He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what
>promises
>to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding
>prestige around the world. For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his
>high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played,
>there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit
>shenanigans.
>No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and
>wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even
>cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of
>dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
>Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign
>when
>I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince."
>Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was
>wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen,
>U.S. SecDef at the time.
>At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers
>and
>treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs
>with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the
>dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's
>owner. An appealing common touch.
>But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier
>type.
>Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's- that of
>a
>staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions?
>Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as
>president."
>

Good post.



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

[Mike Marron]

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>> (Tom Cervo) wrote:

>>Years ago, Col. David H. Hackworth, the retired military man turned political
>>pundit, called Clark the "Perfumed Prince" because he was convinced Clark
>>screwed up in Kosovo. When Clark joined the Democratic presidential
>>candidates,
>>Hackworth's quote got more play than a Beach Boys single in the 1970s. Then
>>Hackworth gave his real assessment of Clark after interviewing the general
>>for
>>three hours.
>>"He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes
>>national
>>security tick-and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big
>>surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts
>>him
>>in the supersmart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell
>>Taylor.
>>Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and
>>didn't get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West
>>Point
>>class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts
>>in
>>any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division
>>rifle company and was badly wounded.
>>Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army's most distinguished war
>>heroes,
>>says: "Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn't stop fighting. He stayed on
>>the field 'til his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was
>>awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned 'em."
>>It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but
>>he didn't quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best
>>and
>>brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of
>>short-timers
>>at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the
>>best
>>on post-a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of
>>anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the
>>Green Machine into the magnificent sword Norman Schwarzkopf swung so
>>skillfully
>>during Round One of the Gulf War.
>>I asked Clark why he didn't turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and
>>the
>>big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking. His response: "I
>>wanted
>>to serve my country."
>>He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what
>>promises
>>to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding
>>prestige around the world. For sure, he'll be strong on defense. But with his
>>high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game's played,
>>there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit
>>shenanigans.
>>No doubt he's made his share of enemies. He doesn't suffer fools easily and
>>wouldn't have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even
>>cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of
>>dart-throwing from detractors he's ripped into during the past three decades.
>>Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign
>>when
>>I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince."
>>Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was
>>wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen,
>>U.S. SecDef at the time.
>>At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers
>>and
>>treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs
>>with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the
>>dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel's
>>owner. An appealing common touch.
>>But if he wins the election, don't expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier
>>type.
>>Clark's an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike's- that of
>>a
>>staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions?
>>Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as
>>president."

>Good post.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After scrolling down thru 100 lines ot text and a lousy "Good post" is
all you have to add? You, sir, are truly the eptiome of AOLdom. And
nothing's worse than ANY sort of praise or compliment from the likes
of YOU!

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

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>
>>Good post.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>After scrolling down thru 100 lines ot text and a lousy "Good post" is
>all you have to add? You, sir, are truly the eptiome of AOLdom. And
>nothing's worse than ANY sort of praise or compliment from the likes
>of YOU!
>
>>Arthur Kramer
>>344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
Geeze, marron, lay off the guy. It is possible to disagree with someone without
being nasty about it.

"Good post" is elegant in its simplicity.
Would you rather he wrote a term paper in response?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

Tom Cervo wrote:
>> Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
>> but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
>> Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
>> to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
>> anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
>> warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
>> million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
>> the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.
>
> "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public
> servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is
> warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency
> in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
> Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell
> the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame
> him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude
> in an American citizen is both base and servile.
> To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are
> to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
> servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the
> truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more
> important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any
> one else."
> Theodore Roosevelt
> Kansas City "Star"
> May 7, 1918

What???? Theodore Roosevelt? Was there a pinko communist by that name in 1918?
No? He was a (gulp) Republican, you say? The one who got elected to President
who was supposed to have said something about speaking softly and carrying a big
stick? That one?

Damn.....that's embarrassing! (^-^)))

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:58:33 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> > wrote:
>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
>>> President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
>>> commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
>>> commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
>>> pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
>>> don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
>>
>>
>> His father?
>
> Good point. Now I have to nit-pick and create a rationale for who is
> "most qualified".
>
> Bush 41 is most qualified for a leather helmet and cotton flying suit.
> Bush 43 is most qualified to wear the Nomex and carry a Kevlar helmet.
> He also carries G-suit qualification and high altitude aviation
> physiology training.
>
> Both, however, are military rated pilots. Which places them
> considerably above two stripe enlisted journalist assistants with
> curtailed combat tours and personal body-guards in terms of their
> military service.

Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking about
the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was demobilized at
the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately failed to update his
flight physical. Just one small difference.

And while we're at it, I may have missed the early part of this exchange, but I
thought we were talking about Kerry.....I didn't know he was a two stripe
enlisted journalist assistant. The stripes he had were the kind Navy
commissioned officers wear, I do believe.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:38:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>>
> Saw a "reunion" photo two days ago of JFKerry shaking hands with old
> Swift boatmates. Both were decked out in fur collared leather Navy
> flight jackets. What are the odds of both of these former enlisted
> guys having the same jackets? Staged event? Probably.

Why do you keep on demoting Kerry? I think most of us have already gathered
that you're not one of his fans, but he WAS a naval officer and you calling him
an enlisted man (on at least two postings) only degrades your own credibility.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:41:45 -0600, "S. Sampson" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Tom Cervo" > wrote
>>>> Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
>>>> but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
>>>> Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
>>>> to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
>>>> anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
>>>> warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
>>>> million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
>>>> the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.
>>>
>>> "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public
>>> servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is
>>> warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or
>>> inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the
>>> Nation as a whole. ..snip..
>>> Theodore Roosevelt
>>> Kansas City "Star"
>>> May 7, 1918
>>
>> Wonderful quote Tom. I don't think Lt. Kerry was protesting the President
>> though. He was protesting the government, and our forces in battle. Having
>> done his time, he then banded with a bunch of long-haired scum, who did more
>> to our flag then any Arab or Persian setting it on fire abroad. He broke
>> faith, and now he wants to be known as a warrior again. Theodore would have
>> shot him
>> on sight, and the public would have applauded "Bully!"
>>
>
> I agree. While Teddy's quote is excellent and very true, it should be
> noted that it applies to the citizenry, not the commissioned officer
> corps. The idea that the military is free to "support or oppose" as
> they judge appropriate is the foundation of anarchy.

I didn't notice such pious statements of patriotism when Clinton was President.
Whether by civilians or military, or deserved or not, he was vilified and
besmirched on numerous occasions and nobody was muzzled because of it.

Turn about being fair play, I think those who happily dished it out in the past
need to stop whining and learn how to take it.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Mike Marron wrote:
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>> (Tom Cervo) wrote:
>
>> Good post.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> After scrolling down thru 100 lines ot text and a lousy "Good post" is
> all you have to add? You, sir, are truly the eptiome of AOLdom. And
> nothing's worse than ANY sort of praise or compliment from the likes
> of YOU!

Mike, exactly what was it that you did that was different from Art? You didn't
edit out a single one of Hackworth's words either.....and yet you criticize him
for failing to do so.

BTW, just for the record, I no longer talk with Art, much less am I inclined to
talk for him, so he can defend himself. But what's fair is fair.

George Z

[S. Sampson]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:38:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> > > wrote:
> >>
> > Saw a "reunion" photo two days ago of JFKerry shaking hands with old
> > Swift boatmates. Both were decked out in fur collared leather Navy
> > flight jackets. What are the odds of both of these former enlisted
> > guys having the same jackets? Staged event? Probably.
>
> Why do you keep on demoting Kerry? I think most of us have already gathered
> that you're not one of his fans, but he WAS a naval officer and you calling him
> an enlisted man (on at least two postings) only degrades your own credibility.

Keep up man!

He's not calling Lt. Kerry an enlisted man, he's talking about the enlisted men
in the other boat when the drove into an ambush. The other post was about
another politician who used to show his staged picture from the PX in Saigon
wearing an Army field kit. He was a partner of the past President who
masturbated with the Jewish girls in the oval office...

[Ed Rasimus]

On 02 Feb 2004 00:49:50 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>From: "S. Sampson"
>>Date: 2/1/04 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <wb9Tb.15597$Q_4.8597@okepread03>
>>
>>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote
>>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> > Further, I really don't like Senator Kerry's comments regarding the
>>> > President and his qualifications to welcome home the troops he
>>> > commands by flying aboard a carrier. George W. Bush was both a
>>> > commissioned officer (like Kerry) and a fully qualified AF fighter
>>> > pilot (unlike Kerry.) No president we've ever had is more qualified to
>>> > don the Nomex and carry a helmet.
>
>His father flew combat in WW II, The sonlflew combat nowhere and went AWOL from
>his national guard unit and got away with it. If he can wear the Nomex suit,
>anyone can.
>
>Arthur Kramer

OK, if turnabout is fair play and Art always asks for "your
qualifications" then I can say, GWB graduated from USAF pilot training
and qualified in a single seat, single engine fighter where he
performed satisfactorily for nearly four years of duty. Where did you
get your pilot's wings, Art?

But, that would be counter-productive, so let's see what the New York
Times had to say in a revision of the charges. No one can accuse the
NYT of being particularly conservative, and I don't expect Art will
change his mind, but here it is anyway:

Bush 'Desertion' Charge Debunked


Did President Bush "desert" the military, as radical filmmaker Michael
Moore insists he did? Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark
suggested during New Hampshire's presidential debate Thursday night
that the facts on whether Bush ran out on his National Guard unit in
1972 and 1973 are in dispute.

But in the months before the 2000 presidential election, the New York
Times pretty much demolished this Democratic Party urban legend, a
myth that first surfaced in its sister paper, the Boston Globe.

"For a full year, there is no record that Bush showed up for the
periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen," the Globe insisted
in May 2000, in a report Moore currently cites on his Web site to
rebut ABC newsman Peter Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the
story is "unsupported by the facts."

"I don't know whether [Moore's desertion charge] is supported by the
facts or not," Clark replied "I've never looked at it."

The Times did, however, look at it, and found that Bush had indeed
served during part of the time the Globe had him AWOL - and later made
up whatever time he missed after requesting permission for the
postponement.

In July 2000 the Times noted that Bush's chief accuser in the Globe
report, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, had begun to back away from
his story that Bush never appeared for service during the time in
question. "In a recent interview," said the Times, "[Turnipseed] took
a tiny step back, saying, 'I don't think he did, but I wouldn't stake
my life on it.'"

In fact, military records obtained by the Times showed that Turnipseed
was wrong and that the Globe had flubbed the story. "A review by The
Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in
late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on
Nov. 3, 2000. The Times explained:

"On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard
superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in
Montgomery [Alabama] 'for the months of September, October and
November,'" so Bush could manage the Senate campaign of Republican
Winton Blount.


"Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th
Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in
September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled
for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5."

After the Bush AWOL story had percolated for months, Col. Turnipseed
finally remembered another glitch in his story: the fact that National
Guard regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was
made up within the same quarter.

And, in fact - according to the Times - that's what Bush did.

"A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed
credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending
Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in
January, April and May."

The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates
correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on
April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report
for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."

Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story
out of the water. It showed that Bush served at various times from May
29, 1973, through July 30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The
Globe," the Times sheepishly admitted.
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/24/154936.shtml

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:10:05 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>> Both, however, are military rated pilots. Which places them
>> considerably above two stripe enlisted journalist assistants with
>> curtailed combat tours and personal body-guards in terms of their
>> military service.
>
>Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking about
>the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was demobilized at
>the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately failed to update his
>flight physical. Just one small difference.

Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.
>
>And while we're at it, I may have missed the early part of this exchange, but I
>thought we were talking about Kerry.....I didn't know he was a two stripe
>enlisted journalist assistant. The stripes he had were the kind Navy
>commissioned officers wear, I do believe.

We were talking, I thought about presidential candidates. And, we did
discuss the appropriateness of commissioned officers behavior
elsewhere in the thread. Yes, we've recognized repeatedly that Kerry
holds a commission. Surprised he didn't recall the appropriateness of
wearing ribbons with fatigue uniforms.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:15:59 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:38:17 -0500, Cub Driver
>> > wrote:
>>>
>> Saw a "reunion" photo two days ago of JFKerry shaking hands with old
>> Swift boatmates. Both were decked out in fur collared leather Navy
>> flight jackets. What are the odds of both of these former enlisted
>> guys having the same jackets? Staged event? Probably.
>
>Why do you keep on demoting Kerry? I think most of us have already gathered
>that you're not one of his fans, but he WAS a naval officer and you calling him
>an enlisted man (on at least two postings) only degrades your own credibility.
>
>George Z.
>
Read more slowly. Kerry was shaking hands with "old Swift
boatmates"--that's plural and since Kerry was the only officer aboard,
that would make them enlised.

The Navy flight jacket, while chronologically appropriate historical
uniform gear was neither enlisted wear nor boat crew apparel. The
coincidence of the two former enlisted showing up to greet their
former commander is not unusual. The coincidence of them both,
independently having acquired such a jacket and then choosing to wear
it to the event is.

I have never referred to Lt. Kerry as an enlisted man at any time. Not
in this post which referes to the two boatmates, nor to the discussion
of military service elsewhere in the thread in which the allusion was
to the "combat service" of Al Gore.

My credibility can always be challenged on things I've said, but
please not on things you've misinterpreted.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/2/04 7:31 AM Pac

>es, we've recognized repeatedly that Kerry
>holds a commission. Surprised he didn't recall the appropriateness of
>wearing ribbons with fatigue uniforms.

Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/2/04 7:27 AM Pacific Standard Time

>OK, if turnabout is fair play and Art always asks for "your
>qualifications" then I can say, GWB graduated from USAF pilot training
>and qualified in a single seat, single engine fighter where he
>performed satisfactorily for nearly four years of duty. Where did you
>get your pilot's wings, Art?

I got them at Big Springs AAB in Texas. But I wore them over France, Italy,
Belgium Holland and Germany What combat zones did Bush enter?.I'd say one
bombardier who saw the elephant many time over is worth ten pilots who never
saw a damn thing. But what are we really talkng abou, war or politics?


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:41:45 -0600, "S. Sampson" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Tom Cervo" > wrote
> >>>> Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
> >>>> but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
> >>>> Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
> >>>> to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
> >>>> anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
> >>>> warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
> >>>> million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
> >>>> the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.
> >>>
> >>> "The President is merely the most important among a large number of
public
> >>> servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree
which is
> >>> warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or
> >>> inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to
the
> >>> Nation as a whole. ..snip..
> >>> Theodore Roosevelt
> >>> Kansas City "Star"
> >>> May 7, 1918
> >>
> >> Wonderful quote Tom. I don't think Lt. Kerry was protesting the
President
> >> though. He was protesting the government, and our forces in battle.
Having
> >> done his time, he then banded with a bunch of long-haired scum, who did
more
> >> to our flag then any Arab or Persian setting it on fire abroad. He
broke
> >> faith, and now he wants to be known as a warrior again. Theodore would
have
> >> shot him
> >> on sight, and the public would have applauded "Bully!"
> >>
> >
> > I agree. While Teddy's quote is excellent and very true, it should be
> > noted that it applies to the citizenry, not the commissioned officer
> > corps. The idea that the military is free to "support or oppose" as
> > they judge appropriate is the foundation of anarchy.
>
> I didn't notice such pious statements of patriotism when Clinton was
President.
> Whether by civilians or military, or deserved or not, he was vilified and
> besmirched on numerous occasions and nobody was muzzled because of it.

Where were YOU during those years? You never heard about the admonitions and
outright threats of legal action regarding making comments prejudicial to
Clinton when he was in office? IIRC one officer was facing a potential
courts martial for writing an OP-ED piece that did not protray the C-in-C in
the best light, to say the least.

>
> Turn about being fair play, I think those who happily dished it out in the
past
> need to stop whining and learn how to take it.

I think you need to get your facts straight.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On 02 Feb 2004 16:06:51 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 2/2/04 7:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>OK, if turnabout is fair play and Art always asks for "your
>>qualifications" then I can say, GWB graduated from USAF pilot training
>>and qualified in a single seat, single engine fighter where he
>>performed satisfactorily for nearly four years of duty. Where did you
>>get your pilot's wings, Art?
>
>I got them at Big Springs AAB in Texas.

Read again, slowly. "Where did you get your PILOT'S wings." Sorry, but
thats a cheap shot. Won't do it again.

>But I wore them over France, Italy,
>Belgium Holland and Germany

Must have been out of uniform. Thought you were supposed to be wearing
the wings with the bomb in the middle, or maybe the ones with the
snakes, not the ones with the radiator.


>What combat zones did Bush enter?.I'd say one
>bombardier who saw the elephant many time over is worth ten pilots who never
>saw a damn thing. But what are we really talkng abou, war or politics?

Ahh, we've had a breakthrough!! We are talking about politics.
Therefore, where did you get your political science degree(s)?

Seriously, here, we are talking about politics and the behavior of
politicians, so your oft repeated questioning of combat experience is
irrelevant. One can have a political opinion without combat
experience. And, one can have combat experience without a correct
political opinion.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On 02 Feb 2004 15:59:51 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>Date: 2/2/04 7:31 AM Pac
>
>>es, we've recognized repeatedly that Kerry
>>holds a commission. Surprised he didn't recall the appropriateness of
>>wearing ribbons with fatigue uniforms.
>
>Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?

John Kerry in the oft-published picture of his VVAW activities. He
wore them during his anti-war testimony to the Senate (imagine the
appropriateness of appearing before a Senate committee in rumpled
fatigues), and during the famous medal-throwing protest.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ron]

>LTG (ret) Paul Funk has already come forward--in fact, IIRC his
>less-than-laudatory review of Clark came out before Hugh Shelton's did. In
>the same article (again, IIRC, it was written by that fellow Galloway who
>has a pretty good rep on the military side) a number of other former senior
>officers had nothing good to say about him, but were unwilling to go public
>until/unless he were to start winning. One of them said if that happens
>he'll volunteer to follow Clark to every campaign location to "set the
>record straight", so to speak.

On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who worked
under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23929&perpage=25&h
ighlight=wesley%20clark&pagenumber=2
------------------------------------
"Wesley Clark is an A$$hole
I worked for General Clark when he was the Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern
Command. Both he and his wife were a$$holes. Clark would stab a subordinate in
the back in a heartbeat if it would further his ambitions. His wife Gert also
felt she was entitled to his 4 stars and liked to bully the staff officers.

I arranged one of his military/diplomatic trips in the Carribbean. He wanted
his wife to accompany him on government funding. The JAG (lawyers) said the
itinerary did not justify his wife's travel so it would have to be paid out of
Clark's own pocket, or the itinerary would have to be expanded to include
diplomatic/social type events justifying Gert's presence. I was told to revamp
the itinerary which I did. The JAG approved of the new one, but when I started
actually setting up the events, I got my head handed to me on a platter. It
seems the plan was just to justify her trip, not actually have the events. That
would take away from Gert's shopping and sight-seeing time. I threatened to
whistleblow and Gert decided she'd rather not go than attend any events.
General Clark had a cow and summoned me to his ivory palace for a butt-chewing
and to tell me of my minor importance compared to him. The only reason I did
not call the Pentagon IG after this meeting was the Deputy CINC, a Navy 2 star
and a great guy, personally asked me not too. He arranged for me to have a new
(and actually better) postion within the command where I would not be put in
this situation again.

This guy has no integrity or compassion. He does not care about anyone or
anything but himself. Some of the traits of great military leaders are
protecting their subordinates, giving them credit, and getting them promoted.
General Clark ruined more careers covering his own butt than any general or
flag officer I know. He could care less about their getting promoted and was a
master at taking credit for their work while simultaneously making it look like
they were all f'd-up and only his greatnessed turned a pile of $hit into a pot
of gold.

The vast majority of those who worked for General Clark hated and diepised him.
It would be a sad day for this country if he got elected President."
----------------

Seem consistent with others descriptions of Clark. If the next primary does
not go well for Clark, he might just end up being the only person ever
dismissed twice by Bill Clinton.







Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: Mike Marron
>
>>
>>>Good post.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>After scrolling down thru 100 lines ot text and a lousy "Good post" is
>>all you have to add? You, sir, are truly the eptiome of AOLdom. And
>>nothing's worse than ANY sort of praise or compliment from the likes
>>of YOU!
>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>344th BG 494th BS
>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>Geeze, marron, lay off the guy. It is possible to disagree with someone without
>being nasty about it.
>
>"Good post" is elegant in its simplicity.
>Would you rather he wrote a term paper in response?
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
Exactly...you're about 'this' close to qualifying for your
windbag certificate maroon.
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> I got them at Big Springs AAB in Texas. But I wore them over France,
Italy,
> Belgium Holland and Germany What combat zones did Bush enter?.I'd say one
> bombardier who saw the elephant many time over is worth ten pilots who
never
> saw a damn thing. But what are we really talkng abou, war or politics?
>

You got pilot's wings but served as a bombardier?

[OXMORON1]

George wrote:
>I didn't notice such pious statements of patriotism when Clinton was
>President.
>Whether by civilians or military, or deserved or not, he was vilified and
>besmirched on numerous occasions and nobody was muzzled because of it.
>
>Turn about being fair play, I think those who happily dished it out in the
>past
>need to stop whining and learn how to take it.

I guess this means that we shouldn't refer to William Jefferson C as a
"C#@ksu&$er" since he was on the recieving end of the oral sex, but wait.. he
said he didn't have sex with that woman and since he is a politician, he can't
possibly tell an untruth.

Jeeze people, none of this crap has nothing to do with aviation directly.

Also remember, not one Russki bomber crossed the ADIZ in the Gulf of Mexico,
Texas area, without being intercepted during Bush's service in the TXANG.

oxmoron
I'm not too sure about the MS and LA areas.

[David Pugh]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
> but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
> Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
> to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
> anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
> warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
> million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
> the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.

So, what is the proper course of conduct for an officer who truely believes
the war is a mistake and that the best course of action is to withdraw as
soon as possible? If that is the case, then undermining support for the war
does not seem to be entirely inappropriate (provided it is a last resort and
care is taken to avoid giving aiding the enemy -- ala Jane Fonda).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> But, that would be counter-productive, so let's see what the New York
> Times had to say in a revision of the charges. No one can accuse the
> NYT of being particularly conservative, and I don't expect Art will
> change his mind, but here it is anyway:
>

After debunking charges of Bush's desertion? Of course the NYT can be
accused of being conservative!

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>>
>


>
>Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
>about
>the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was demobilized
>at
>the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately failed to update
>his
>flight physical.

I agree about using the past tense.
Now I know you strongly dislike Bush 2, but can you prove he "deliberately
failed to update his flight physical?"

There is enough to dislike about any president without inventing things.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:57:32 -0800, "David Pugh"
-cay> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
>> but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
>> Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
>> to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
>> anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
>> warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
>> million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
>> the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.
>
>So, what is the proper course of conduct for an officer who truely believes
>the war is a mistake and that the best course of action is to withdraw as
>soon as possible? If that is the case, then undermining support for the war
>does not seem to be entirely inappropriate (provided it is a last resort and
>care is taken to avoid giving aiding the enemy -- ala Jane Fonda).
>
Resignation of his/her commission is the start. Then removal of the
uniform. Finally, a commitment to restrict the protest to the TRUTH.

Much has been written about the Kerry statements in his senate
testimony and public appearances on behalf of VVAW regarding
atrocities, etc. which has been since proven false.

Once one has done that, there really is no going back and wrapping
oneself in the flag over honorable service. If the war was as evil as
he testified, then he was right in protesting and apologizing for his
service in such an evil endeavor. But, now he seems to seek approval
for his actions, which were in support of an illegal, immoral war.
Seem a bit hypocritical?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[B2431]

>from: "Gord Beaman" (
>
(B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: Mike Marron
>>
>>>
>>>>Good post.
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>After scrolling down thru 100 lines ot text and a lousy "Good post" is
>>>all you have to add? You, sir, are truly the eptiome of AOLdom. And
>>>nothing's worse than ANY sort of praise or compliment from the likes
>>>of YOU!
>>>
>>>>Arthur Kramer
>>>>344th BG 494th BS
>>>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>>>>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>>>>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>>
>>Geeze, marron, lay off the guy. It is possible to disagree with someone
>without
>>being nasty about it.
>>
>>"Good post" is elegant in its simplicity.
>>Would you rather he wrote a term paper in response?
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>Exactly...you're about 'this' close to qualifying for your
>windbag certificate maroon.
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
Gee Gord, how do I get one of those?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[OXMORON1]

Gord wrote:
>>Exactly...you're about 'this' close to qualifying for your
>>windbag certificate maroon.

Dan asked:
>Gee Gord, how do I get one of those?

Dan! Don't you remember rule no 2? Never volunteer?

oxmoron1

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:10:05 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >> Both, however, are military rated pilots. Which places them
> >> considerably above two stripe enlisted journalist assistants with
> >> curtailed combat tours and personal body-guards in terms of their
> >> military service.
> >
> >Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
about
> >the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was demobilized
at
> >the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately failed to update
his
> >flight physical. Just one small difference.
>
> Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
> physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
> license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
> merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.

Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings expired.....I
was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot military aircraft. Your
privileges expire when your physical expires.....but you already knew that, and
I'm surprised that you felt so insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning
when at least 99 of every 100 former military pilots could figure out exactly
what I was talking about from the words I used.
> >
> >And while we're at it, I may have missed the early part of this exchange, but
I
> >thought we were talking about Kerry.....I didn't know he was a two stripe
> >enlisted journalist assistant. The stripes he had were the kind Navy
> >commissioned officers wear, I do believe.
>
> We were talking, I thought about presidential candidates. And, we did
> discuss the appropriateness of commissioned officers behavior
> elsewhere in the thread. Yes, we've recognized repeatedly that Kerry
> holds a commission. Surprised he didn't recall the appropriateness of
> wearing ribbons with fatigue uniforms.

I can't speak to that but perhaps some memories are less perfect than others.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 08:15:59 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:38:17 -0500, Cub Driver
> >> > wrote:
> >>>
> My credibility can always be challenged on things I've said, but
> please not on things you've misinterpreted.

Perhaps my misinterpretations, if that's what they are, can be attributed to
some of your misleading or imprecise verbiage. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> George wrote:
> >I didn't notice such pious statements of patriotism when Clinton was
> >President.
> >Whether by civilians or military, or deserved or not, he was vilified and
> >besmirched on numerous occasions and nobody was muzzled because of it.
> >
> >Turn about being fair play, I think those who happily dished it out in the
> >past
> >need to stop whining and learn how to take it.
>
> I guess this means that we shouldn't refer to William Jefferson C as a
> "C#@ksu&$er" since he was on the recieving end of the oral sex, but wait.. he
> said he didn't have sex with that woman and since he is a politician, he can't
> possibly tell an untruth.

Whatever he did was done between two consenting ADULTS, for which there was no
conviction of either of them in a criminal court. However immoral you might
consider those acts to have been, they did not result in the loss of a single
life of a member of our armed forces. Our present CIC has told a few whoppers
and wishes he could be absolved for the losses that ensued from them.
>
> Jeeze people, none of this crap has nothing to do with aviation directly.

True, but if it shows up here, you can expect people to deal with it here.
>
> Also remember, not one Russki bomber crossed the ADIZ in the Gulf of Mexico,
> Texas area, without being intercepted during Bush's service in the TXANG.
>
> oxmoron
> I'm not too sure about the MS and LA areas.
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>> >
>> >Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
>> >about
>> >the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was demobilized
>> >at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately failed to update
>> >his flight physical. Just one small difference.
>>
>> Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
>> physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
>> license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
>> merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.
>
>Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings expired.....I
>was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot military aircraft. Your
>privileges expire when your physical expires.....but you already knew that, and
>I'm surprised that you felt so insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning
>when at least 99 of every 100 former military pilots could figure out exactly
>what I was talking about from the words I used.

I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
statement was quite clear.

When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
strap on an F-16.

I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Tom Cervo
> writes
<quoting Hackworth>
>Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when
>I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed Prince."
>Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was
>wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen,
>U.S. SecDef at the time.

Right. Instead of leaving the Russians to enjoy a moment of glory before
finding themselves isolated and helpless, begging for food and water, we
should have shot our way into the airfield they'd just grabbed
(presumably shooting at them if they declined to leave peacefully? Or
was that going to be blamed on 'inefficient subordinates'?) This is
meant to be a wise, sensible and considered strategic decision?

It could be said that a wise commander would have considered the
possibility in advance and made some plans; or at least issued a warning
order covering the possibility..



"British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
Queen's Orders. (Out of interest, just why was Clark condemned to rely
on the UK's famously reluctant, fearful and combat-averse Parachute
Regiment, when he presumably had his choice of US and other NATO units
to dispatch?)


Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)




--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[S. Sampson]

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?

JFKerry:

[Tom Cervo]

>On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who worked
>under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.
>
>http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23929&perpage=25&h

He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy about
everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his mistakes.
Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Tom Cervo
> > writes
> <quoting Hackworth>
> >Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo
campaign when
> >I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed
Prince."
> >Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I
was
> >wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William
Cohen,
> >U.S. SecDef at the time.

<snip>

>
> "British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
> ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
> categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
> Queen's Orders.

Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about anything--IMO
he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while Clinton &
Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
subsequently revisit the issue, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should have
heard of at the time).

www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archive/june00/hed207.shtml

news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ europe/newsid_359000/359481.stm

1st ID(M) was pulled from the V Corps WFX and began readying for either
contingency (ground invasion or stabilization operations); engineers started
rather openly evaluating bridges and transport nets in Albania and
Macedonia, and TF Hawk grew from a simple AH-64 deployment into a sizeable
combined arms force, with armored, mech infantry, artillery, and engineer
support. No, we did not activate reservists at that point, but then again,
unlike other contingency operations fought outside Europe, this one was
happening at NATO's back door, and USAREUR was not exactly destitute of
resources to support a one or two division effort without having to resort
to major mobilization.

(Out of interest, just why was Clark condemned to rely
> on the UK's famously reluctant, fearful and combat-averse Parachute
> Regiment, when he presumably had his choice of US and other NATO units
> to dispatch?)
>
>
> Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
> rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
> "useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
> he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
> him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

He has also spent his ire at other US targets--he was especially deriscive
of the National Guard (though he has apparently piped down on that one over
the last year or two). Just make sure you don't shoot him where he wore that
unauthorized ranger tab he was bragging about...

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> >On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who
worked
> >under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.
> >
>
>http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23929&perpage=25&h
>
> He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy about
> everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his
mistakes.
> Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.

I disagree. Hackworth delightedly attempted to publicly gore the then-CNO
ADM Boorda over a "V" device, then it was disclosed that Hackworth himself
was wearing and bragging about a Ranger Tab he had never actually earned--he
was a bit slow in 'fessing up to that one, and when he did it came out in
about the same words that he was so happily condemning Boorda for using
("Gee, I *thought* I was entitled to that..."). As far as I am concerned, he
is a pretty worthless source.

Brooks

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/2/04 8:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 02 Feb 2004 15:59:51 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>>From: Ed Rasimus
>>>Date: 2/2/04 7:31 AM Pac
>>
>>>es, we've recognized repeatedly that Kerry
>>>holds a commission. Surprised he didn't recall the appropriateness of
>>>wearing ribbons with fatigue uniforms.
>>
>>Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?
>
>John Kerry in the oft-published picture of his VVAW activities. He
>wore them during his anti-war testimony to the Senate (imagine the
>appropriateness of appearing before a Senate committee in rumpled
>fatigues), and during the famous medal-throwing protest.
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Sheesh.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/2/04 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >

>Read again, slowly. "Where did you get your PILOT'S wings." Sorry, but
>thats a cheap shot. Won't do it again.

Thank you.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: (OXMORON1)
>Date: 2/2/04 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time

>Dan! Don't you remember rule no 2? Never volunteer?
>
>oxmoron1

Now you tell me. (sheesh)


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

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:02:31 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>> "British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
>> ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
>> categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
>> Queen's Orders.
>
>Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about anything--IMO
>he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
>enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
>else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while Clinton &
>Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
>his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
>Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
>subsequently revisit the issue, and they *did* announce that it was back
>into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should have
>heard of at the time).

Agreed, but then this change was a direct result of a change in
context which included *British* pressure to reconsider the use of
ground troops. When it comes down to it, the British were pushing
earlier for committing a force on the ground if necessary, and were
putting their money where their mouth was. I should know, I was
getting prepped for mobilisation at exactly that time, and I knew
where I'd be going. So, while I take your point, talking about
"British timidity" over Kosovo is, frankly, ********. When it came
down to it, the British goverment were displaying more nerve and
willingness to do the business than the US adminsitration.

As for Pristina airport, I would like to know precisely how many dead
Russian soldiers killed in the defence of their sacred Slavic brethren
the US hawks would have actually demanded as the price of stilling
their criticism. If they couldn't see the radical change of
cost-benefit analysis involved in that escalation of posturing, they
should read a little more about the defensive Slavic pretensions of
the Russians and little events like World War One.

[snip Hackworth; every retired Colonel has more opinions than sense]

Gavin Bailey

[Stephen Harding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
> rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
> "useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
> he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
> him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
isn't it?

A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
"effective" under such a test, no?


SMH

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>>
>>>> Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
>>>> about
>>>> the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
>>>> demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately
>>>> failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.
>>>
>>> Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
>>> physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
>>> license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
>>> merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.
>>
>> Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
>> expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
>> military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
>> expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt so
>> insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of every
>> 100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking about
>> from the words I used.
>
> I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
> held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
> statement was quite clear.
>
> When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
> you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
> out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
> strap on an F-16.
>
> I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
> aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.
>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 2/3/04 7:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
>>>>> about
>>>>> the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
>>>>> demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he
>deliberately
>>>>> failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.
>>>>
>>>> Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
>>>> physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
>>>> license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
>>>> merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.
>>>
>>> Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
>>> expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
>>> military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
>>> expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt so
>>> insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of every
>>> 100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking
>about
>>> from the words I used.
>>
>> I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
>> held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
>> statement was quite clear.
>>
>> When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
>> you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
>> out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
>> strap on an F-16.
>>
>> I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
>> aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> Smithsonian Institution Press
>> ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>

Yeah but once you earn that privilege you are damn well going to fly whether
you like it or not. (grin)



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

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>>
>>>> Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
>>>> about
>>>> the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
>>>> demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately
>>>> failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.
>>>
>>> Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
>>> physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
>>> license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
>>> merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.
>>
>> Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
>> expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
>> military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
>> expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt so
>> insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of every
>> 100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking about
>> from the words I used.
>
> I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
> held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
> statement was quite clear.

So, you're an Air Force pilot, is that it? Aren't you slipping an unwarranted
present tense assumption in there? You're no more an Air Force pilot than I
am.....that's what I used to be when I had a valid AF flight physical.
Nowadays, I'm only a former Air Force pilot, and that's exactly what you are as
well.


>
> When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
> you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
> out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
> strap on an F-16.
>
> I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
> aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.
>
> Like I said, 99 out of 100 former AF pilots knew what I meant from the words I
used. You seem to be the only one who feels a need to redefine my meanings from
my words. Maybe I'm misusing the word, but I call that "parsing" or maybe just
nitpicking an easily understood meaning.

George Z.

PS - During a momentary brain fart, I may have reposted a message without adding
any comments to it. My apologies for taking up your time looking at something
you'd already seen.

[George Z. Bush]

S. Sampson wrote:
> "ArtKramr" > wrote
>>
>> Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?
>
> JFKerry:

Can you point me to the picture? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in
talking
> >>>> about
> >>>> the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
> >>>> demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he
deliberately
> >>>> failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.
> >>>
> >>> Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
> >>> physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
> >>> license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
> >>> merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.
> >>
> >> Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
> >> expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
> >> military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
> >> expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt
so
> >> insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of
every
> >> 100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking
about
> >> from the words I used.
> >
> > I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
> > held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
> > statement was quite clear.
> >
> > When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
> > you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
> > out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
> > strap on an F-16.
> >
> > I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
> > aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus

George, that is probably the smartest thing you have managed to say in this
thread...nothing.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Presidente Alcazar" > wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:02:31 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >> "British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for
a
> >> ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
> >> categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
> >> Queen's Orders.
> >
> >Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about
anything--IMO
> >he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
> >enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
> >else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while
Clinton &
> >Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
> >his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
> >Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
> >subsequently revisit the issue, and they *did* announce that it was back
> >into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should
have
> >heard of at the time).
>
> Agreed, but then this change was a direct result of a change in
> context which included *British* pressure to reconsider the use of
> ground troops. When it comes down to it, the British were pushing
> earlier for committing a force on the ground if necessary, and were
> putting their money where their mouth was. I should know, I was
> getting prepped for mobilisation at exactly that time, and I knew
> where I'd be going. So, while I take your point, talking about
> "British timidity" over Kosovo is, frankly, ********. When it came
> down to it, the British goverment were displaying more nerve and
> willingness to do the business than the US adminsitration.

I did not say otherwise. Hackworth was off-base with his assessment (not an
unusual event), and I would agree that the British position was probably the
wiser one. My comments were directed at Paul's (again) ignoring the fact
that the US did indeed (belatedly) buy into the ground invasion as a real
option, and did indeed begin some obvious preparations for that eventuality.
I seriously doubt that Milosevich gave the ground threat much creedence
until he saw the US start accepting that possibility (not a jab at the UK,
but just common sense in that any ground invasion without US troops
participating was not a realistic threat).

Brooks

<snip>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> S. Sampson wrote:
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?
> >
> > JFKerry:
>
> Can you point me to the picture? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.
>
> George Z.

Try:

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ker_vc_flg.htm

Brooks

>
>

[John Hairell]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:15 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
>> >On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who
>worked
>> >under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.
>> >
>>
>>http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23929&perpage=25&h
>>
>> He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy about
>> everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his
>mistakes.
>> Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.
>
>I disagree. Hackworth delightedly attempted to publicly gore the then-CNO
>ADM Boorda over a "V" device, then it was disclosed that Hackworth himself
>was wearing and bragging about a Ranger Tab he had never actually earned--he
>was a bit slow in 'fessing up to that one, and when he did it came out in
>about the same words that he was so happily condemning Boorda for using
>("Gee, I *thought* I was entitled to that..."). As far as I am concerned, he
>is a pretty worthless source.
>

Hackworth evidently also had some nasty things to say about Michael
Durant while he was captive in Mogadishu. Durant in his book ("The
Company of Heroes") talks about being attacked by Hackworth for no
reason that he could figure out.

John Hairell )

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> S. Sampson wrote:
> > "ArtKramr" > wrote
> >>
> >> Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?
> >
> > JFKerry:
>
> Can you point me to the picture? I'd like to take a look. Thanks.
>
> George Z.

Doesn't appear it was an isolated incident, either--a couple more photos of
Kerry with his ribbon bedecked fatigues...

www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Oddly enough, despite getting three Purple Hearts, the photos of he and his
crew, one with decorations, don't show any apprent wounds to his right arm
(where he supposedly was wounded twice).

Brooks

>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:08:15 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who
> >worked
> >> >under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.
> >> >
> >>
>
>>http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23929&perpage=25&h
> >>
> >> He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy
about
> >> everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his
> >mistakes.
> >> Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.
> >
> >I disagree. Hackworth delightedly attempted to publicly gore the then-CNO
> >ADM Boorda over a "V" device, then it was disclosed that Hackworth
himself
> >was wearing and bragging about a Ranger Tab he had never actually
earned--he
> >was a bit slow in 'fessing up to that one, and when he did it came out in
> >about the same words that he was so happily condemning Boorda for using
> >("Gee, I *thought* I was entitled to that..."). As far as I am concerned,
he
> >is a pretty worthless source.
> >
>
> Hackworth evidently also had some nasty things to say about Michael
> Durant while he was captive in Mogadishu. Durant in his book ("The
> Company of Heroes") talks about being attacked by Hackworth for no
> reason that he could figure out.

I was unaware of that one. But it would be about par for him. Interesting
anti_hackworth article at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2381/#Scene_1

Brooks

>
> John Hairell )

[Grantland]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>I seriously doubt that Milosevich gave the ground threat much creedence
>until he saw the US start accepting that possibility (not a jab at the UK,
>but just common sense in that any ground invasion without US troops
>participating was not a realistic threat).
>
>Brooks

Your brain cancer is getting very bad now. Why don't you end it - use
a sharp knife.

Grantland

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:21:20 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>>sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
>> rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
>> "useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
>> he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
>> him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)
>
>Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
>Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
>isn't it?
>
>A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
>"effective" under such a test, no?

According to Hackworth, who claims the Beretta, M-16 and other weapons
foisted on the indomitable GI by the military-industrial-complex and
the perfumed princes in the pentagon would simply break down before
performing such useful service. I think he was also against the
Abrams and the Bradley when they were the latest "steal procurement
from the grunts and waste it on high-tech pork" windmill... errr, I
mean project to be titled at.

Hasn't he become a caricature of himself these days? I always think
of him delivering Mr Burn's address to the electorate on the
Springfield hustings:

"And the bureaucrats in the state capital/perfumed princes in the
Pentagon can stick that in their pipe and smoke it!"

Gavin Bailey

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Stephen Harding
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
>> rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
>> "useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
>> he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
>> him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)
>
>Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
>Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
>isn't it?

The argument is that these weapons are apparently so lacking in
lethality that enemy soldiers laugh off multiple hits, crying out "stop
that, it tickles" - on the rare occasions when these weapons apparently
fire at all, they apparently being so unreliably that it's a miracle any
US soldiers ever get a round off in combat before their weapons
permanently jam.

Hackworth's vilifying the M-16 family in a way that makes the L85 look
like a paragon of reliability (oddly enough, the L85 _did_ perform very
well during TELIC)

>A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
>"effective" under such a test, no?

Most definitely - the complaints are reliability and lethality, and a
well-handled muzzle loader should do well on both scores provided the
weather's not too damp :) Rapidity of fire, combat load, functionality
in rain, et cetera are not measures of effectiveness Hackworth mentions
so I'm leaving them out too.

His rules, not mine.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> "British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
>> ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
>> categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
>> Queen's Orders.
>
>Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about anything--IMO
>he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
>enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
>else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while Clinton &
>Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
>his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
>Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
>subsequently revisit the issue,

Sure, and never claimed otherwise. But the US _did_ rule it out (and
then change its mind), while here in the UK many of us were getting
ready for mobilisation despite a few years away from the colours. The US
was able to reverse course without having to call up reserves: not an
option for others, particularly when the US was still mumbling "no
ground troops under any circumstances".

The US made a mistake and successfully reversed it, and I'm not
attacking that: just the unspecified claims of "British timidity".
Refusal to obey really stupid orders, perhaps, but not timidity.

>> Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
>> rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
>> "useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
>> he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
>> him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)
>
>He has also spent his ire at other US targets--he was especially deriscive
>of the National Guard (though he has apparently piped down on that one over
>the last year or two).

A quick poke around SFTT suggests not, at the moment: he's making the
British argument of STABs versus ARABs look like a friendly debate at
the moment. It seems the US National Guard units are untrained,
unskilled, and laden with huge numbers of unfit freeloaders who never
report and can't deploy but can justify claims for pay'n'rations... with
only heroic interventions by Regular troops saving them from certain
disaster.

One wonders how such bumbling amateurs managed to survive in a warzone,
let alone make any sort of useful contribution: yet rather more than a
few have apparently deployed and served, and I don't hear tales of
"Weeping National Guard wimps slaughtered as Regular heroes hold firm
and fight to last round".

Oh, well... where reality conflicts with a lucrative column, presumably
reality simply hasn't been properly informed and will eventually fall
into line.


>Just make sure you don't shoot him where he wore that
>unauthorized ranger tab he was bragging about...

Having been trained by a few Paras and a bootneck or two, and working
with both now, I imagine this is similar to wearing a red or green beret
without having passed P Company or the Commando Course. (Neither are
recommended strategies, if you couldn't guess).

And I recall that Chief of Naval Operations Jim Boorda committed suicide
over being accused of falsely wearing decorations he hadn't earned...
perhaps an extreme reaction, but interesting to compare.



--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ed Rasimus]

On 03 Feb 2004 15:19:24 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Ed Rasimus wrote:

>>> I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
>>> aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.
>>>
>
>Yeah but once you earn that privilege you are damn well going to fly whether
>you like it or not. (grin)
>
>Arthur Kramer

Well, I earned the privilege, but haven't flown as pilot in command in
many years. I never had the urge to go to work for the airlines and
there's nothing (short of maybe "warbird" ops) that would equate with
flying tactical jets.

People often ask, why I didn't go with the airlines and my answer is
always the same, "would you ask Mario Andretti why he didn't start
driving for Greyhound when he retired from racing?"



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ron]

>
>Well, I earned the privilege, but haven't flown as pilot in command in
>many years. I never had the urge to go to work for the airlines and
>there's nothing (short of maybe "warbird" ops) that would equate with
>flying tactical jets.
>
>People often ask, why I didn't go with the airlines and my answer is
>always the same, "would you ask Mario Andretti why he didn't start
>driving for Greyhound when he retired from racing?"
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus

Same with me. Never could get offered a pilot slot, bad timing, and the
thought of airline flying just does not do it for me.

Looks like I might just end up flying a DC-4 on fires this summer...




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>Well, I earned the privilege, but haven't flown as pilot in command in
>many years. I never had the urge to go to work for the airlines and
>there's nothing (short of maybe "warbird" ops) that would equate with
>flying tactical jets.

I dunno Ed, I know a few guys who flew fighters and this is what one
of them (a former A-7, F-106 and F-16 jock) had to say:

Q: So Jim how does flying a trike compare to flying a fighter on
the fun scale?

A: Equal, but different. Way different. I like all types of flying,
but they are all fun in different ways. Flying trikes is probably the
most natural sensation of flying like a bird, like you dream about,
of any form of powered flight I've ever experienced. Flying
fighters is like flying a Formula I race car with wings, except even
more physically punishing. There's nothing like being at 100' and
seeing the electrical line poles go by at 600 kts +, and there's
nothing like cruising along at 50 mph waving at people and
smelling the new cut hay and feeling like a puppy with your head
out of the car window. I'm happy to have had the opportunity to
experience both. I'd rate them both as 10's, but different forms
of fun. If I had to pick one to experience in life and couldn't do
the other, I'd pick fighters. Fortunately, I didn't have to pick just
one.

>People often ask, why I didn't go with the airlines and my answer is
>always the same, "would you ask Mario Andretti why he didn't start
>driving for Greyhound when he retired from racing?"

I can understand that but I think there may be something else going
on there. In other words, maybe guys like you whom have pushed the
envelope so many times in combat sense deep down that it's simply
time to quit?

[Mike Marron]

(Ron) wrote:
>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>>Well, I earned the privilege, but haven't flown as pilot in command in
>>many years. I never had the urge to go to work for the airlines and
>>there's nothing (short of maybe "warbird" ops) that would equate with
>>flying tactical jets.

>>People often ask, why I didn't go with the airlines and my answer is
>>always the same, "would you ask Mario Andretti why he didn't start
>>driving for Greyhound when he retired from racing?"

>Same with me. Never could get offered a pilot slot, bad timing, and the
>thought of airline flying just does not do it for me.

>Looks like I might just end up flying a DC-4 on fires this summer...

Haven't flown fighters like Ed but I have flown single pilot IFR
under Part 135 like you and no offense, but that DC-4 position
sounds like just another uneviable, low-pay, low-prestige yet
high-risk flying job. No thanks.

[S. Sampson]

"Mike Marron" > wrote
>
> Haven't flown fighters like Ed but I have flown single pilot IFR
> under Part 135 like you and no offense, but that DC-4 position
> sounds like just another uneviable, low-pay, low-prestige yet
> high-risk flying job. No thanks.

On top of that, very little is done to tame the fires. In most cases
the fires just keep burning until the weather changes. Water and
Retardant bombers are like ****ing on a house fire.

[Ron]

>> Haven't flown fighters like Ed but I have flown single pilot IFR
>> under Part 135 like you and no offense, but that DC-4 position
>> sounds like just another uneviable, low-pay, low-prestige yet
>> high-risk flying job. No thanks.
>
>On top of that, very little is done to tame the fires. In most cases
>the fires just keep burning until the weather changes. Water and
>Retardant bombers are like ****ing on a house fire.
>
Well it depends on the situation. Retardant is rarely dropped on a fire
anyways. Its main use to to help get a fire under control so the people on the
ground can get a handle on it. On smaller fires, it definitely makes a big
different, but on larger firestorms like what was in San Diego last year and
Yellowstone in 88, they do not always have a big impact.




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks

<snip>

> >
> >He has also spent his ire at other US targets--he was especially
deriscive
> >of the National Guard (though he has apparently piped down on that one
over
> >the last year or two).
>
> A quick poke around SFTT suggests not, at the moment: he's making the
> British argument of STABs versus ARABs look like a friendly debate at
> the moment. It seems the US National Guard units are untrained,
> unskilled, and laden with huge numbers of unfit freeloaders who never
> report and can't deploy but can justify claims for pay'n'rations... with
> only heroic interventions by Regular troops saving them from certain
> disaster.
>
> One wonders how such bumbling amateurs managed to survive in a warzone,
> let alone make any sort of useful contribution: yet rather more than a
> few have apparently deployed and served, and I don't hear tales of
> "Weeping National Guard wimps slaughtered as Regular heroes hold firm
> and fight to last round".

He must have missed the close combat operations conducted by the light
infantry battalion out of the FLARNG in Iraq, the various SF operations
conducted by 19th and 20th SFG (both ARNG assets) troops in Afghanistan (and
other places), the ARNG combat engineers, truck drivers, etc., who have
suffered their fair share of casualties in Iraq, etc. Like I said before,
the guy apparently just brays to hear the discordant sound of his own voice.

>
> Oh, well... where reality conflicts with a lucrative column, presumably
> reality simply hasn't been properly informed and will eventually fall
> into line.
>
>
> >Just make sure you don't shoot him where he wore that
> >unauthorized ranger tab he was bragging about...
>
> Having been trained by a few Paras and a bootneck or two, and working
> with both now, I imagine this is similar to wearing a red or green beret
> without having passed P Company or the Commando Course. (Neither are
> recommended strategies, if you couldn't guess).
>
> And I recall that Chief of Naval Operations Jim Boorda committed suicide
> over being accused of falsely wearing decorations he hadn't earned...
> perhaps an extreme reaction, but interesting to compare.

You were aware that he was intimately involved in that affair? He was the
goober who "tipped off" Newsweek magazine about Boorda's decorations, and a
week after the suicide he was all over the media bellyaching about the
sanctity of decorations...then he got sort of quiet about that after his
unauthorized Ranger tab was mentioned. He used to portray himself as
"America's most decorated soldier"...and then the Department of the Army
stated that there was no such a beast (and one wonders what the surviving
MoH winners thought of his claim). The guy is scum, plain and simple. He was
danged lucky to have been able to retire--there was serious consideration
given to courts martialing him after he went to the media with his "get out
of Vietnam" crap while he was still a serving officer.

Brooks

> Paul J. Adam

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus

>
>On 03 Feb 2004 15:19:24 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>>> I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
>>>> aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.
>>>>
>>
>>Yeah but once you earn that privilege you are damn well going to fly whether
>>you like it or not. (grin)
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Well, I earned the privilege, but haven't flown as pilot in command in
>many years. I never had the urge to go to work for the airlines and
>there's nothing (short of maybe "warbird" ops) that would equate with
>flying tactical jets.
>
>People often ask, why I didn't go with the airlines and my answer is
>always the same, "would you ask Mario Andretti why he didn't start
>driving for Greyhound when he retired from racing?"
>
>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8
>
>

But Ed, just think of the fun you could occassionally have had flying a
tactical profile with a fully loaded 747 as a way of brightening the day. Just
think of the screaming passengers as the noisemaker on your old 105.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chris Manteuffel]

Presidente Alcazar > wrote in message >...

> Hasn't he become a caricature of himself these days? I always think
> of him delivering Mr Burn's address to the electorate on the
> Springfield hustings:
>
> "And the bureaucrats in the state capital/perfumed princes in the
> Pentagon can stick that in their pipe and smoke it!"

"Isn't it ironic Smithers. This anonymous clan of slack-jawed
troglodytes cost me the election. And if I were to have them killed, I
would be the one to go to jail. Thats democracy for you!"

Chris Manteuffel

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 2/3/04 4:52 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Looks like I might just end up flying a DC-4 on fires this summer...

Hey be careful. That can be dangerous.


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

[Ron]

>>Subject: Re: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
>>From: (Ron)
>>Date: 2/3/04 4:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>>Looks like I might just end up flying a DC-4 on fires this summer...
>
>Hey be careful. That can be dangerous.
>
>

I certainly will. No fire is worth dying for.



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[S. Sampson]

"Clark" <stillnospam@me> wrote
> "S. Sampson" > wrote
> > "Mike Marron" > wrote
> >>
> >> Haven't flown fighters like Ed but I have flown single pilot IFR
> >> under Part 135 like you and no offense, but that DC-4 position
> >> sounds like just another uneviable, low-pay, low-prestige yet
> >> high-risk flying job. No thanks.
> >
> > On top of that, very little is done to tame the fires. In most cases
> > the fires just keep burning until the weather changes. Water and
> > Retardant bombers are like ****ing on a house fire.
> >
>
> Haven't been around many wildland fires, have you?

Summer of 71, Missoula fire, worked three months on the line before
the weather changed, and the fire went out on it's own. We ran eight
fire lines, and it hopped over all of them. I lost 20 pounds. Charlie
Prescott drowned in the river. He always said he'd never let the fire
get him, and compared to all the molten Bears and Deer we found,
he looked a little bleached, but not BBQ'd. Best damned aerobic
program there is, and like most aerobic programs, it is all non-
productive.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 04 Feb 2004 02:00:52 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Ed Rasimus
>
>>People often ask, why I didn't go with the airlines and my answer is
>>always the same, "would you ask Mario Andretti why he didn't start
>>driving for Greyhound when he retired from racing?"
>>
>But Ed, just think of the fun you could occassionally have had flying a
>tactical profile with a fully loaded 747 as a way of brightening the day. Just
>think of the screaming passengers as the noisemaker on your old 105.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Got a ride of a lifetime in a VC-9 while at Hq USAFE running
exercises. Took a site survey team of twenty guys to Ovar Portugal to
look at the base for an F-111 deployment. On departure the F-111 guys
wanted to get some airfield photos, problem was a 500 foot ceiling in
light rain.

Sitting in the big leather first class arm-chair after takeoff with
the steward handing me my first scotch on the rocks, we took off (the
base is right on the Atlantic Coast) stayed low over the water, bent
around and return to overfly the base. Did three circuits, all below
the 500 foot ceiling. Thought he was going to put the wingtip in the
water, but that guy could sure make that ol' heavy dance.

The only part attractive about the 747 run came up when I was asking
ex-F-105 type Cal Tax, now Delta Captain what he grosses. The answer
was about $375K per year, but he does some extra on-call flying for
time-and-a half so it goes up nearer to $450K. I could do that, yes I
could! Nahh, too old now.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>The only part attractive about the 747 run came up when I was asking
>ex-F-105 type Cal Tax, now Delta Captain what he grosses. The answer
>was about $375K per year, but he does some extra on-call flying for
>time-and-a half so it goes up nearer to $450K. I could do that, yes I
>could! Nahh, too old now.

You're never too old to fly. Later today at 4:00 pm (Eastern)
WSTP Channel 10 News here locally will be featuring Yours Truly
taking up one of their reporters on their "Wild Side" special in my
awesome flying machine. For those who are interested and
depending on when they get around to uploading the video,
you should be able to watch it here:

http://www.tampabays10.com/wildside/index.aspx

[Ron]

>> Haven't been around many wildland fires, have you?
>
>Summer of 71, Missoula fire, worked three months on the line before
>the weather changed, and the fire went out on it's own. We ran eight
>fire lines, and it hopped over all of them. I lost 20 pounds. Charlie
>Prescott drowned in the river. He always said he'd never let the fire
>get him, and compared to all the molten Bears and Deer we found,
>he looked a little bleached, but not BBQ'd. Best damned aerobic
>program there is, and like most aerobic programs, it is all non-
>productive.

And I worked on the ground in Missoula on a fire august of last year. I
actually would sometimes come across old lines that had been dug on previous
fires on the mountain. It is one hell of a work out, especially if you are
digging line all day, or carrying rolls of fire hose up and down mountains.

It was fun, but I sure look forward more to being back in the air on fires this
summer, hope I get this DC-4 job.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>
>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>[snipped for brevity]
>
>>The only part attractive about the 747 run came up when I was asking
>>ex-F-105 type Cal Tax, now Delta Captain what he grosses. The answer
>>was about $375K per year, but he does some extra on-call flying for
>>time-and-a half so it goes up nearer to $450K. I could do that, yes I
>>could! Nahh, too old now.
>
>You're never too old to fly.

Airline pilots are grounded by law when they turn 60.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron]

>>The only part attractive about the 747 run came up when I was asking
>>>ex-F-105 type Cal Tax, now Delta Captain what he grosses. The answer
>>>was about $375K per year, but he does some extra on-call flying for
>>>time-and-a half so it goes up nearer to $450K. I could do that, yes I
>>>could! Nahh, too old now.
>>
>>You're never too old to fly.
>
>Airline pilots are grounded by law when they turn 60.

They can still be FE's though, although that option is going away, as the 727s,
DC-10s, and earlier model 747s are retired.

A few years ago, American Airlines had a 78 year old FE.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Mike Marron]

(Ron) wrote:
(B2431) wrote:

>>Airline pilots are grounded by law when they turn 60.

>They can still be FE's though, although that option is going away, as the 727s,
>DC-10s, and earlier model 747s are retired.

>A few years ago, American Airlines had a 78 year old FE.

Also, the" Age 60" rule doesn't apply to all Part 135 airline pilots.

[S. Sampson]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote
>
> The only part attractive about the 747 run came up when I was asking
> ex-F-105 type Cal Tax, now Delta Captain what he grosses. The answer
> was about $375K per year, but he does some extra on-call flying for
> time-and-a half so it goes up nearer to $450K. I could do that, yes I
> could! Nahh, too old now.

That black woman who showed her mammary gland at the football game
made that much in an hour. I really hate it when they ruin my violence with
some damned negro (trying to look sexy) crap. I like to keep my violence
and sex entertainment separate...

[B2431]

>From: "S. Sampson"

<snip>
>
>That black woman who showed her mammary gland at the football game
>made that much in an hour. I really hate it when they ruin my violence with
>some damned negro (trying to look sexy) crap. I like to keep my violence
>and sex entertainment separate...

Time to renew your dues to the KKK.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[S. Sampson]

"B2431" > wrote
> >From: "S. Sampson"
>
> <snip>
> >
> >That black woman who showed her mammary gland at the football game
> >made that much in an hour. I really hate it when they ruin my violence with
> >some damned negro (trying to look sexy) crap. I like to keep my violence
> >and sex entertainment separate...
>
> Time to renew your dues to the KKK.

Naw, I don't think the NFL would be anything special without the black folks
kicking the hell out of each other while the white kid with the radio headset
talks to the man with the plays.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>
> Oddly enough, despite getting three Purple Hearts, the photos of he and his
> crew, one with decorations, don't show any apprent wounds to his right arm
> (where he supposedly was wounded twice).
>

I thought it was once in each arm, and once in one thigh. I don't
see any photos that show his arms in their entirety and don't
care to look at any photos of his thighs.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> No, he is merely pointing out the obvious fact that not *every* Silver Star
> was evidence of heroism, and his example of LBJ is an appropriate one in
> this case.

I'd like to hear more bout LBJ's silver star.

> The curious nature of those Purple Hearts received with
> reportedly no absence from duty does make his awards situation
> questionable.

My understanding is that none of the three wounds were serious.
I presume that he received firstr aid in the field and did not
require hospitalization upon his return. I don't know what
standard, if any, there is for a purple heart but I don't think
they are restricted to injuries that render one unfit for duty.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"S. Sampson" > wrote in message news:<l_CSb.13432$Q_4.6831@okepread03>...
> ...
>
> So you don't think giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a bad thing?
> If Lt Kerry is a good American, then Jane Fonda is also a fine American.
>

I dunno what he thinks.

But I do know that petitioning one's government to withdraw from a
war is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy and it is thoroughly
unAmerican to suggest such a thing. None-the-less, here in America,
you are free to voice unAmerican sentiments.

IMHO John Kerry displayed his patriotism both in his military service,
and in his subsequent protest against continued military action by
the US in Vietnam.

>
> This seems important to you, but it's merely a rephrasing of the first
> question above. I never went to anti-government rallies and throw my
> medals at Congress, and then turn around and declare myself a war
> hero. Does that count?

Are you at ease with your conscience?

--

FF

[B2431]

>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 2/10/2004 3:41 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
>news:<l_CSb.13432$Q_4.6831@okepread03>...
>> ...
>>
>> So you don't think giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a bad thing?
>> If Lt Kerry is a good American, then Jane Fonda is also a fine American.
>>
>
>I dunno what he thinks.
>
>But I do know that petitioning one's government to withdraw from a
>war is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy and it is thoroughly
>unAmerican to suggest such a thing. None-the-less, here in America,
>you are free to voice unAmerican sentiments.
>
>IMHO John Kerry displayed his patriotism both in his military service,
>and in his subsequent protest against continued military action by
>the US in Vietnam.
>
>>
>> This seems important to you, but it's merely a rephrasing of the first
>> question above. I never went to anti-government rallies and throw my
>> medals at Congress, and then turn around and declare myself a war
>> hero. Does that count?
>
>Are you at ease with your conscience?
>
>--
>
>FF
>
Agreed as far as that goes. However kerry testified in Congress that the U.S.
military was deliberately committing "attrocities" as policy. He provided no
proof. THAT is providing comfort to the enemy.

As far as I am concerned he stabbed us all in the back.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > No, he is merely pointing out the obvious fact that not *every* Silver
Star
> > was evidence of heroism, and his example of LBJ is an appropriate one in
> > this case.
>
> I'd like to hear more bout LBJ's silver star.

After wrangling himself a USNR commission, he junketed to the southwest
Pacific and rode in a single sortie (some accounts indicate a milk run) on a
B-26. After he landed they pinned a SS on him, with appropriate press
coverage, of course. Pretty disgusting, all in all.

>
> > The curious nature of those Purple Hearts received with
> > reportedly no absence from duty does make his awards situation
> > questionable.
>
> My understanding is that none of the three wounds were serious.
> I presume that he received firstr aid in the field and did not
> require hospitalization upon his return. I don't know what
> standard, if any, there is for a purple heart but I don't think
> they are restricted to injuries that render one unfit for duty.

Like any decoration, the Purple Heart award can be "abused" in terms of how
it is handed out. My brother knew of one guy in his outfit who actually
tried to write himself up for one (he stubbed his toe trying to get into a
bunker during a rocket attack on their base in Danang); his own commander
offered him one after he was shot down and wrenched his back in the crash
(he laughed that one off). Seeing a guy like Kerry who gets not one, but
*three* PH's, with no reported lost duty days (he claims he missed "one or
two days" for one of the wounds, but we have not seen his records to that
effect yet, have we?) should raise one's eyebrow a bit.

AR 600-8-22: "...the wound for which the award is made must have required
treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds
or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official
record." Let's see if the media beagles so interested in GWB's military
records care to dig up the dirt on Kerry's PH's--I am not holding my breath.

Brooks

>
> --
>
> FF

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> > No, he is merely pointing out the obvious fact that not *every* Silver
> Star
>> > was evidence of heroism, and his example of LBJ is an appropriate one in
>> > this case.
>>
>> I'd like to hear more bout LBJ's silver star.
>
> After wrangling himself a USNR commission, he junketed to the southwest
> Pacific and rode in a single sortie (some accounts indicate a milk run) on a
> B-26. After he landed they pinned a SS on him, with appropriate press
> coverage, of course. Pretty disgusting, all in all.

To make things even less palatable, the B-26 he was on had developed a
case of teh Galloping Ner-get-overs, and aborted the mission before
even coming close to the target area.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Cub Driver]

Ed, there is no point discussing politics with Art. He is a little bit
bonkers on the subject, especially when the politician is George Bush.

I kill-filed Art six months ago for that reason. The newsgroup has
been more enjoyable since. And if he does say something interesting,
it's bound to be quoted by someone :)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Alan Minyard]

On 11 Feb 2004 00:25:12 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>>Date: 2/10/2004 3:41 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"S. Sampson" > wrote in message
>>news:<l_CSb.13432$Q_4.6831@okepread03>...
>>> ...
>>>
>>> So you don't think giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a bad thing?
>>> If Lt Kerry is a good American, then Jane Fonda is also a fine American.
>>>
>>
>>I dunno what he thinks.
>>
>>But I do know that petitioning one's government to withdraw from a
>>war is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy and it is thoroughly
>>unAmerican to suggest such a thing. None-the-less, here in America,
>>you are free to voice unAmerican sentiments.
>>
>>IMHO John Kerry displayed his patriotism both in his military service,
>>and in his subsequent protest against continued military action by
>>the US in Vietnam.
>>
>>>
>>> This seems important to you, but it's merely a rephrasing of the first
>>> question above. I never went to anti-government rallies and throw my
>>> medals at Congress, and then turn around and declare myself a war
>>> hero. Does that count?
>>
>>Are you at ease with your conscience?
>>
>>--
>>
>>FF
>>
>Agreed as far as that goes. However kerry testified in Congress that the U.S.
>military was deliberately committing "attrocities" as policy. He provided no
>proof. THAT is providing comfort to the enemy.
>
>As far as I am concerned he stabbed us all in the back.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I whole heartedly agree, and his association with hanoi jane
makes him all the more repugnant.

Al Minyard

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> >Date: 2/10/2004 3:41 PM Central Standard Time
>
> >
> Agreed as far as that goes. However kerry testified in Congress that the U.S.
> military was deliberately committing "attrocities" as policy. He provided no
> proof. THAT is providing comfort to the enemy.
>

When a person testifies before the Congress that person does not get
to choose the questions he will be asked. He can choose to answer
them truthfully, or to commit perjury. AFAIK, unlike the courts,
the Congress has always accepted hearsay testimony, and opinion.
For instance, whether or not the use of napalm is an attrocity is
a matter of opinion. At the time, many other nations had abandoned
the use of incindiery weapons, being of the opinion that such use
was an atrocity and violated prohibitions against weapons that
caused 'excess suffering'.

Thus far, no one has made a claim that Kerry alleged he had witnessed
acts which he did not, only that he believed that they had taken place.


> As far as I am concerned he stabbed us all in the back.
>

If he did his best to tell what he believed to be the truth then
he did his duty befor the Congress.

> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I was born a year too late to be drafted, and never volunteered to
serve in uniform. Those of you who have, have earned my respect
and gratitude many times over. That includes Kerry. I appreciate
that you may not like the idea that I think of you in the same way.
That is unfortunate, perhaps even ironic, as it is the sacrifices
you made that kept me free to voice that opinion.

--

FF

[Merlin Dorfman]

Peter Stickney ) wrote:
: In article >,
: "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
: >
: > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
: > om...
: >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
: > >...
: >>
: >> > No, he is merely pointing out the obvious fact that not *every* Silver
: > Star
: >> > was evidence of heroism, and his example of LBJ is an appropriate one in
: >> > this case.
: >>
: >> I'd like to hear more bout LBJ's silver star.
: >
: > After wrangling himself a USNR commission, he junketed to the southwest
: > Pacific and rode in a single sortie (some accounts indicate a milk run) on a
: > B-26. After he landed they pinned a SS on him, with appropriate press
: > coverage, of course. Pretty disgusting, all in all.

: To make things even less palatable, the B-26 he was on had developed a
: case of teh Galloping Ner-get-overs, and aborted the mission before
: even coming close to the target area.

Let's be clear though--MacArthur requested and authorized the
medal because he knew LBJ was FDR's protege and thought this would
get him (Mac) some points.
Nevertheless LBJ proudly wore the ribbon for the rest of his
life. You can see it in his lapel in every picture.

[Merlin Dorfman]

Alan Minyard ) wrote:

: >As far as I am concerned he stabbed us all in the back.
: >
: >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

: I whole heartedly agree, and his association with hanoi jane
: makes him all the more repugnant.

So, in your opinion, Kerry should have inquired before
attending any meeting whether Jane would be there, and should
have declined to attend if so; and if she turned up at any
meeting he should have left?

[D. Strang]

"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote
>
> So, in your opinion, Kerry should have inquired before
> attending any meeting whether Jane would be there, and should
> have declined to attend if so; and if she turned up at any
> meeting he should have left?

Your proposition that one didn't know what the other was doing is
false. Kerry was a full-time politician by then. He had no day-job.

[Pete]

"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard ) wrote:
>
> : >As far as I am concerned he stabbed us all in the back.
> : >
> : >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> : I whole heartedly agree, and his association with hanoi jane
> : makes him all the more repugnant.
>
> So, in your opinion, Kerry should have inquired before
> attending any meeting whether Jane would be there, and should
> have declined to attend if so; and if she turned up at any
> meeting he should have left?
>

When one joins a controversial organization, and aspires to rise in it's
heiarchy, it would be wise to know who is behind it, and where a lot of its
funding comes from.

Pete

[BUFDRVR]

>He has never had a day job of any kind.

I heard his first filthy rich wife was high maintenance....surely he gets
credit for at least part-time work no?


BUFDRVR

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