"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:38:43 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


If you will return to my comments, you will see that I never in any
way
found fault with the fact that he was able to and did in fact pursue
a
complete military career in the Reserve forces right up through
retirement.

However, snide remarks about red herrings aside, this'd be the
appropriate
place to repeat my question. Are you suggesting that a Navy 0-4 or
0-5 on
flying status during the period from say 1968 through 1975, who is
as
gung ho a warrior as our present Sec/Def obviously is, could not
have
found a way to make a more direct contribution to our war effort in
Viet
Nam if he had wanted to than by staying current in the active
Reserves?
That suggestion is insulting to the numerous Reserve and ANG fliers
who
managed to find their way into active units committed to prosecuting
that
war, some of whom were undoubtedly in your own unit at one time or
another.

So, S2F pilots are a critical resource and a Navy reservist who is
serving in Congress should resign his seat, request activation and go
drone around the boat. That simply doesn't make sense.

He resigned his Congressional seat in 1969, so amend my time span to
read
from 1969 through 1975. Did you mean to say "drone around the boat" or
was
that just a figure of speech or slip of the tongue? Are you suggesting
that
our Senator from Arizona ended up in the Hanoi Hilton, along with
numerous
other Navy pilots, because they got lost shooting touch and go's off
their
carriers? Characterizing their contributions as "droning around the
boat" is
a put down, and I hope you didn't really intend it that way.

Uhmm..that Senator from Arizona was not flying S2F's, either, was he?

Nobody said anything about specific equipment qualifications. We all are
aware,
or should be, that people transitioned from one type of equipment to
another
quite commonly, as the needs of the services demanded.

Let's see, a forty-something guy who has in all likelihood been off flight
status altogether for some time...yeah, that is real likely to happen...


......Ed's point stands, while you are heading off in another direction.

Funny, I had the impression that you were the one wandering off in another
direction.

No, you felt the burning need to toss McCane into the mix--why, I don't
know.



If you can serve in Congress and still meet Reserve qualifications you
are both contributing to the nation and helping the defense
establishment. Can't see how that's any sort of strike against the
man.

I concede that, so let's limit the discussion to when he was no longer
a
Congressman.

And pray tell how, if he *was* still in a flight status (I don't think
he
was--USNR types often give up their primary specialty when they leave
active
duty and enter into the reserve realm due to their location, or the lack
of
reserve billets in their particular specialty; my brother-in-law left
active
duty as a submariner and served his reserve career out without ever
again
doing any duty on a sub), how would he have been able to get an active
duty
tour in Vietnam (or environs) flying an aircraft that was not essential
to
the war effort, protecting against a North Vietnamese threat that did
not
exist (i.e., they had no submarines for him to hunt)?

Eh? Oh, that's right; according to you reservists just pick and choose which
aircraft Uncle sam is going to pay (big bucks) for them to requalify into,
right?



But, we can certainly find a lot of SecDefs on both sides of the
political spectrum without ANY spit-shined brogans in their
closet--dare I mention Les Aspin, Robert Strange McNamara, Robert
Cohen, etc?

Talk about red herrings. I see you're not reluctant to toss a few
around
when it suits your purpose. By way of comparison, how many of those
you
just mentioned were Reserve or ANG fliers on flying status during
whatever
wars they were involved in supervising? That would be a valid
comparison.....what you just did was toss our a bunch of apples and
dared
us to compare them with an orange. Not the same thing, and you know
it.

My point was that if we are setting criteria for SecDefs, we should
acknowledge that a lot of folks held the job with absolutely no
military experience at all. None of those I just mentioned were
Reserve or ANG fliers, which was precisely my point.

We are not setting criteria for SecDefs....we are talking about one in
particular who's quite hawkish these days but apparently was far from
that in
those days. AAMOF, if you look into what others have reported of
comments
made by Nixon and members of his staff about Rumsfeld, they apparently
considered him far too dovish in those days to suit their tastes.

Having served his active duty committment, and then going on to serve
the
rest of his career in the USNR, makes his somehow "far from hawkish"?
That
is an illogical statement.


It returns to the issue about whether there is a relationship between
active and reserve component service, between officer and enlisted
service, between peacetime and wartime service, between combat and
combat support service, between home base and deployed service, etc.
etc.

Well, maybe that's what you want to use as a basis for arguing, but I'm
not
in the mood for fish tonight, so I guess I'll pass.

Why? You have already strongly inferred that his prior active duty
service,
coupled with his subsequent reserve service, is somehow lacking. So why
not
have the balls to jump all of the way into the water and say it?

I don't recall that I made any kind of point about it piquing my
curiosity.
What of it? Is it not permitted for some reason? In plain English, some
Nixon
staffers (if not Nixon himself) considered him a dove during the war while
the
shooting was going on, and now he's clearly a hawk and running the show.
The
dichotomy certainly does interest me, not to mention the timing of the
change.

Again, fish or cut bait. Have the gonads to say what you really mean instead
of trying to dance around the issue. Either you think his combination of a
complete active duty tour followed by years of reserve service was honorable
or not. I am guessing that if someone were to say, ask you why you felt
hunky-dory flying trash haulers instead of transitioning into combat
aircraft during either Korea or Vietnam you'd (rightfully, IMO) be a bit
testy. But yet you expect a guy who has finished his active duty
committment, and voluntarily stayed on in the reserves for many more years,
willing to answer his country's call *if* it is given, has something to be
ashamed of?

How many drilling Naval reservists were called up to serve in Vietnam? Only
one that I can recall of (the actor, Glenn Ford, did a short tour). Unlike
the army and air force reserve components, which did indeed use reservists,
both on active duty and, in the case of the ANG/USAFR, in reserve status, in
Vietnam, there is no record that i can find of any mobilization of naval
reserve units during the conflict. Why? Because they did not need them, for
one thing.



Some people got to see the elephant and some didn't. I was there
involuntarily the first time and got to see more of it than many, but
not as much as some. I was voluntarily there the second time, but will
quite honestly tell you that it wasn't about patriotism.

I've got no problem with people who served but didn't get to go
downtown.

Am I out of line asking, then, how you feel about the criticism of
Kerry over
his service in the theater, very often from people who weren't anywhere
near
Viet Nam when the shooting was going on? Any defense for his
contributions,
whatever they were? Or doesn't that count as downtown?

Kerry's personal service, and the manner in which he obtained his early
return from his combat tour, would never have been a subject of
discussion
had not he himself tried to impugn the Guard service of the current
President. When he did that, he opened the door to the questions of just
how
he received not one, not two, but three seperate flesh wounds,

That'd be three more than the President, or anybody half a world away,
got.

So what? Your concern was over the (gasp!) temerity of people questioning
Kerry's service--which would have been unlikely if he had not first opened
the door. And then whined when the issue flopped and questions regarding his
own actions during that timeframe started arising.


.....and how he actively worked to secure his own early return from the
theater under a Navy
rule that stated an individual who had suffered three wounds of *any*
severity level could be returned from the theater, "after consideration
of
his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis". It was
not
a hard-set three wounds and you are out policy. Now how does that
wording
apply to a guy who suffered a grand total of what, one or two lost duty
days
for *one* of his three wounds?

He satisfied the published rotation requirements. Anybody who thought
they were
too generous did a disservice to his fellow servicemen by failing to bring
it up
at the time.

Two of those wounds with no duty days lost...a whopping *four* month long
tour...and applied himself for that early redeployment...curiouser and
curiouser...


.....Not to mention the question of whether or not Kerry himself
actually
performed any reserve duty after his later (again
early) release from active duty. As to his contributions...is that what
you
call his testifying that US troops were conducting widespread atrocities
(using a speech drafted by RFK's former speechwriter, no less, and based
upon the since discredited, and Jane Fonda sponsored, "Winter Soldier
Investigation" "testimony") and criminal acts, accusations which were
never
validated even after further investigation by the services?

Never heard of My Lai, I guess.

My Lai was a terrible stain, and one which we admitted to. WSI has been
rather thoroughly discredited, on the other hand. Actually, the services did
attempt to investigate the accusations made during that little Jane
Fonda-sponsored (yes, she indeed did sponsor that "event") circus, and found
that *none* of the claims panned out--"witnesses" used false identities,
claiming to be combat vets when they were later found not to have been,
stories were created from thin air (one "witness", when approached by
investigators, admitted that his claims had actually been created by his
"Nation of Islam" buddies back here in the states), etc. I'd recommend you
read "Stolen Valor"--rather in-depth coverage of how the WSI just did not
stand up to the facts. But of course you won't read it--it would destroy
your cherished myths.

snip

As for his
testimony, he testified only as to so-called atrocities that he had heard
other
servicemen testify to under oath,

LOL! No, he used WSI "testimony", which was NOT conducted under any
legitimate oath, and which has been thoroughly discredited. Further, it
turns out his own testimony before that congressional committeee was
actually drafted for him by Adam Walinsky, a former speechwriter for RFK
(see Bukett, who while only discussing Kerry in passing does mention that
little tidbit).

along with his personally taking part in free
fire zone operations, which he considered to be an atrocity.

Yeah, and he also considered the use of .50 cal machine guns as an
"atrocity"--go figure.

As for reserve
duty after his early release, I don't remember it being questioned.....I
imagine
he did about the same as Bush did when he got out of the Texas ANG early.

Nice dodge! Mr. Kerry has questioned the President's duty performance in the
reserves, and folks like you (specifically) have parroted those claims and
requests for *proof* of his drill attendance. But oddly enough, you demand
no proof of Kerry's performance of any required reserve duty during the time
after his own *early release* from active duty. I guess the goose and the
gander get different treatment in your eye, eh?



.....I do have a problem with people who aggressively avoided any
kind of service,

I could provide a list of people who fit that bill who come from both
sides
of the aisle and, I, like you, have a problem with them. BTW, as a
sub-category, I gather that you don't have a problem with military
people
who one way or the other avoided the possibility of serving in a
combat
theater? Mr. Rumsfeld might find his name on my list there, not
because he
never got there, but rather because he didn't try when he could have as
opposed to how hawkish and war-like he became subsequently when he was
quite
safely entrenched behind a desk in Washington, D. C. or a Naval Reserve
outfit in the Washington suburbs.

By then he was a reservist who had already done his turn in the active
duty
barrel. You get no points for that attack.

That doesn't matter in the least, since that is precisely the
point.....that he
could have even as a reservist but didn't.

"Could have"? You claim the Navy was so hard up for personnel (especially
former S2 pilots) that they actually needed his active service at that time?
Or that reservists who have already performed an active duty tour, and have
not been called up for further active duty, have some obligation to run out
and yell, "Me, me! Send me!"? You *do* understand that the reason we have
reserve forces is so that people who have normal, full-time civilian
occupations serve their country when *called* upon?

Becoming a hawk isn't hard when you
know that you won't have to expose yourself to the potentially painful
possibility of having to pay the price.

Illogical construct. Oddly, I don't recall you attacking Clinton when he
took the rather dove-like Somalia mission and turned it into a "Get Aidid"
fiasco--where was your indignation about Clinton becoming so hawkish in view
of *his* personal military service history?



.....with people who undermined their brothers-in-arms,

I think we can admit to a difference of opinion there. I don't
consider
people who attempted to shut down a war that apparently could not be
won as
undermining their brothers-in-arm when, in fact, they were only
attempting
to save the lives of those of their brethren still engaged in a losing
war.
I wasn't one of them at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight, I
can
see where I was wrong and they were right.

Whoah. Firstly, Kerry's conversion to raving anti-Vietnam critic came
only
after he found he needed an "issue" that would get him some
publicity--read
BG Burkett's "Stolen Valor", published (1998) well before the current
political campaign began:

"Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. Friends
said
that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not
visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. "I thought of him as a rather
normal
vet," a friend said to a reporter, "glad to be out but not terribly
uptight
about the war." Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his
political
ambitions called him "a very charismatic fellow looking for a good
issue."

Given his flip-flop on the medals-tossing issue ("They weren't really
mine"), this adds up to a man with political ambitions who jumped on the
VVAW bandwagon as a way of getting himself recognized, not because he
came
home with a burning ambition to get US troops out of Vietnam. Had the
latter
been his objective, why did he resort to making unsubstantiated claims
about
widespread atrocities?

I don't think the claims he made were unsubstantiated, since they were all
based
on sworn tesitimony

No, they were not. Please show us where the WSI testimony was "sworn". Then
tell us hwy, when investigators approached those who offered up "testimony"
at WSI, they backtracked and claimed that thier own knowledge was
secondhand, or that they had amde up thier stories. Come on, you have made
the claim that WSI testimony was legit--got anything to back that up?

of returned servicemen who had either participated in those
activities or had observed others doing those things.

Nope. When asked about it by investigators, they invariably either fell back
upon "well, I *heard* this story...", or even, "well, this guy from Nation
of Islam actually was the one who told me to say that..." Or, even worse,
they founfd that the indivisual in question had never served in combat, or
even in Vietnam. Peruse pages 10-136 of "Stolen Valor" (heck, even a decent
websearch will find articles disputing the validity of WSI).

As for it being
widespread, I think that would be your characterization of it, not his.
Show me
a transcript where he's quoted as saying that everybody was doing that
sort of
stuff. I don't think one exists, but take a stab at it if you think it's
worth
the effort.

God, you are so *easy*... from his testimony:

"...****not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis
with the full awareness of officers at all levels****...We fought using
weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream
of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a
non-third-world people theater..."

Yep, sounds like he is being rather widesoread to me. Interestingly, his
campaign staff now refers to dodge the issue of whether or not Kerry still
stands by the WSI accusations...
"A spokeswoman for Kerry's campaign, Stephanie Cutter, said Friday, "If you
look at that testimony, he was reporting what he had heard at the Winter
Soldier investigations. He was reporting this. Does he stand by what he
heard? Since that day, it has been widely reported that terrible things
happened in Vietnam. If you read the testimony in its entirety, you see that
he was paying great tribute to those who were serving."

www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/forkerry22.htm

Gee, is it just me, or did she never answer her own question , "Does he
stand by what he heard?"


....And why did he have that speechwriter draft his testimony?

I don't know why he would do that, if in fact he did.

Adam Walinsky was his name; wrote speeches for RFK. It was no secret that he
and Kerry were close (Kerry, a private pilot, reportedly flew him around to
attend antiwar meetings), and Burkett does include that Walinsky drafted his
testimony, and rehearsed him on it. No denials from the Kerry camp.

Perhaps he just wanted to
make sure that what he said would be accurate, and not colored by the
emotional
strain of giving such testimony.

LOL! Yeah, that's a good one--do a Google on "Winter Soldier Investigation"
and then come back and tell me Kerry was seriously concerned about
"accuracy". Geeze.

Brooks


.......and with people who claim to be something that they are not.
(Those
aren't all the same person in any of my statements.)

And there's another category of people whose names would fill our list
and
who come from both sides of the aisle. Is there any point in pursuing
that?

George Z.