General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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...

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

Subject: 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

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

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

Subject: 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