AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

WalterM140 July 13th 04 03:21 AM

Have you ever seen more than one?

Senator Kerry has three.



Orval Fairbairn July 13th 04 03:35 AM

In article ,
kontiki wrote:

Very well stated Sir. I could distill it down to its simplest terms:

The Demos (lead by Kerry) are running towards socialism while the
Repubs (lead by Bush) are jogging towards the same ultimate destination.

Neal Boortz (boortz.com) put it succintly on one of his radio show one
day: Today's Democrats are where the Socialists were in 1960, while
today's Republicans are where the Democrats were in 1960. The
Libertatians are where the Republicans were in 1960.

Sam Byrams July 13th 04 04:09 AM

One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,
fourteen months after UPT and has not flown as PIC or SIC since.
Neither military or elsewise. (Not counting the ride out to the boat
of late.)

Well, your inclusion of the "if I understand" is the bailout clause
for spouting a lot of crap. Learning to fly in the military at
government expense is quite simply the best way to get the best
aviation training in the world. Qualifying after UPT in an operational
single-seat jet takes, on average another eight to ten months and then
becoming operationally ready takes another six months.

Whether one flies as PIC again after completion of military service is
totally irrelevant. I have not flown as PIC or in any level of control
of an aircraft since my retirement from active duty in 1987. Doesn't
mean crap.

He's certainly under no obligation to fly after his service
agreement, the point is _he didn't do that_. They got less than a year
and a half out of their half-million dollar investment (in 1972). And
tell me someone in his position with his quals would have got the deal
he got if his father hadn't been a war hero congressman. Apparently
his UPT performance should have put him in multi or helos: and
normally someone without specifically in demand attributes should have
had to go active duty to get UPT at that time anyway. Yes, that's as I
understand it and no, I wasn't there. I'm waiting for someone to prove
to me he could have got that commission and training slot with his
academics in the National Guard at that time if his name had been Joe
Bagodonuts. I was thirteen years old when he went to UPT, old enough
to remember public sentiment was rapidly turning against the war-and
bitterly so-even in Dogpatch USA.

As far as not being able to afford to fly-my neighbor drives a UPS
truck and he bought a Decathlon, cash, in February. He's trying to get
me to sign off on a top overhaul he wants to do, since I'm an A&P. I'm
not about to, and since I haven't used my ticket in fifteen years
(since I got it) it wouldn't be legal anyway. But in America the
middle class can fly if they want to.

Now, mind you, I don't like Bush or Kerry as a candidate. Bush was
born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Kerry is also
apparently something of a rich kid, married Big Ketchup, Ivy League
(yecch), and to top it off is closely associated with a family I
detest and which makes my skin crawl for many reasons (not least of
which the same reason a certain baseball player hated them for every
day of the last 36 years of his life). I can tell you right now I'm
voting third party.

Voting third party is your privilege. But, you should note that the

government will continue despite your effective lack of participation.
Doesn't mean crap.

My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is
not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state.

But-be honest-is there any reason I should prefer Bush over Kerry
from an aviation standpoint? Bush, a nonpilot as far as I'm

has done nothing for aviation in this country. Kerry isn't likely to
either, but how much worse could he be?

Voting from an "aviation standpoint" doesn't make any sense at all.

Voting from a principles, performance, and ideological standpoint
does. How much worse could he be? Gimme a break.

They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote
Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things
up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long
run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict.

Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even

MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch
of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that lesser
level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to

He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.

And the civil warjet guys are killing
themselves at a rate that would have embarrassed the Air Force during
the glory days of "Every Man A Tiger".

Excuse me, but you obviously haven't read "Every Man A Tiger." It's

about Chuck Horner as the Air Component Commander of Desert Storm. The
lead-in chapters about Gen. Horner's early days flying F-105s in
Rolling Thunder are anything but glory days.

The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s
era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet
program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where
Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead
six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.(And a
Navion owner-I took my O&P on it,and he would have let me take my
instrument rating checkride in it too,but the glideslope died and he
left it that way.) Herbert Molloy Mason's book on early 70s era UPT
mentions it in passing, disparagingly, as having been replaced by
"Professionalism". Great T-38 photos. Made me really, really envy
Chuck Thornton (until I met the prick).

Ian MacLure July 13th 04 04:23 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in

"WalterM140" wrote in message

Of course if its discovered that any of those were self
inflicted as it is alleged that Baby Killer Kerry did...

Seriously now. Have you got even a shred of proof of that?

The following letter appeared in the USA Today "Letters" section on
June 25th last, page 8A:


Manna from heaven so to speak.
Wunnerful ain't it.


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

Ian MacLure July 13th 04 04:36 AM

(Regnirps) wrote in


sails when I joined the Navy, but I never knew Pershing.

But you may have known the grandson who was killed in Vietnam.


__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Steven P. McNicoll July 13th 04 04:41 AM

"WalterM140" wrote in message

This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
16 months:


It does not show that he was AWOL.

Steven P. McNicoll July 13th 04 04:42 AM

"WalterM140" wrote in message

Senator Kerry has three.

Two of which he may have earned.

Regnirps July 13th 04 07:28 AM

(B2431) wrote:

The "embellishments" are REQUIRED. They are called "devices." If I were still
active duty an was not wearing the V on my bronze star or oakleaves on my
purple heart, good conduct, longevity etc, stars on my national defense and

sevice medal I would have been out of uniform.

Yes, the devices embellish the medal.

My grandfather received his in the mail in 1935. I guess he was out of uniform
for a looong time.

-- Charlie Springer

D. Strang July 13th 04 07:41 AM

"Regnirps" wrote

Yes, the devices embellish the medal.

Maybe, but the device (oak leaf, or star) represent an additional medal.

While it is true you only get one full size medal per customer, and the
rest are devices, you are only making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Bill Shatzer July 13th 04 07:47 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" ) writes:


Criticism of Kerry's Purple Heart is just

Retired U.S. army colonel David Hackworth defends presidential
candidate John Kerry's Purple Hearts. He correctly notes that they are
awarded for a wound that necessitates treatment by a medical officer and
that is received in action with an enemy ('The meaning of a Purple Heart,"
The Forum, June 16).

I was the commanding officer to whom Kerry reported his injury on Dec.
3, 1968. I had confirmed that there was no hostile fire that night and that
Kerry had simply wounded himself with an M-79 grenade round he fired too

Basically crap, Steven. Army Regulations re the Purple Heart:

(b) Individuals wounded or killed as a result of
"friendly fire" in the "heat of battle" will be
awarded the Purple Heart as long as the "friendly"
projectile or agent was released with the full
intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy
troops or equipment.

I'd assume the Navy regulations are essentially similar.

In any case, if I recall correctly, it was freakin' -impossible-
to wound oneself by firing an M-79 round "too close".

An M-79 round had to travel a certain distance before arming itself
and that distance was greater than the "kill radius" of the round.

If one fired an M-79 round "too close", it would simply impact with
a thud and no "boom".

Presenting a possible problem for the ordinance disposal folks who
came along later but no particular problem for the firer.


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.