View Single Post
  #30  
Old July 8th 06, 07:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Top Gun CUNNINGHAM: I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my office.

On 8 Jul 2006 10:31:26 -0700, "
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:

Lemme see, is that a reference to the incumbent president?



DUH !!

The one who
spent three times as long in military service and qualified to fly
single-seat, single-engine jets?


Yeah, much of it in absentia (stateside no less), and who didn't show
for a flight physical for unexplained reasons.


You might want to look beyond the media talking points. Even ANG
pilots are full time active duty for all of their UPT and operational
training. They then qualify for mission-ready in their unit of
assignment. GWB handled all of that for nearly five years.

The flight physical issue is a red herring. His TX unit was
re-equipping with a different aircraft and a different mission. He
wasn't flying when he got attached to the Montgomery ANG unit which
was also transitioning from RF-84 to RF-4C and had NEITHER TYPE in
place at the period in question. In other words, no flying
opportunity, no requirement for a flight physical.

The one with the Yale degree and the
Harvard MBA?


A legacy.


Undergraduate admission is unquestionably a legacy issue. At Yale,
Bush got about the same grades as Kerry. No problem. But, Harvard
doesn't issue MBA's on legacy credentials.

Or, is that somehow implying that flying military fighters is a simple
task? In combat?


Not saying it is simple, but it's not rocket science, either. He never
flew in combat...never even saw combat...never went to Nam (unlike his
last opponent).


No, he didn't go to Vietnam. At the time he went to UPT, the F-102
(from various ANG units) WAS being rotated through SEA and the
possibility for assignment existed. By the time he was operationally
ready, the aircraft was no longer being used in the limited mission it
had in SEA. Somehow, not even I can tell what is going to be a
situation two or more years in advance during a war.


I've encountered some unsophisticated tactical aviators along the way,
and even some folks populating fighter cockpits who were in no way,
shape or form, qualified to carry the title, Fighter Pilot.


I didn't know you'd met W.


I haven't met him, but I'm a close friend of the guy who was GWB's
T-38 Instructor Pilot at in UPT. The guy flew F-105s with me as a 1/Lt
and we both went into the training business after our 100 missions
tours. He testifies to GWB's capabilities in the fighter business and
I've no reason to doubt him. He's been to the White House twice in the
last three years on personal visits.

But I
don't know a single one that I would characterize as "profoundly
stupid".

You got any experience in that line?


No. Unlike you, I don't have any experience being profoundly stupid.


We might get some objective evaluators here in the news group to
validate that now. I think you don't give your experience enough
credit.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com