Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 02:53:31 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:


Ed, the number of personal accounts that aren't self-serving attempts to re-write history can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Otherwise, there
would be no reason to write them.

Can I assume that one of those fingers is for WTR and you've got one
left over for Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights? If you can find some
self-service there or some revisionism, I'm ready to take my hits.

My point was that ANY personal account, no matter how big an attempt is made to be objective, will by its nature be somewhat self-serving. Virtually
everyone sees themselves through a favorable filter. As for revisionism, don't your accounts conflict with and therefore potentially revise other
accounts, official or otherwise? 'Revisionism' is the whole point of 'history' -- if you've got nothing new to add to the existing accounts (which may
cause those accounts to be revised), then why bother?

I agree that Broughton in "GD" is an extreme example of a man with a chip on his shoulder, and 'methinks he doth
protest too much'. However, since we once spent a long time discussing your attitude towards Broughton's actions as opposed to, say, Fred Tracy's
private jaunt into China with you in tow, and we know we disagree, there's no point in rehashing old arguments. Actually, in "WTR" you seem to have
come moved much closer to my point of view on Tracy.

The essential difference between Broughton and Tracy is that Broughton
engaged in a cover-up and lied point-blank to his superiors when
caught. Tracy may have reached too far in our China incursion, and I
certainly didn't like being endangered unnecessarily for that purpose,
but he didn't falsify or prevaricate.

Because he didn't get caught. None of you volunteered the information that Tracy knowingly threw the RoE out the window, even though every single one of
you knew that what you were doing was wrong. Not to mention he violated an international border for no better reason than he wanted to get another MiG -
he apparently didn't care whose MiG, nor the potential harm his actions might cause to the U.S. (would have been interesting if any of you guys had been
shot down and captured) - he was on a purely personal junket to add another Mig to his bag, which couldn't possibly be worth the potential harm, and which
had absolutely nothing to do with accomplishing the mission you guys were sent to do. I call that reprehensible behavior, and if anyone deserved being
court-martialled and cashiered, it was Tracy. Unless you have changed your mind, and now believe that it's okay for the military in a democracy to make
policy rather than carry out the policy of the civilian government?

Guy