On 08 Sep 2004 22:06:06 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

An opinion, but it's yours.

I was watching Buchanon and Scarborough skewer Bush on his show yesterday - the
pair of them were ticking off the list of what was wrong with Bush, from the
Conservative standpoint. It was almost exactly the same list of problems I have
with him, and it was not a short list.

Pat Buchanan? Gimme a break. He went way over the edge during his 2000
Republican/Independent/Reform/who'll have me candidacy. But, they get
paid to enterain, don't they.

I am now a 'reluctanct democrat' because I served under Bush Sr. and I was lied
to by that man and his circle of friends.

Your experience is formative, but to become a "reluctanct" democrat
because you were unhappy with Bush 41 policy seems to overlook the
essential difference between the two party ideologies. One party seeks
government solutions to social problems and a redistribution of
wealth, while the other party prefers individual responsibility and
minimal government intervention.

(Admittedly, in forming a myriad of policies that seek to create an
appeal to a winning election majority there is considerable overlap
between the two ideologies.)

I know him to be otherwise
honorable, but this was a personal thing. That led me to quit the Republican
party after years of support. If not for his stand on abortion rights and his
desire to incorporate his religion into his presidency, I would have returned
to the GOP to support Bob Dole; I remain estranged from my party of choice.

Sort of makes you a Republican version of Zell Miller. But, if you
were really a Republican, how can becoming a Democrat today fit your
basic idea of the role of government in society?

When this current guy surfaced, it was usually as some report of a drunk
incident or other tacky public faux pas that embarrassed his family.

When did he "surface"? George W. gave up drinking more than 20 years
ago, about the time he was rising to public prominence.


Then, in
front of God and everyone, he took over the presidency when it was clear there
was no national mandate - yet he alienated that other half of the country by
ramrodding his own agenda through in a manner that has made us reviled around
the world.

You'll need to admit that once elected by our Constitutional process
(Electoral College not popular vote) then, by definition, there is
sufficient mandate to govern. Recognize also that a President doesn't
rule by fiat, but requires legislation that is subject to the
checks-and-balances of the Constitution.

As for "reviled around the world"--that seems to be a bit of
hyperbole. Seems that there are still literally millions around the
world who would love to come here and become citizens.

When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission
Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt,

As a former Navy type yourself, it is surprising that you never
encountered a similar "Mission Accomplished" banner on return from a
combat deployment--particularly won in which your ship suffered no
combat aircraft losses. It further seems reasonable that a President
who is, in fact, a rated USAF pilot would be able to wear the Nomex
and come aboard in an aircraft.


and he got Powell to perjure himself in
front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick.

One perjures in a court of law. Neither the UN nor the Congress have a
perjury issue.

He told me and everyone
else that field commanders in the Iraqi Army were capable of deploying those
agents. He showed us photos of tractor trailors, and pronounced them mobile
chemical warfare labs. A dozen other statements that have now been shown
wrong. Powell is an honorable man, that Bush and Cheney got to lie, for their
purposes. He is a Republican I could vote for in a heartbeat, after I heard
him explain why he did what that.

One can be mistaken without being a liar. When intelligence estimates
from a variety of sources reach the same conclusions it isn't lying to
use those conclusions for decison-making or concensus building. The
US, the Brits, and even the French all thought so. Hell, even Kerry
was convinced.

I have watched with disbelief as my country sank into the hands of the same
Bonesmen that lied to us last time (remember Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?)

If it's Bonesmen you object to, don't examine Kerry's Yale years too
closely. He's one as well.

Kerry has a hell of a lot more leadership behind him than GWB had when he took
over the White House - warts and all, I can't see the country plunging to its
doom simply because yet another career politician took over, but a few more
years under George, Dick, and Don is about the worst thing I can imagine.
Well, maybe Gore - that would be worse.

I guess you weren't covered by the rapist, baby-killer, war-criminal
rhetoric. Lucky you. Yeah, that would be my choice for a guy I'd go to
war with....NOT.

The folks that served _with_ Kerry said he earned the medals and if others that
weren't there, _on his boat_ disagree, it shouldn't matter, since the Navy
reviewed all the details at the time, and awarded them to him.

You should know as well as most that simply being "on the boat" is not
necessarily knowing what his job was, what his responsibility was,
what his performance was, etc. Certainly "on the boat" is good, but in
formation is equally good, on the mission is equally good, supervising
is equally good, in the chain-of-command is equally good for
evaluating a leader.


That the
Republicans would now get the Navy to open a formal review of those medals is
deeply insulting, to everyone that every got one. If I disagree with the
current administration, does that mean the Navy will now revoke my Navy Comm?

I've got a Silver Star (pause for Art to "sheesh") and I don't object
to the Navy conducting a formal review. Why is this any different than
the Dems demanding that Bush' records be examined? In fact, why hasn't
Kerry signed off on a DD-180 to release the full records?

Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that is
a poor judge of character.

C'mon. He was in "combat" for four months and then bailed out on his
crew. His first "year" tour on the Gridley he was in-theater for five
weeks of his year posting.

Bush's characterization of his service ("I fulfilled all my obligations")
really doesn't toe in with what his documents show - and its bothersome to me
that these records have to come dribbling out a couple at a time, each
accompanied by a polite, "sorry, honestly, this is the last of them," note.

The "characterization" is as much from people with no clue about the
military or the relationship of the ANG to the NG to the USAF.

To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know why he
flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102?

No problem there at all. He had to train in the airplane. That means
he flew the two-seater during operational qualfication. Every F-102
equipped unit had a couple of "tubs" and if they weren't used for
check-out or periodic check rides, they could fill the flying
schedule.

That is one ugly
bird: it now sits in a tiny air and naval museum in Del Rio, Texas, all but
forgotten. Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
available. That two seater was supposedly not that great in the air and I
wonder why he spent so much time in it. Curious.

So, do you suppose that someone qualifies in a single-seat fighter by
just going out and firing one up because they prefer single seat?
There are a number of single-seat aircraft with no 2-seat variant
(A-10 currently) and back in the old days, the F-86 and F-84, but for
most one-holers there are a couple of 2-seaters around.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org