General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry

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

Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/2/04 7:27 AM Pacific Standard Time

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?

I got them at Big Springs AAB in Texas. But I wore them over France, Italy,
Belgium Holland and Germany What combat zones did Bush enter?.I'd say one
bombardier who saw the elephant many time over is worth ten pilots who never
saw a damn thing. But what are we really talkng abou, war or politics?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 02 Feb 2004 16:06:51 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/2/04 7:27 AM Pacific Standard Time

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?

I got them at Big Springs AAB in Texas.

Read again, slowly. "Where did you get your PILOT'S wings." Sorry, but
thats a cheap shot. Won't do it again.

But I wore them over France, Italy,
Belgium Holland and Germany

Must have been out of uniform. Thought you were supposed to be wearing
the wings with the bomb in the middle, or maybe the ones with the
snakes, not the ones with the radiator.


What combat zones did Bush enter?.I'd say one
bombardier who saw the elephant many time over is worth ten pilots who never
saw a damn thing. But what are we really talkng abou, war or politics?

Ahh, we've had a breakthrough!! We are talking about politics.
Therefore, where did you get your political science degree(s)?

Seriously, here, we are talking about politics and the behavior of
politicians, so your oft repeated questioning of combat experience is
irrelevant. One can have a political opinion without combat
experience. And, one can have combat experience without a correct
political opinion.



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 8:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Read again, slowly. "Where did you get your PILOT'S wings." Sorry, but
thats a cheap shot. Won't do it again.

Thank you.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

I got them at Big Springs AAB in Texas. But I wore them over France,
Italy,
Belgium Holland and Germany What combat zones did Bush enter?.I'd say one
bombardier who saw the elephant many time over is worth ten pilots who
never
saw a damn thing. But what are we really talkng abou, war or politics?


You got pilot's wings but served as a bombardier?

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...

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:


After debunking charges of Bush's desertion? Of course the NYT can be
accused of being conservative!

Ed, there is no point discussing politics with Art. He is a little bit
bonkers on the subject, especially when the politician is George Bush.

I kill-filed Art six months ago for that reason. The newsgroup has
been more enjoyable since. And if he does say something interesting,
it's bound to be quoted by someone


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com