General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry

On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who worked
under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthr...9&perpage=25&h

He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy about
everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his mistakes.
Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Tom Cervo
writes
quoting Hackworth
Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo
campaign when
I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a "Perfumed
Prince."
Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I
was
wrong-the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William
Cohen,
U.S. SecDef at the time.

snip


"British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
Queen's Orders.

Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about anything--IMO
he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while Clinton &
Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
subsequently revisit the issue, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should have
heard of at the time).

http://www.balkanpeace.org/hed/archi...0/hed207.shtml

news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ europe/newsid_359000/359481.stm

1st ID(M) was pulled from the V Corps WFX and began readying for either
contingency (ground invasion or stabilization operations); engineers started
rather openly evaluating bridges and transport nets in Albania and
Macedonia, and TF Hawk grew from a simple AH-64 deployment into a sizeable
combined arms force, with armored, mech infantry, artillery, and engineer
support. No, we did not activate reservists at that point, but then again,
unlike other contingency operations fought outside Europe, this one was
happening at NATO's back door, and USAREUR was not exactly destitute of
resources to support a one or two division effort without having to resort
to major mobilization.

(Out of interest, just why was Clark condemned to rely
on the UK's famously reluctant, fearful and combat-averse Parachute
Regiment, when he presumably had his choice of US and other NATO units
to dispatch?)


Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

He has also spent his ire at other US targets--he was especially deriscive
of the National Guard (though he has apparently piped down on that one over
the last year or two). Just make sure you don't shoot him where he wore that
unauthorized ranger tab he was bragging about...

Brooks

"Tom Cervo" wrote in message
...
On a different aviation message board (flightinfo.com), someone who
worked
under Clark at SOCOM related a story about Clark.


http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthr...9&perpage=25&h

He spells his name kind of funny--or does he have one? I'm not crazy about
everything Hackworth says but he stands by his words and admits his
mistakes.
Not signing your name means you don't have to do either.

I disagree. Hackworth delightedly attempted to publicly gore the then-CNO
ADM Boorda over a "V" device, then it was disclosed that Hackworth himself
was wearing and bragging about a Ranger Tab he had never actually earned--he
was a bit slow in 'fessing up to that one, and when he did it came out in
about the same words that he was so happily condemning Boorda for using
("Gee, I *thought* I was entitled to that..."). As far as I am concerned, he
is a pretty worthless source.

Brooks

Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/2/04 8:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 02 Feb 2004 15:59:51 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 2/2/04 7:31 AM Pac

es, we've recognized repeatedly that Kerry
holds a commission. Surprised he didn't recall the appropriateness of
wearing ribbons with fatigue uniforms.

Ribbons on fatigues??? Who the hell did that?

John Kerry in the oft-published picture of his VVAW activities. He
wore them during his anti-war testimony to the Senate (imagine the
appropriateness of appearing before a Senate committee in rumpled
fatigues), and during the famous medal-throwing protest.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Sheesh.


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

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

Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 2/2/04 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time

Dan! Don't you remember rule no 2? Never volunteer?

oxmoron1

Now you tell me. (sheesh)


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 Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:02:31 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"British timidity"? Just how many reservists was the US mobilising for a
ground offensive into Kosovo? I seem to recall the option being
categorically ruled out in the US... but we were getting ready to sign
Queen's Orders.

Personally, I could care less what Hackworth has to say about anything--IMO
he is a bit like James Dunnigan and Tom Clancy, in that he apparently
enamored with the sound of his own voice and impresses himself if nobody
else. But Paul, you do need to go back and check your facts--while Clinton &
Company had indeed ruled out the ground option early on (rating as one of
his administration's bigger military mistakes--it was stupid to give
Milosevich the additional breathing room it afforded him), they did
subsequently revisit the issue, and they *did* announce that it was back
into play (that latter cite is one that even you folks in the UK should have
heard of at the time).

Agreed, but then this change was a direct result of a change in
context which included *British* pressure to reconsider the use of
ground troops. When it comes down to it, the British were pushing
earlier for committing a force on the ground if necessary, and were
putting their money where their mouth was. I should know, I was
getting prepped for mobilisation at exactly that time, and I knew
where I'd be going. So, while I take your point, talking about
"British timidity" over Kosovo is, frankly, ********. When it came
down to it, the British goverment were displaying more nerve and
willingness to do the business than the US adminsitration.

As for Pristina airport, I would like to know precisely how many dead
Russian soldiers killed in the defence of their sacred Slavic brethren
the US hawks would have actually demanded as the price of stilling
their criticism. If they couldn't see the radical change of
cost-benefit analysis involved in that escalation of posturing, they
should read a little more about the defensive Slavic pretensions of
the Russians and little events like World War One.

[snip Hackworth; every retired Colonel has more opinions than sense]

Gavin Bailey

Paul J. Adam wrote:

Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
isn't it?

A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
"effective" under such a test, no?


SMH

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
about
the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he deliberately
failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.

Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.

Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt so
insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of every
100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking about
from the words I used.

I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
statement was quite clear.

When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
strap on an F-16.

I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: General Patton on Lieutenant Kerry
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 2/3/04 7:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 17:04:07 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...


Without nit picking too much, why don't we use the past tense in talking
about
the ratings held by the Bush family. Daddy's expired when he was
demobilized at the end of WWII, and Junior's expired when he
deliberately
failed to update his flight physical. Just one small difference.

Don't know about yours, but my wings don't expire, whether I get a
physical or not. Neither does my similar, but not as highly valued FAA
license. They are lifetime awards. The currency of a flight physical
merely enables me to exercise the privileges. No expirations.

Gee, as if I didn't know that. I didn't say that anybody's wings
expired.....I was talking about the recipient's entitlement to pilot
military aircraft. Your privileges expire when your physical
expires.....but you already knew that, and I'm surprised that you felt so
insecure as to feel obliged to parse my meaning when at least 99 of every
100 former military pilots could figure out exactly what I was talking
about
from the words I used.

I think your statement was "'past tense when talking about the ratings
held". My rating as a pilot hasn't expired, nor my FAA license. Your
statement was quite clear.

When you leave active duty, whether your physical is current or not,
you lose the "entitlement to pilot military aircraft". I can't walk
out to the flight line at Buckley, even with a current physical and
strap on an F-16.

I think the parsing is coming from your side. And, piloting military
aircraft isn't an "entitlement." It's an earned privilege.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8



Yeah but once you earn that privilege you are damn well going to fly whether
you like it or not. (grin)



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