Donald Trump tells Bush. "You're fired"

Art copied the "headline" on the AOL home page then commented:

Trump fires Bush over the Iraq war. Don't ya love it? (grin)

Art, YGTBSM! A couple of days ago you said you weren't subscribed to this group
anymore. Now here you are back more than ever.
Sure glad you're back, less aircraft stuff to review and more political ranting
and raving to weed through.

Rick

Subject: Donald Trump tells Bush. "You're fired"
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 7/14/2004 1:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Art copied the "headline" on the AOL home page then commented:

Trump fires Bush over the Iraq war. Don't ya love it? (grin)

Art, YGTBSM! A couple of days ago you said you weren't subscribed to this
group
anymore. Now here you are back more than ever.
Sure glad you're back, less aircraft stuff to review and more political
ranting
and raving to weed through.

Rick



Sorry ol' pal.Once I saw the Trump story on AOL I couldn't stay out. But I'll
try to stay out from now on for your sake






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

Art wrote:
Sorry ol' pal.Once I saw the Trump story on AOL I couldn't stay out. But I'll
try to stay out from now on for your sake



Art, I don't care whether you stay or go.
Your relevant aviation posts are entertaining and informative.
Your war and mine have almost nothing in common except people died, were
maimed, etc. Methods, equipment and reasons were different.
It seems that since you announced that you had left the group the number of
your posts have remained constant. I have wondered several times if there isn't
more than one Art Kramer posting, but the address was unchanged.
I am tired of the insane political ranting and raving by all parties in this
group.

Rick Clark
Oxmoron1

Subject: Donald Trump tells Bush. "You're fired"
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 7/15/2004 7:18 AM Paci

I am tired of the insane political ranting and raving by all parties in this
group.

Rick Clark
Oxmoron1

Political talk is ok as long as it is balanced by military aviation matrerial.
What is annoying is when some only post political stuff never anything to do
with military aviation. Maybe that is because they have no contributions to
make and no experience in military aviation. Your objections seem to revolve
around only tjhose who disagree with you. There is more than one political
viewpoint in his country. Have you noticed? Ed has been posting a lot of
political stuiff. I noticed you have never posted any objections to his
material. Wonder why? BTW. do you have anything to post military aviation?


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

Art wrote:
Political talk is ok as long as it is balanced by military aviation
matrerial.
What is annoying is when some only post political stuff never anything to do
with military aviation. Maybe that is because they have no contributions to
make and no experience in military aviation. Your objections seem to revolve
around only tjhose who disagree with you. There is more than one political
viewpoint in his country. Have you noticed? Ed has been posting a lot of
political stuiff. I noticed you have never posted any objections to his
material. Wonder why? BTW. do you have anything to post military
aviation?

Political talk, when it is repetitive, inane BS (not necessarily your comments)
wastes time and detracts from the basic slant of this newsgroup.
Political viewpoints are different and yes there are more than one. Each has
it's place.
Ed's (BUFFDRvr,etal) stuff does include some of his political views, but he can
usually back up his position with fact or a quotable source. I don't
necessarily agree with everything Ed says but he doesn't over shadow his
comments with repetitive non verfiable opinion presented as fact (again not
necessarily your posts). I do send comments to Ed if we are in total
disagreement.
I do post to this group when I have facts that are relevant (well, most of the
time) to avaition, specifcally low level recce, overwater naviagtion and
celestial naviagtion, B-57, C-97 and C-124 aircraft. If you will remember it
was me who described the periscopic sextant to you several years ago.
I defer to you regarding bombing the bridges in Europe and bomb/nav proceedures
during WWII. I will question you concerning what I perceive as erronious
information concerning the things I know about.
I will defer to you concerning flak over Europe and the "Hun in the Sun"
I will question you about 2000 mile naviagtion legs when nothing on the
freaking airplane works. But usually I will agree with you in this area.
I will defer to you regarding the ballistic charistics of WWII era bombs. I
will question you regarding the capabilities of the aerial cameras in use
during the 60's and early 70's.
I will agree with you concerning the driftmeter and "Double Drift"
capabilities.
I will defer to you regarding shooting skeet at the Nelles Gun Club. I will
question you regarding "Fireballing Wake Island".
I will question you conerning blowing half the jug stackbolts while reversing
props in the tropics because you have never experienced it.
I will question you concerning "GRID' navigation because I know you never used
it.
I will also comment on the RF-4, C-47, C-54, B-47, T-29, and EA-3 Skywarrior
because I know a little bit about them and have time in them.
I will question the dumb butts who question Bush being AWOL from the Denver
Reserve Center because they don't know (or won't admit) that it was a record
center not an active training/ops facility for regularly scheduled Reserve/ANG
functions.
I will question the motives of Bush, etal for Iraq, but not necessarily in this
venue. Most of it has nothing to do with with aviation, except that it probably
will affect our national security for years to come.
I will question Kerry's motives and record in Vietnam and since, but again not
here. It doesn't have squat to do with aviation except possibly with military
budgets and strength.
I will admire the grioundcrews here and overseas during all the wars. I will
admire the poor trash hauler who spent 10,000 hours droning around the world
because someone has to do it.
I will admire my father who spent 28 years in the Air National Guard and Active
Duty in three wars and countless callups. Who also never got out of the States
during WWII because his Squadron/Group/Wing Commander wouldn't release him.
I will admire my brother, the LTC retired, who jumped out of perfectly good
airplanes, flew dinky helicopters and risked his butt to retrieve people from
landing zones in a war that I should have questioned 35 years ago.
I will admire the ANG crews who spent over 50% of their time on Active Duty
last year.
I will question the Major Harry Schmidts who screw up and kill people and won't
admit it. I will question his superiors who should have trained and supervised
him more properly. I think he would have screwed up whether he was Regular or
ANG.

Your turn.

Rick Clark
MFE

Subject: Too Long Donald Trump tells Bush. "You're fired"
From: (OXMORON1)
Date: 7/15/2004 9:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Art wrote:
Political talk is ok as long as it is balanced by military aviation
matrerial.
What is annoying is when some only post political stuff never anything to do
with military aviation. Maybe that is because they have no contributions to
make and no experience in military aviation. Your objections seem to revolve
around only tjhose who disagree with you. There is more than one political
viewpoint in his country. Have you noticed? Ed has been posting a lot of
political stuiff. I noticed you have never posted any objections to his
material. Wonder why? BTW. do you have anything to post military
aviation?

Political talk, when it is repetitive, inane BS (not necessarily your
comments)
wastes time and detracts from the basic slant of this newsgroup.
Political viewpoints are different and yes there are more than one. Each has
it's place.
Ed's (BUFFDRvr,etal) stuff does include some of his political views, but he
can
usually back up his position with fact or a quotable source. I don't
necessarily agree with everything Ed says but he doesn't over shadow his
comments with repetitive non verfiable opinion presented as fact (again not
necessarily your posts). I do send comments to Ed if we are in total
disagreement.
I do post to this group when I have facts that are relevant (well, most of
the
time) to avaition, specifcally low level recce, overwater naviagtion and
celestial naviagtion, B-57, C-97 and C-124 aircraft. If you will remember it
was me who described the periscopic sextant to you several years ago.
I defer to you regarding bombing the bridges in Europe and bomb/nav
proceedures
during WWII. I will question you concerning what I perceive as erronious
information concerning the things I know about.
I will defer to you concerning flak over Europe and the "Hun in the Sun"
I will question you about 2000 mile naviagtion legs when nothing on the
freaking airplane works. But usually I will agree with you in this area.
I will defer to you regarding the ballistic charistics of WWII era bombs. I
will question you regarding the capabilities of the aerial cameras in use
during the 60's and early 70's.
I will agree with you concerning the driftmeter and "Double Drift"
capabilities.
I will defer to you regarding shooting skeet at the Nelles Gun Club. I will
question you regarding "Fireballing Wake Island".
I will question you conerning blowing half the jug stackbolts while reversing
props in the tropics because you have never experienced it.
I will question you concerning "GRID' navigation because I know you never
used
it.
I will also comment on the RF-4, C-47, C-54, B-47, T-29, and EA-3 Skywarrior
because I know a little bit about them and have time in them.
I will question the dumb butts who question Bush being AWOL from the Denver
Reserve Center because they don't know (or won't admit) that it was a record
center not an active training/ops facility for regularly scheduled
Reserve/ANG
functions.
I will question the motives of Bush, etal for Iraq, but not necessarily in
this
venue. Most of it has nothing to do with with aviation, except that it
probably
will affect our national security for years to come.
I will question Kerry's motives and record in Vietnam and since, but again
not
here. It doesn't have squat to do with aviation except possibly with military
budgets and strength.
I will admire the grioundcrews here and overseas during all the wars. I will
admire the poor trash hauler who spent 10,000 hours droning around the world
because someone has to do it.
I will admire my father who spent 28 years in the Air National Guard and
Active
Duty in three wars and countless callups. Who also never got out of the
States
during WWII because his Squadron/Group/Wing Commander wouldn't release him.
I will admire my brother, the LTC retired, who jumped out of perfectly good
airplanes, flew dinky helicopters and risked his butt to retrieve people from
landing zones in a war that I should have questioned 35 years ago.
I will admire the ANG crews who spent over 50% of their time on Active Duty
last year.
I will question the Major Harry Schmidts who screw up and kill people and
won't
admit it. I will question his superiors who should have trained and
supervised
him more properly. I think he would have screwed up whether he was Regular or
ANG.

Your turn.

Rick Clark
MFE



You leave me speechless. And that ain't easy to do.



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 15 Jul 2004 16:28:14 GMT, (ArtKramr) proclaimed:

You leave me speechless. And that ain't easy to do.

God Bless Rick Clark!

Art wrote:
You leave me speechless. And that ain't easy to do.

I will also question that :-) But with jovial intent.
I will also try to learn to spell and punctuate (Damned Public Schools and
Injuneering classes)

Rick Clark
Mfe

I will question Kerry's motives and record in Vietnam and since...

"John Kerry was wounded in his first significant combat action, when he
volunteered for a special mission on 2 December 1968:

"It was a half-assed action that hardly qualfied as combat, but it was my
first, and that made it very exciting," [Kerry said]. "Three of us, two
enlisted men and myself, had stayed up all night in a Boston Whaler [a
foam-filled-fiberglass boat] patrolling the shore off a Viet Cong-infested
peninsula north of Cam Ranh . . . Most of the night had been spent being scared
****less by fisherman whom we would suddenly creep up on in the darkness. Once,
one of the sailors was so startled by two men who surprised us as we came
around a corner ten yards from the shore that he actually pulled the trigger on
his machine gun. Fortunately for the two men, he had forgotten to switch off
the safety . . ."

As it turned out, the two men really were just a pair of innocent fisherman who
didn't know where one zone began and the other ended. Their papers were
perfectly in order, if their night's fishing over. The fear was that they were
VC. Allowing them to continue might have compromised the mission. For the next
four hours Kerry's Boston Whaler, using paddles, brought boatloads of fisherman
they found in sampans, all operating in a curfew zone, back to the Swift. It
was tiring work. "We deposited them with the Swift boat that remained out in
the deep water to give us cover," Kerry continued. "Then, very early in the
morning, around 2:00 or 3:00, while it was still dark, we proceeded up the tiny
inlet between the island and the peninsula to the point designated as our
objective. The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You
could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly,
through the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I watched,
mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been
briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband."

With its motor turned off, Kerry paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet
into the beginning of the bay. Simultaneously the Vietnamese pulled their
sampans up onto the beach and began to unload something; he couldn't tell what,
so he decided to illuminate the proceedings with a flare. The entire sky seemed
to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with
shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked
gazelles Kerry had once seen on TV's Wild Kingdom. "We opened fire," he went
on. "The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions.
My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging
piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this
time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach,
strafing it. Then it was quiet."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Nothing is more important than this election and the record needs to be shown
in every possible forum.

Kerry is a bona fide hero. Bush is a shirker.

Mo

The Big Decision
By William Saletan, Slate.com, Tuesday, July 6, 2004

"Think about this for a minute: He left college, and he volunteered three
different ways. First he volunteered for military service. Then he volunteered
to serve in Vietnam. And then he volunteered for some of the most dangerous,
hazardous duty you could possibly have in Vietnam. As a result, he was wounded
multiple times. He won a whole series of medals while he was there. And
now—this is an amazing thing—a vice president of the United States who
avoided service four, five, six times—I've lost count—[and] a president of
the United States who can't account for a year of his national guard service
are attacking John Kerry for the medals he won in Vietnam? You have got to be
kidding me."

That's John Edwards talking about John Kerry at a Florida Democratic Party
fund-raiser three weeks ago. This is why Kerry had to pick Edwards: Kerry
sounds so much more attractive when Edwards is doing the talking.

We are patriots all?

Benton[AR] Courier, Opinions, July 4, 2004

Two things in that area concern me...The second is the tendency of some to wrap
themselves in the flag and act as if anyone who opposes them is unpatriotic.
Considering the truths on which this country is founded, I consider that
appalling.

That was the tactic of some Republicans in the early days of this war and I
resent it. I also burn when I hear a Bush supporter question John Kerry's
patriotism. The man went to war and served heroically. George W. Bush didn't
finish his National Guard commitment, which his father (who was a war hero,
ironically) had obtained for him in the first place. End of discussion.

Whatever Kerry said afterward or did with his medals was his right, which he
had served to protect.
Release the microfilm

The Charleston [WV] Gazette, Editorial, July 01, 2004

"THE WHITE House says the government has released all available records of
President Bush’s military service. Yet gaps remain in the public’s grasp of
what President Bush did in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War,
particularly while working on a Republican U.S. Senate campaign in Alabama.

Some questions might be answered by a microfilmed personnel file at the Texas
State Library and Archives Commission in Austin. Normally, such a file would be
confidential, but the president gave verbal permission during a TV appearance
earlier this year for the military to share those records with the public. Yet,
when the Associated Press asked for a written waiver so the records could be
released, the White House did not answer. Nor has the Air Force or Pentagon
responded to the AP’s request to see the file.

Now the AP has asked a federal court to require the Pentagon and Air Force to
provide access to the records.
AWOL: The final analysis
Orcinus David Neiwert, Tuesday, June 29, 2004

My old Table Talk cohort Paul Lukasiak -- whose research skills are top-notch,
and whose judgment I've learned to implicitly trust -- has examined all the
officially released documents relating to George W. Bush's service records and
has just released the following report:

Deserter: The Story of George W. Bush After He Quit the Air National Guard

Paul's piece most carefully examines the records that appear in Bush's records
after he was transferred to the Air Personnel Reserve Center once he had failed
to maintain his flight status:
AP Lawyer: It's 'Curious' We've Had to Sue for Bush Records
Editor and Publisher, June 24, 2004

The Associated Press has sued the Pentagon and Air Force, seeking access to all
records of President George W. Bush's military service, but the news agency
wonders why it has come to this.

"It seems a little curious because the president made a pretty forceful
presentation that he had nothing to hide," said AP General Counsel Dave Tomlin,
when asked for his reaction to what the AP considers government stonewalling.
"But we are not surprised."

Tomlin told E&P the lawsuit is needed to get access to a portion of Bush's
record that may offer more information than the paper files previously
released. "The paper file may not be everything," he said. "It has been there a
long while, it could conceivably be tampered with."

Because the microfilm record has been in storage and "it can't be altered, that
access to the microfilm would settle the matter," Tomlin added.

When asked why a lawsuit was needed, he said, "the administrative efforts we've
made just aren't getting traction."

What Were These People Thinking?!?!
Daniel Ruth, Tampa Tribune, May 2, 2004

"...Some dimwit actually thought it would be a really swell idea to begin
attacking the military service of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John
Kerry, who only received the Bronze Star, the Silver Star for valor and three
Purple Hearts during two - count 'em, two - voluntary tours of duty in Vietnam.


Is this truly a shrewd political strategy when George W. Bush has been bobbing
and weaving more than Muhammad Ali when it comes to answering questions about
his own zephyrlike service in the Texas/Alabama Air National Guard while Kerry
was literally picking shrapnel out of his keister?

The White House had successfully managed to divert attention away from the fact
that Bush regarded his National Guard years with all the dedication to duty of
Maynard G. Krebs perusing the help wanted ads, only to begin going after Kerry,
who actually has film footage of himself walking around the jungle in fatigues
armed with his assault rifle.

Sure, perhaps there is some minute, marginal political benefit to take Kerry to
task for his activities protesting the war in Vietnam after he returned from
his service.

But when your guy spent more time during the Vietnam era sitting on a bar stool
than in the cockpit of a National Guard plane he pulled strings to get into in
the first place, where is the political upside in going negative against a bona
fide war hero?"

Who is James Bath?
North Adams (MA) Transcript, 5/3/04

Who in the world is James Bath and why censor his name?

Bath is the American representative of two Saudi Arabian businessmen--one of
them Osama bin Laden's older brother--and his position has brought him millions
in deals involving banks and airports.

In the mid-seventies Bath introduced Salem bin Laden and his partner Khalib bin
Mahfouz to George H.W. Bush and a litany of business associations between the
Bushes and the Saudis followed, a relationship that still raises eyebrows to
this day.

Bush's smear targets Kerry
Tom Teepen, Times Union, Albany NY, Apr 27, 2004

"Republicans made a shivaree's worth of noise demanding that John Kerry release
his military records, apparently sure that since no Democrat could possibly
have a decent war record, there must be something there to expose Kerry's
Vietnam story as rubbish.

Oops. Released, the records back up the tale of a young Yale graduate who
volunteered for the Navy and served with distinction. His three Purple Hearts
and Bronze and Silver stars are all legit and the record is replete with
reports from superiors praising Kerry's leadership, effectiveness and bravery.

This is an awkward moment for the Bush re-election campaign, which the polls
otherwise have going well for him.

For all his flight-suit swagger, Bush, to avoid Vietnam, used his family's
political influence to cut line and get into the Air National Guard when others
were being denied and then, in the later years of his service, either did or
didn't go AWOL -- the record is unclear -- but pretty plainly dogged it.

Stuck with such an unflattering comparison, what could the Bush campaign do to
redeem its man? Smear, of course. It's a Bush habit."

Key Unanswered Questions on Bush's Record In National Guard
Press Release from the Kerry Campaign, 4/27/04

"If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he
owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the
National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have. I'm not going to stand
around and let them play games."
I watched Kerry throw his war decorations
Thomas Oliphant, Boston Globe 4/27/02

"I have always found the political junk served up by Kerry's detractors to be
undignified as well as largely inaccurate."
Interview With James Moore, author of "Bush's War for Reelection"
Buzzflash.com, 4/26/02

But the other thing you touched upon is the attention span of the media, and
the let's-move-on-to-the-next-news-cycle-of-the-day kind of issue. I think the
National Guard thing is entirely sort of exemplary of what you suggested. The
National Guard issue is not resolved. Those records off of the microfiche in
St. Louis were shipped to General Danny James in Washington. They were all
printed out and vetted by General James' office. Then they were sent to the
White House, and they were vetted by the White House. And then they did the
Friday evening document dump on the reporters.

The reporters have accepted that as though it were the end of the issue. Even
though they haven't seen all the documents, they haven't brought it up again.
When anyone such as Dave Moniz at USA Today, who is consistently pursuing this
story -- when he brings it up any more, he's told, "We've dealt with that
issue, and we're not answering questions about it." Reporters, in this
particular instance, ought to be saying, "Mr. President, we still haven't seen
everything. Why don't you authorize a complete release of your microfiche, just
like John McCain did, and we can put this issue to rest?"

The reason the President won't do that is because there's damning information
within the microfiche printed documents. Yet reporters have decided that that
news cycle is over. That story has gone away and they've moved on. ...
Bush's Guard Service
Tom Formisano, Lexington Herald-Leader, 4/11/02

The records of the 111th squadron show that Bush flew with it from June 1970 to
April 1972 and was regarded as a good pilot. In the latter months, he stopped
flying, two years before his military commitment ended. He stayed in the Guard
for only 18 more months, and did not fly at all.

In May 1972, after moving to Alabama to work in a Republican Senate campaign,
Bush applied for a transfer to do equivalent training at an Alabama base.
Although Bush's immediate superiors approved, senior Guard officers in Texas
did not, noting that the unit to which Bush was assigned had no regular drills,
not even airplanes.

There is no record of his having flown in that state, or that he showed up for
required periodic drills. In August 1972, Bush was removed from flight status
for not taking his annual flight physical. In September, he requested
permission to do duty for the next 10 to 12 weeks with the 187th Tactical Recon
in Montgomery.

In 2000, the unit's commander and administrative officer testified that to
their knowledge, Bush had never reported there.

With the 1972 political campaign over, Bush returned to Houston and held a
civilian job. On May 2, 1973, two supervising pilots reported they could not
rate Bush's performance for the past year because, they believed, he had been
"performing equivalent training in a non-flying status" in Alabama.


Walt