Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 7/16/2004 11:19 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 9:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 16 Jul 2004 16:01:52 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/16/2004 8:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

There is nothing in
international law which prohibits the use of .50 cal against
personnel. Nothing.

I don't think we need the Geneva convention to tell us 50 caliber heavy
machine
guns used against civilians is wrong.


Has old age dimmed your eyes so that you cannot read plain English?

Here's the quote again, "I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were
our only weapon against people."

It doesn't say "ordered to use against civilians." It says "people".
If he were "only following orders" and they said kill civilians with
.50 cal, then he was one very sorry excuse for an officer and a
leader.

You may have read some of the twaddle of your old buddy Walt that
recounted Kerry with his M-16, which jammed. So he reached into the
boat for another M-16....does that mean he lied in the quote when he
says "which were our only weapon." Do you believe he was really
leading a Swift boat crew and they only had .50 cal?

Which is the truth and which is the lie? If he tells the truth (under
oath) in his Senate testimony, then he lies when he claims the heroism
for his actions under fire and he lies when he expounds on his
honorable service. If his service and courage under fire where
honorable, then he lied to the Senate under oath. Can't be both ways.

Can I expect another one-liner assertion of the glory of the
candidate? Or will you explain what is going on here?



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


Based on his testimony befiore congress he may be the most honest man ever to
run for public office. Note that he never accused the Viet Cong of using WMD.



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, give it a rest. In another thread someone made a case that many of the
"150 honourably discharged Viet Nam vets" were frauds. For the sake of
discussion let's say they aren't. That's 150 out of how many men who saw
combat? I put them in the same category as George Lincoln Rockwell who
apologized to the Nazis for having fought against them.

I was in the Army in Viet Nam and saw nohing approaching the level of approval
kerry says the chains of command presented. Did U.S. servicemen commit war
crimes without being charged? Yes. Did I see it? No. Did it occur in my AO?
Probably not. These things get around. Most of the servicemen in Viet Nam knew
something had happened in My Lai before charges were filed. They just didn't
know the specifics.

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes. I know many GIs who told war stories that simply weren't true
but were good stories nonetheless. Want to hear the one about the Huey with a
broken main rotor blade so they nailed a girl to it for balance and flew home?

Art, you are supporting a man who stabbed all of us who served in Viet Nam in
the back. If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

How would you as a veteran feel if Bob Dole started saying all WW2 vets were
either war criminals or did nothing to stope war crimes?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (B2431)
Date: 7/16/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time

How would you as a veteran feel if Bob Dole started saying all WW2 vets were
either war criminals or did nothing to stope war crimes?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dole has that right under the 1st. amendment. I am secure and comfortable with
my experiences no matter what anyone says. But millions of Americans agreed
with Kerry, were against the war and still are to this day. Kerry was not alone
in his thoughts or statements. And for someone who has been stabbed in the back
you seem in very good health.


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

(B2431) wrote in message ...

I was in the Army in Viet Nam and saw nohing approaching the level of approval
kerry says the chains of command presented. Did U.S. servicemen commit war
crimes without being charged? Yes. Did I see it? No. Did it occur in my AO?
Probably not. These things get around. Most of the servicemen in Viet Nam knew
something had happened in My Lai before charges were filed. They just didn't
know the specifics.

Thank you.


The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes.

I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

Perhaps someone should point that out to him and het him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?

Did I just stab you in the back?

--

FF

On 18 Jul 2004 22:40:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message ...

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes.

I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

Perhaps someone should point that out to him and het him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?

Here's what Kerry said (again!) on Meet the Press:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Does that sound allegorical or less than a literal admission of war
crimes?

I've once gone through the litany and challenged that free fire zones,
harrassment, interdiction, .50 cal, search-and-destroy, air raids, etc
are NOT in any way violations of the Geneva Convention.

I challenged Kerry's assertion regarding .50 cal as "our only weapon
against people" comparing it to his narrative of one of his BS awards
indicating he had an M-16 which jammed so he picked up another M-16 in
the boat.

Did I just stab you in the back?

And here's from Kerry's Senate testimony (under oath):

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that
several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible
to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions
in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which
is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

-- John Kerry, testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, April 22, 1971

It certainly sounds like LITERAL testimony. Of course, the fact that
his "150 honorably discharged....etc" veterans turned out to not be so
makes it questionable, but let's give John the benefit of the doubt
that he didn't know it at the time.

Ghengis Khan? Poisoned food? Wires to the genitals? Gimme a break!



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

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 22:40:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message ...

The fact remains kerry accused us of all being involved with or have knowledge
of war crimes.

I disagree. That is a gross distortion of the facts, just like the
way neocons used Sherman's words form a protion of one of his letters
to 'prove' that he had confessed to war crimes.

... If what he said was true he had an obligation to take it public. He
not ONCE said the majority of vets served honourably.

Perhaps someone should point that out to him and ask him to address that.

Somehow I don't think it would satisfy you if he did, even if he had
done so back then.

What Kerry said was clearly figurative speech, just like when I say
we Americans are responsible for the wrongdoing that America does
anywhere in the world today?

Here's what Kerry said (again!) on Meet the Press:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes,
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the
laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and
all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by
the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe
that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire
zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid
strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same
letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Does that sound allegorical or less than a literal admission of war
crimes?

No, this time you picked out a quote wherein Kerry referred to
specific
activities. Read again:

"I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers"

NOWHERE in the paragraph you just quoted doe he accuse you of all
being involved with or have knowledge of war crimes.


I'm not sure if I should question your competency or your honesty
but something is not right.



I've once gone through the litany and challenged that free fire zones,
harrassment, interdiction, .50 cal, search-and-destroy, air raids, etc
are NOT in any way violations of the Geneva Convention.

And I addressed those issue in this thread where you or someone
else discussed them. So could you pick it up there, if you wish
to continue?


I challenged Kerry's assertion regarding .50 cal as "our only weapon
against people" comparing it to his narrative of one of his BS awards
indicating he had an M-16 which jammed so he picked up another M-16 in
the boat.

The sentence is pretty awkward. I think one could honestly parse
it as 'there were times when conducting harrassment and interdiction
fire that the 50 cal was the only weapon we used.'

'were our only weapon' by itself is of course literally as well as
gramatically incorrect. 'We' (America) literally had tanks and
aircraft and all sorts of other weapons. Heck, we had nuclear
weapons too, just not in Vietnam.

Do you suppose that, given the sentence is both ungrammatical and
blindingly obviously literally incorrect he might have mispoken?

Just because he doesn't talk like Bush doesn't mean he never screws
up.


Did I just stab you in the back?

And here's from Kerry's Senate testimony (under oath):

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that
several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over
150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans
testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not
isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible
to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions
in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their
experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this
country, in a sense, made them do.


And here where he does use 'all' he is clearly speaking generally.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off
ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks,

And here, of course, he is clearly referring to specific anecdotes.


and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the
normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which
is done by the applied bombing power of this country."


And here of course, he is speaking generally again.


Now Mr Rasimus, I gather from your writing that you are a literate
man of at least moderate intelligence. You have indicated that
you are older than myself, that you work for the Smithsonian and
you read the Washington Times. Few people outside of the DC
area (and not a whole lot there either) read the Times so I figure
you live in the DC area.

I would guess that over the years you have heard at least as much
Senate 'testimony' as I have. You must have listened on one or
more occasion when people 'testified' by reading prepared speeches
and were then 'questioned' by Senators whose questions were themselves
also speeches.

So please, don't expect me to believe that you hope that when
someone testifies befor the Senate they are speaking literally.
You know better. Don't expect me to believe that you cannot tell
when a speaker shifts between general statements to specific
anecdotes and back again.

You're smart enough, and you're experienced enough. It is odd that
you do not seem to have expected others in the newsgroup to be
similarly endowed with those attributes.



It certainly sounds like LITERAL testimony. Of course, the fact that
his "150 honorably discharged....etc" veterans turned out to not be so
makes it questionable, but let's give John the benefit of the doubt
that he didn't know it at the time.


I appreciate that last sentence was written in an effort to be fair.
But I still ask you to show some evidence that the 'testimony' of
the 'Winter Soldiers' was debunked.

Lots of people make that claim.

--

FF

On 22 Jul 2004 00:57:58 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Now Mr Rasimus, I gather from your writing that you are a literate
man of at least moderate intelligence. You have indicated that
you are older than myself, that you work for the Smithsonian and
you read the Washington Times. Few people outside of the DC
area (and not a whole lot there either) read the Times so I figure
you live in the DC area.

Now Fred (I hesitate to use first names after you have been so
courteous, but also feel uncomfortable with whether or not "the Red
Shirt" is your entire last name or should be hyphenated. So, I'll use
the familiar.)

You aren't doing your homework, and that seems exceptional because in
other posts you've clearly demonstrated an ability to use Google and
maybe even Nexis.

Thank you for the compliment to my literacy and the moderation of my
intellect. I am, indeed probably older than you. Nearly as old as
dirt, having grown up shortly after the invention of fire.

But, you haven't paid attention at all regarding the remainder. I
don't work for Smithsonian. My books are published by Smithsonian
Institution Press. I'm a retired military tactical aviator and have
done freelance writing for computer magazines and teaching of
political science at my local college. I've got no employment
relationship with the Smithsonian.

Further I don't live in the DC area and I don't read the Washington
Times. I read the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Denver Post and the
Wall Street Journal.

I would guess that over the years you have heard at least as much
Senate 'testimony' as I have. You must have listened on one or
more occasion when people 'testified' by reading prepared speeches
and were then 'questioned' by Senators whose questions were themselves
also speeches.

So please, don't expect me to believe that you hope that when
someone testifies befor the Senate they are speaking literally.
You know better. Don't expect me to believe that you cannot tell
when a speaker shifts between general statements to specific
anecdotes and back again.

"Literal" testimony is fact. The opposite of literal is figurative.
General statements or specific statements of fact are literal.
Anecdotes are literal as are statistical data.

You're smart enough, and you're experienced enough. It is odd that
you do not seem to have expected others in the newsgroup to be
similarly endowed with those attributes.

I only observe the evidence. Many in the newsgroup are more amply
endowed than I. Some, regretably, regularly emphasize the contrary.

I might suggest that you Google my name and find out a bit about me.
Or query my name on Amazon.com and see what the books are about.



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