Records Show Bush Guard Commitment Unmet

"Krztalizer" wrote

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin Olds,
who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"

Besides, I didn't say the guys wouldn't ride in a two-seater, I said

I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
else
available.

Did you miss that part of my comment,
Bob?

Well, I was thinking: here's an F-102, and here's a T-33... Hmm, decisions,
decisions...

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...
"Pete" wrote in
:

[snip]

We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.

I was only ever close to a 106 at an airshow in Plattsburg back
in the 80's. I was surprised. I'd always pictured it as a much
larger aircraft.

IBM

The museum at Wright-Pat has one of our birds (S/N 58-0787) .
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm

Pete

From: "Pete"
Date: 9/9/2004 12:44 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
"Pete" wrote in
:

[snip]

We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.

I was only ever close to a 106 at an airshow in Plattsburg back
in the 80's. I was surprised. I'd always pictured it as a much
larger aircraft.

IBM

The museum at Wright-Pat has one of our birds (S/N 58-0787) .
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm

Pete

We had the F-106 at Langley while I was there. 48 FIS? The first time I heard
one of those puppies lit afterburner I thought something had blown up.

It was one tough girl.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

An opinion, but it's yours.


Actually, I wasn't the person that wrote that, Ed. The original poster did.

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.

Well, I believe he still goes around under the label of Conservative
Republican, as does Scarborough.

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.

If I was a mindless automaton, perhaps, but if you were a boy scout and you and
several other boy scouts lied to me personally, I wouldn't associate myself
with you or them anymore, regardless of how much I think they are a great
organization. There are vast differences between all degrees of Republicans or
Democrats -- I fell in line with many more Republican policies than Democrats,
but I have a couple sticking points that are making it impossible to throw my
support behind either party. The current "yer with us, or agin us" attitude of
the GOP certainly doesn't help.

One party seeks
government solutions to social problems and a redistribution of
wealth, while the other party prefers individual responsibility and
minimal government intervention.

I find it difficult to consider the Patriot Act or invading Iraq and tagging on
hundreds of Billions of dollars to the national debt "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.)


Thats the gray area in which I fall, between the main platforms.

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.

I don't recall ever going on national television and denouncing every part of
my currently-claimed political affilliation? I have never stood on a stage
claiming to be from one party and loudly, overwhelmingly toss my support to the
other team. Zell is a politician and a showman - I am neither.

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

I didn't become a Democrat today - it happened slowly, over time, watching
Bush41's background guys get away with murder, then waste millions of dollars
trying to impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob, but the last straw was
Cheney refusing to let the GAO know what went on during the Texas oil lobby's
meetings with him while he formulated our nations energy policy. I would
support a three legged dog like Clinton before I would agree to let Cheney have
four more years to shape our future energy policy. And how long was "the great
uniter" in office before he gutted the EPA, and began full scale efforts to
roll back Roe v Wade, knowing it is the single most devisive issue in modern US
history? That's not the actions of a uniter.

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.

We must come from different parts of the country, because GWB had a reputation
for partying hard long before 1984. It wasn't a good reputation.

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.

Sufficient to govern? Ok, but when you know 49% of the voters disagree with
your policies, how compassionate or unifying is it to basically **** on
everyone that didn't vote for him? Such a meager victory should have taught
him humility - instead, he took it as a God-given right to jam his agenda, and
his war against Saddam, down everyone's neck. He told Congress that he didn't
feel military action was inevitable in Iraq, even as he planned the invasion he
knew he was going to order, in the face of widespread national disunity on the
issue. Now, here we are.

Recognize also that a President doesn't
rule by fiat, but requires legislation that is subject to the
checks-and-balances of the Constitution.

Like when Cheney essentially tells the GAO to f-off, or when the entire
administration uses a large stack of "mistaken" evidence to convince Congress
to go along with him?

As for "reviled around the world"--that seems to be a bit of
hyperbole.

No sir. Its not just in Muslim countries, either. All over the world, people
do not look at us the same as prior to our invasion of an oil state. At a time
when Al Qaida was an active, determined threat, he diverted resources to go
after his sworn family enemy, Saddam, placing him higher in priority than
wiping out the organization that caused 9-11; General Franks said in an
interview that units were stripped away from the hunt for Bin Laden in the
spool up for the Iraq invasion - as long as he is out there, he remains Threat
#1. I think it was a strategic goof to back-burner Bin Laden and spend
inconcievable amounts of money going after a country that had NOT attacked us.
NK is a far greater threat than Saddam ever was; that will probably be our next
war.

Seems that there are still literally millions around the
world who would love to come here and become citizens.

Millions out of billions, with far more folks wondering what the hell we are
doing and where this is all heading. For every person wanting to immigrate to
America today, there are just as many that want to kill an American, for
general purposes. The total number in that category sure seems to have gone up
in the last 20 months.

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 was inappropriate - we hadn't accomplished finding Bin Laden, once his
stated #1 goal and the reason that carrier had gone out in the first place. We
hadn't even found Saddam - whose forces still bleed us today. If the "Mission"
had been to plunge us into a protracted ground war in Asia, then yes, its been
"accomplished".

It further seems reasonable that a President
who is, in fact,

WAS. And he walked off the job by choice - you hold that against Kerry, so
hold it against Bush as well.

a rated USAF pilot would be able to wear the Nomex
and come aboard in an aircraft.

I recall a lot of people calling John Glenn's final flight into space a giant
PR stunt - on a grander scale, a sitting US President that goes for a joyride
to a photo op is not what I would consider presidential.

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.

So lie like a rug then, hmm? I consider when a US Government official lies
directly to Congress and the governments of our allies alike about national and
global security to be a bad thing.

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.

So we went to war through a series of mistakes? Why is that better? Powell
may not be a serial liar, but during his UN speech, he made enough 'mistakes'
to basically render our stated motive for war moot.

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.

He told us the reason we were going to war was that Iraq possessed and was
getting prepared to use chemical weapons and biological weapons, was actively
ramping up a nuke program, and it was imperative to strike before he could do
so. The *actual* reason was that Bush 43 had made up his mind to invade Iraq
long before those intel estimates said anything - his own memo from the
earliest days of his administration shows that.

The
US, the Brits, and even the French all thought so. Hell, even Kerry
was convinced.

He mistakenly believed the President. We all have to learn from such mistakes.

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.

Bonesmen make good leaders - I have a problem with THESE Bonesmen , who I don't
feel serve the American population at all.

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.

In the news two days ago, a report came out that the Pentagon knew and covered
up a large-scale problem with wartime atrocities in SVN by Tiger Force; I would
never paint all vets of a conflict with the same brush (either positively or
negatively), but I think you and I both know that there were atrocities by both
sides in that war. A small percentage of almost every fighting force I can
think of has fallen into such depravity. I think Kerry's comments 30+ years
ago were ill-concieved and immature; but back then, lots of people were trying
to sort out what was happening, while the Pentagon and McNamara were feeding us
all bull****. Remember, "What the Major really means.."? I care a lot less
about what Kerry did in combat 30 years ago or what he said in its aftermath:
what concerns me today, right now, is what Bush has done since he took office,
and what Cheney has been doing in the background. I am not a "Kerry
supporter", but I will support him if that is what I can do to help remove
Cheney from office.

History looks back with a strong lens and I believe that one day we are going
to discover things about this administration that will justify my intense
misgivings about them.

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,

C'mon, Ed - on a small riverine craft that's like saying you don't know if the
guy in the rack beside you farted. Within a few days of joining a small boat
crew, you know more about the rest of the guys than anyone you went all through
school with.

what his responsibility was,
what his performance was, etc.

Do you believe that no one on his boat was in a position to determine if his
actions were meritorious?

Certainly "on the boat" is good, but in
formation is equally good,

The guys that were in formation with the A-10 that went off to crash and die on
his own on a snowy mountainside were unable to give any indication of what
happened to the man flying directly beside them in their formation. I am
confident that, if he had a backseater, that person could have added at least
something to the inquiry. The guy at your elbow is going to have a better view
of what you are doing than the guy in that other boat over there, and being in
the same general area in another small boat, in the dark, just isn't going to
convince me they had a better view.

on the mission is equally good, supervising
is equally good, in the chain-of-command is equally good for
evaluating a leader.

Funny you bring that up - those guys signed off on his medals and made
supportive statements right up until he made his abrasive postwar comments.
Right up to then, they agreed he was a fine small unit commander, that
exhibited bravery under fire. I say if we are going to refight his whole life,
then we should have to accept that at the time of the actions, he was seen as a
solid performer.

I lot of us regret what we did in the 1970s, and Kerry quit the anti-war
veterans group when they spun out of control. His statements in front of
Congress cannot be seen as pointed at every single warrior that served over
there - I am not going to try to heal the wounds his comments made, because
they impugned you and the men with which you served. It was undoubtably a
wrong act on Kerry's part and I believe he would be miles ahead to step forward
and say he took a stand for what he believed and in the process went over the
line and disrespected the vast majority of those that served with their moral
honor intact.

The ongoing investigation into Tiger Force for exactly the same sort of abuses
that Kerry claimed back then shows that he was not inventing it out of whole
cloth - the Pentagon's reports came back with affirmations of the Tiger Force
crimes, recommendations for charges, etc., and the case against the
participants, the very people that did this "Abu Ghraib"-type of malevolent
behavior, were never brought to justice.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...y=SRTIGERFORCE

This is relevent, because it is exactly the same type of behavior that Kerry
portrayed to Congress. Its reprehensible, but his comments certainly applied
to this particular unit. It wouldn't explain Kerry's non-efforts to heal the
wounds he caused with his comments, which I think is something he is going to
have to do.

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.

How would you have felt if your feelings over our three-legged former President
caused the AF to reopen your record, for the purpose of re-evaluating your
awards? What if Clinton had ordered a formal investigation of Senator McCain's
conduct in the Hanoi Hilton? My point is, every single one of us would have
gone through the roof - your record is your record, and political foes
shouldn't be in a position to direct a branch of the military to put you
through the wringer, just for opposing them in an election.

Why is this any different than
the Dems demanding that Bush' records be examined?

Part of it is that he is the highest official in the land, and he should be
held to the highest standard in the land. Like when the GOP hounded Clinton -
I think its part of the territory when you are at the top, you had better be
above reproach or have the strength of character to admit when you were wrong.


In fact, why hasn't
Kerry signed off on a DD-180 to release the full records?

Beats me. But if there was anything in there that would help Bush, it would
have been leaked by now.

You know it would.

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.

Not something I would have done, or appreciated. I am not here to fight his
battles for him - my view is that Bush AND Kerry have made poor choices over
the years. That doesn't take away the pair of Queens in his hand - he IS a
combat vet and Bush is not. He WAS awarded medals for bravery in combat and
Bush has not. All things totalled up, I can't vote for Cheney in any case.

His first "year" tour on the Gridley he was in-theater for five
weeks of his year posting.

???? Wait a second, Ed - now you are quantifying the service of someone else,
setting it as less than worthy because he wasn't in theatre as long as you
think he should - that's what you crack on Art about. If Kerry was riding
around on a tin can for a few weeks or months, it still counts.

The first ribbon I got, I didn't wear for years - VS-31 got a Battle E on the
Ike during their 1978 Med Cruise and for the rest of that year. I joined
towards the end of the deployment and was told I got the Battle E, certificate
included, a few months later. I knew I wasn't in the unit long enough to have
earned it, but I got gigged on my final inspection in the squadron because I
was not wearing it - I stood out because every single other person was wearing
the ribbon, and I had none. I wore it after that. I would point at it and
tell folks I got that one for Mess Crankin' at Jax (Cecil Field, actually).

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.

In February, the White House released documents, saying "This is all there is".
Its not the first time, and its not just nit-picking, its a valid point. How
many FOI requests does it take to get the whole story? There are months he
didn't drill and after a million dollars in flight training, he doesn't go for
a physical and drops out of flying. That bothers me, Ed.

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.

Understood - I was curious about the comparitively small amount of flight time
in the actual F-102 - it looked like he was more of a TF-102 pilot. I'm not
trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, I wondered why so much time in
the TF and so little in the F; you've set me straight.

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.

I didn't realize there were so many - I watched a program on them that made it
sound that there were scant few (63 built is a lot more than they stated).
Shows what happens when I watch tv... I did check out the Del Rio TF-102;
strange that it is not listed as a preserved example.?

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?

No sir, and Colonel, I am not going to be disrespectful about your profession.
I know the drill. Tons of training to reach the top rung of the ladder - as
you did. His flight hours as quoted seems like his flight time was primarily
trainers and comparitively few sorties in the F-102, and I was wondering aloud
why anyone would prefer a "tub", once they qualified on the for-real fighter
version.

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.

The Wings program on the F-102 claimed that the widened cockpit was a botched
job, causing seriously degraded performance. Was it really that much
different?

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

Give 'em hell, Gordon. We're pretty much on the same page, and my past personal
political history and experience very closely imitates yours. The only
difference between us is that I no longer have either the patience or the energy
to get into the point by point refutations that you so admirably have done. So,
keep up the good work, Gordon.....they may have stolen our party from us and
left only the name behind with which to confuse the public, but that doesn't
entitle them to a free ride.

Like I said, keep up the good work, and "nol illegitimati carborundum" (don't
let the *******s wear you down)!! (^-^)))

George Z.

PS - I apologize for posting this only tangentially-related aviation topic in
this forum. I tried to communicate these views to you via email without success
and felt that I had no other options left if I wanted to let you know how I felt
about your efforts.

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:24:27 -0500, "Bob Coe" wrote:

"Krztalizer" wrote

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

Here's one. I haven't flown a day since I left the AF. While flying an
airplane is undeniably fun, just flying an airplane isn't the same as
flying operationally. I'll often tell folks who ask why I didn't fly
with the airlines if they would ask Mario Andretti why he didn't go to
work for Greyhound after he left F1/IRC racing.

I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin Olds,
who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

Do you know Robin? I'm afraid that I can't picture the Robin Olds I
know saying that unless it was a necessary warning when something
unusual was about to occur. Robin is the consummate professional in
fighter aviation and knew (and knows) that the F-4 is a two-person
airplane and both parties have a critical role to perform.

Although I've heard many times about single-seat drivers telling the
WSO to go cold mike, I've never known a single one who did so. It's
urban legend.

I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"

Your wife may have been going through an emotional crisis, or maybe
she hasn't met many warriors. Lesser men will often say the same thing
after an encounter with Robin.



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

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

Here's one. I haven't flown a day since I left the AF. While flying an
airplane is undeniably fun, just flying an airplane isn't the same as
flying operationally.

You're right, but you are undeniably missing something. Or you simply
don't "love" flying. And that's OK too. I never get tired of admiring
the terrain and wondering how long it took settlers to get from A to
B, or watching the magnitude of forest fires, flying by Mount Logan,
or my personal favorite...looking straight above the jet as the Aurora
Borealis literally dances; meteor showers viewed from FL410 are pretty
neat too.

Not opertional? I'm pretty sure C-130 guys hauling beans and bullets
think they're operational. I'd even bet BUFDRVR thinks launching ALCMs
or JDAMs from FL350 thinks he's operational. I think "slam dunk"
arrivals are pretty operational, as are single engine landings, and
CAT II/III landings, and Resolution Advisories from TCAS in the
traffic pattern, or wind shear advisories, and picking your way thru
TRWs forming a line from Winnipeg Manitoba to Omaha too. Guys carrying
H&K .40 cals in the cockpit and airlines working on MANPADs
countermeasures is something operational. We just can't "jettison the
jet" (eject) if things turn to ****.

I'll often tell folks who ask why I didn't fly with the airlines if
they would ask Mario Andretti why he didn't go to
work for Greyhound after he left F1/IRC racing.

That's pretty humble, comparing yourself to Mario 8-) But I'd bet you
a million bucks that Mario would do it in a heartbeat if it were the
only way he could keep driving.

Respectfully, I'd submit you don't think being an airline wienie is
exciting enough after your combat experience, and that's cool. I've
flown with at least a hundred of your contemporaries (including Van
Heywood from your first book, one of my favorites) and guys like
myself with ZERO combat experience...flying fighters was fun, but so
is the 757...and it has a mission.

Different strokes...


Robey

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Krztalizer
confessed the following:

I find it difficult to consider the Patriot Act or invading Iraq and tagging on
hundreds of Billions of dollars to the national debt "minimal government
intervention".

SHACK! I joined the ACLU because of the Patriot Act.

I didn't become a Democrat today - it happened slowly, over time, watching
Bush41's background guys get away with murder, then waste millions of dollars
trying to impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob, but the last straw was
Cheney refusing to let the GAO know what went on during the Texas oil lobby's
meetings with him while he formulated our nations energy policy. I would
support a three legged dog like Clinton before I would agree to let Cheney have
four more years to shape our future energy policy. And how long was "the great
uniter" in office before he gutted the EPA, and began full scale efforts to
roll back Roe v Wade, knowing it is the single most devisive issue in modern US
history? That's not the actions of a uniter.

Uh...what he said.

Sufficient to govern? Ok, but when you know 49% of the voters disagree with
your policies, how compassionate or unifying is it to basically **** on
everyone that didn't vote for him? Such a meager victory should have taught
him humility - instead, he took it as a God-given right to jam his agenda, and
his war against Saddam, down everyone's neck. He told Congress that he didn't
feel military action was inevitable in Iraq, even as he planned the invasion he
knew he was going to order, in the face of widespread national disunity on the
issue. Now, here we are.

Uh...what he said.

No sir. Its not just in Muslim countries, either. All over the world, people
do not look at us the same as prior to our invasion of an oil state. At a time
when Al Qaida was an active, determined threat, he diverted resources to go
after his sworn family enemy, Saddam, placing him higher in priority than
wiping out the organization that caused 9-11; General Franks said in an
interview that units were stripped away from the hunt for Bin Laden in the
spool up for the Iraq invasion - as long as he is out there, he remains Threat
#1. I think it was a strategic goof to back-burner Bin Laden and spend
inconcievable amounts of money going after a country that had NOT attacked us.
NK is a far greater threat than Saddam ever was; that will probably be our next
war.

****ing A Bubba!

Okay so you get the picture. Damn Gordon, I never realized you were so
wise. [8-)

Robey

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 00:24:27 -0500, "Bob Coe" wrote:

"Krztalizer" wrote

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots
that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

Here's one. I haven't flown a day since I left the AF. While flying an
airplane is undeniably fun, just flying an airplane isn't the same as
flying operationally. I'll often tell folks who ask why I didn't fly
with the airlines if they would ask Mario Andretti why he didn't go to
work for Greyhound after he left F1/IRC racing.

I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is
Robin Olds,
who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

Do you know Robin? I'm afraid that I can't picture the Robin Olds I
know saying that unless it was a necessary warning when something
unusual was about to occur. Robin is the consummate professional in
fighter aviation and knew (and knows) that the F-4 is a two-person
airplane and both parties have a critical role to perform.

Although I've heard many times about single-seat drivers telling the
WSO to go cold mike, I've never known a single one who did so. It's
urban legend.

I met him. When he left my wife asked "who was that asshole?" and I
said "he's a fighter pilot, need I say more?"

Your wife may have been going through an emotional crisis, or maybe
she hasn't met many warriors. Lesser men will often say the same thing
after an encounter with Robin.

Uhhmm...that comment from Bob was not related to Olds, but to the other
pilot mentioned in the discussion.

Brooks



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

From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 9/9/2004 8:34 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Like I said, keep up the good work, and "nol illegitimati carborundum" (don't

let the *******s wear you down)!! (^-^)))

George Z.


Illigitimus non tatum carborundum.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired