Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

In article ,
Billy Beck wrote:

One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do you
suppose that is?

Maybe because they were fighting different kinds of wars. They each had
their
own peculiar and different kinds of hell, but generally speaking, the one
aloft
was a whole lot cleaner and smelled a whole lot better than the one on the
ground.

Uhm.. what the hell are you two doing here? Isn't there an
infantry group where you could go hang?


Were you asked to go to an architecture group when you posted here about
the symmetry of the Vietnam War Memorial? No? Then, pack sand.


--Mike

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

...It also talks extensively about the VA's interest
in perpetuating PTSD to the point of falsifying diagnoses for the
purpose of maintaining high funding levels.


Fair enough. I guess I'll have to read the book to find out the details.
However, if the VA has falsified diagnoses for financial gain as the
author apparently claims, it hasn't been very successful. Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously. It seems like the
leaders who beat the war drums the loudest and lavish money on the
military the most...also have no qualms about screwing over the people
who answered the call and paid for it in blood.

The period addressed was the late '70, '80' and early '90s. The issue
was the prevalence of PTSD from the Vietnam war. So, your linkage to
funding cuts is a bit late. You might consider that Clinton also cut
funding for vet programs--it was under his watch that my promised
lifetime health care became an HMO under Tricare which I now pay for.

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

I was hospitalized once during my active duty years (1968) and paid a
per diem charge. You aren't really being charged--you've already been
paid BAS (basic allowance for subsistence) and when your meals are
provided, you repay what has already been advanced to you.

I was hospitalized in 2003 for 2.5 days. Had a 10.5 hour cancer
surgery and post-op care. Total bill was $16.80--that was the cost of
the meals. Outrageous!


(Please do not jump ahead and suggest that I'm all wet if I deny PTSD.
I certainly do not. Read the book and see what Burkitt documents.)


Sounds like a worthwhile read. The only book I've ever read concerning
Vietnam was Chickenhawk....which being a helo type, I enjoyed immensely.

It would be self-serving to suggest that you might enjoy When Thunder
Rolled. There are several SAR stories you might find interesting.

It is his conduct during the
Winter Soldier testimony, his categorization of the military still in
harm's way as criminals and guilty of atrocities,

Did he say that all military personnel in Vietnam were criminals and
guilty of atrocities?

Yes, he did.

his throwing of
someone else's medals over the White House fence

What of it?

You don't see a problem with such a grandstanding effort using someone
else's awards?

his alignment with
VVAW and offering of aid/comfort to the enemy.


How did he offer either aid or comfort to the enemy?

His picture hangs in honor in the Vietnamese War Remembrance Museum.


He now seeks to turn the clock back and trade on his combat experience
as that seems to offer more traction in a nation at war.


He was silent on it for a long time, but the media kept bringing it
up...over and over again. Is he supposed to remain quiet about his
honorable service to country?

C'mon. You really haven't been paying attention. Kerry is the one who
repeatedly brings it up. His TV spots running in CO start out with him
slogging through the jungle (unusual position for a Swift boat CC),
and listing his awards.

The Republicans made such a big deal about Clinton not having served and
avoiding serving. Now that their opposition served in combat and served
with honor while their candidate and many of the people in his admin
(the people who really run this country) did everything in their power
to avoid putting their asses on the line is on the table...they do
everything to discredit honor where honor is due and inflate the service
to country of a chickenhawk administration.

I think we've been repeatedly through the issue of length of service
between the two candidates. We've also discussed the dangers involved
in flying single-seat/single-engine military tactical jets.

It's bad enough when chickenhawk politicians use such tactics, but its
shameful when real vets do. You don't have to like John Kerry (I
personally don't although the alternative is unthinkable) and you don't
have to vote for him. But to **** on his service because he came home
against the war (like many vets) and was outspoken about it is shameful.

I feel no shame at all. I've got a pretty clear idea about what honor
is and what the "band of brothers" thing is about.

...
Didn't you say a while back that you were in the CSAR business? Never
got to employ your skills?


Nope. About 10 years too young to have served in Vietnam and got out
well before Iraq. I was in the active reserves (HS-246) during the first
Iraq affair, but never got called...and quit the reserved after
hostilities ended (out of disgust over US troops being sent there in the
first place).

Is it unfair to note that you should have been told that when you
signed on to the reserves that you could be "sent over there in the
first place"? And, to go a bit further, to note that your service
seems quite parallel to the President's? Except, of course that when
you signed on there was not the possibility of conflict and when there
was the possibility you got out?


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

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.

My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




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

(OXMORON1) wrote in message ...
BuffyToU "asked"
So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.

Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat in
an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty RPG
launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?

Oxmoron1

The Military thought it was.

As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
himself. At least, that is what the military report said.

Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
bravery and heroism.

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?

"Tammy" wrote in message
om...

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?


They all earned the same number as Bill Clinton. Why do you ask?

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: (Tammy)
Date: 6/14/2004 7:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(OXMORON1) wrote in message
...
BuffyToU "asked"
So "Heroism in battle" is the same as being stupid and reckless.

Heroism is one thing, going against policy and beaching/grounding your boat
in
an area known to have recently contained enemy troops, to recover an empty
RPG
launcher is stupid and endangers your crew. This is leadership?

Oxmoron1

The Military thought it was.

As I recall, the actual event was that Kerry turned his bat around,
and went back for wounded soldiers who were in the water. That he
stood on the bow of the boat, exposed to enemy fire and personally
grabbed the soldiers out of the water even though he was wounded
himself. At least, that is what the military report said.

Maybe you are thinking of some other event where he earned a medal for
bravery and heroism.

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?

ROFL !!!!

Subject: Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve
From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 6/14/2004 8:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: et


"Tammy" wrote in message
. com...

How many medals for bravery and heroism did George W. Bush earn? How
about Cheney? Trent Lott? Gingrich?


They all earned the same number as Bill Clinton. Why do you ask?


Clinton is in the distant past, same place you are.

So according to your "logic," President Washington should have never "turned
his back on" Benedict Arnold?

Others may criticaize Kerry's service during the war; much of his record is
arguable.

I'm pretty sure it's his actions after the war that the other vets find
disagreeable.

Unlike Art Kramer, I don't believe in giving someone a lifetime pass for
everything because they served.

Steve Swartz



"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

One interesting thing I've noted is that Vietnam vets who fought
hand-to-hand combat seem to overwhelmingly be far less retroactively
gung-ho on the war than those who flew fixed wing far above. Why do
you
suppose that is?


There could be a number of reasons. First, the number who today claim
"hand-to-hand combat" seems unfortunately to be drastically inflated
by thousands of poseurs claiming to be something they were not. See
Burkitt's "Stolen Valor" for some astonishing tales.

I doubt any of us who are or have been on active duty have much trouble
spotting a poseur. I'm speaking based on conversations I had with
people
who most definitely fought hand-to-hand, like the people I served with
who flew CSAR, some of the people I worked with at the VA, and more
than
a handful of disabled vets who I assisted in getting their benefits.

Burkitt reserves a lot of space in his book to discuss the VA.


Meaning what? Does he claim combat vets and/or disabled vets working for
the VA are less than honest?


During Rolling Thunder, I got up each day and went to a briefing with
25 other guys. On average, each and every day for six months, one of
those 25 would be lost. Some days, none. Some days three or four.
Average, one a day. Keep going to the briefing and one day you will be
the one.

Well my hat goes off to you and to all those who paid in blood or risked
that blood doing what their country told them to do. I find it next to
impossible to understand how any vet (especially a combat vet) would
make statements about not "****ing on somebody if they were one fire"
when that somebody also risked their all and shed blood for their
country.

Partisanship should never trump honor and respect. It's sad that
uber-partisans of both major political parties in the U.S. have lost
sight of that (if they ever had it in the first place).



As for those who flew "far above", you might want to consider the
sustained loss rates of the Rolling Thunder participants in
comparison
to those "hand-to-hand" combats. Or, maybe check the proportion of
POWs between the ground and air combatants.


Nobody questions the dangers faced by aircrews who flew missions in
Vietnam. However, in a fast-mover your odds of getting back to base
outside the country for a cold beer and a hot meal are much better than
the grunt in the jungles with an M-16 even surviving. I don't see how
that can be denied. It's one of the reasons I wasn't a grunt...even
though I knew the chances of surviving any more than a handful of
potential CSAR missions was not good.

The odds of completing a 100 mission NVN tour were poor. In '66 an
F-105 was lost every 65 missions over NVN. For every five that started
a tour, three of the five would be lost. 40% survival rate.

There are definitely ground units from the war that suffered similar
rates, but that is the exception.


I don't doubt what you're saying for a minute. Never having been in
combat, I can't speak from experience, but numbers on paper be
damned...I'll take fighting from above over eyeball to eyeball at close
quarters any day.


--Mike

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
his spreading of anti-bush lies and propaganda . . . .

Steve Swartz




"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:33:55 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

1) Since when do soldiers in the field receive BAS? (or are you
suggesting the military enrolled them in BAS while they were flying
armless, legless, eyeless, or whatever back home?)

Except for the lowest ranking enlisted troops, almost everyone gets
BAS. Low ranks get a "meal card" which they display at the chow hall
to eat for free. Those on BAS pay the surcharge rate when they eat in
the chow hall.

It has long been a sore point that troops deployed in the field or TDY
to bare-base facilities get docked their BAS when they submit their
travel vouchers. It isn't a new policy.

2) Pedantic attempts to enforce BS bureaucracy by desk pilots be damned,
anybody who is in a hospital with wounds sustained in the course of
doing what their country ordered them to do (right or wrong) shouldn't
be charged squat for anything.

My wife has a favorite quote: "It ain't right, but it's real." What
you think is "right" means nothing. What is in the JTR's is real.




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

So while we're waiting for Michael to apologize and take responsibility for
spreading his ant-Bush lies and propaganda . . .

Steve Swartz

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 00:14:01 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

Both Bush Sr.
and Jr.'s admins have slashed VA funding tremendously.

"...John McNeill, deputy director of the VFW, credited the Bush
administration with increasing the VA's health care budget during the
last few years..." ?

The latest shining example is maimed vets (returning from Iraq) at
Walter Reed actually being charged for their food (because the
government didn't want to pay for it).

"The rule was established because most military personnel receive
$8.10 a day as a "basic allowance for subsistence" for food. But when
they are hospitalized, the government tries to recoup the money on the
theory that they are eating hospital food and therefore are
double-dipping."

Military personnel that had to eat in the chow hall, and usually live
on base, pay nothing while in the hospital, but those authorized,
usually to live off base, whether married or unmarried get $8.10 a day
extra to pay for food.

So if they forgive the $8.10 a day one person makes money and the
other gets nothing? And they will probably end up changing the law
because the single person living in the barracks eating in the chow
hall is always the one coming out on the short end of the stick...