Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Sharky wrote in message . ..
In , Ed Rasimus wrote:


I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their country
honorably in Viet Nam.

That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.

Similar to the misrepresentation of attributing someone else's remarks
to me?


Nah, that was a simple screwup. Keep reading, I'll make more.

The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.

Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?

I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

--

FF

Subject: Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts
From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
Date: 8/20/2004 11:09 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message
...
On 19 Aug 2004 11:42:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Sharky wrote in message
...
In , Ed Rasimus wrote:


I think John Kerry needs to be held fully accountable for his actions in
association with the VVAW. He disgraced himself, and brought false and
maliciously subversive charges against all those who served their
country
honorably in Viet Nam.

That is a false and malicious misrepresentation of his words and actions.

Similar to the misrepresentation of attributing someone else's remarks
to me?


Nah, that was a simple screwup. Keep reading, I'll make more.

The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.

Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?

I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

--

FF



If there were any otter boats or Karl Rove just made them up.


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 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..

The recent "talking points" of the DNC that continue to attempt to
discredit the more than sixty Swifties because they "weren't on the
boat with him" is ludicrous. As someone who flew an entire combat tour
in single-seat fighters, I'll quickly attest to the ability to observe
the performance of others in your formation, your unit or your chain
of command even though you weren't in the airplane with them.

Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?

I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

My comment on single-seat was to highlight the mistaken emphasis and
"spin" that says if you weren't on the boat you weren't there and
can't comment. The point being that military units operate in concert
with multiple players and it is possible to know very much about
performance even if not a rider in the same vehicle.

Let's make it two-seat aircraft like F-4s, for example. Now, you could
take the evidence of the WSO commenting on the capability of the
nose-gunner and say that is the only source of valid information. But,
you would be getting an interpretation of events from someone not
trained in the other crew-member's job and with a decidedly vested
self-interest in making that individual look good.

I will state unequivocally that YES, I could BETTER observe and
comment on the capabilities of the others in formation which I led. I
could definitely tell you more about individuals that were under my
authority as a fighter squadron operations officer, and I know for
sure that the folks who were in my chain of command, even though they
weren't flying in the same airplane with me, could tell you plenty
about my capabilities, leadership, and shortcomings.

If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
(that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.



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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
news:4IaVc.11540$k63.8388@trndny03...

bush's vacation rate is criminal. -- As a matter of fact if he had
been on the job instead of vacation -- 9-11 might have been stopped.


Bush has been on the job continuously since 1/20/01.

Evidently Leo missed the fact that a room at Bush's house in Crawford was
converted so that he could work and conference (when did that become a verb,
anyways???) from Texas. Bush doens't -have- vacations, as you allude to,
above. Hell, neither did Clinton, or Bush Sr., and possibly even further
back than that. The PotUS is always available.

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?

I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

There's a pretty large gulf between saying that Kerry's crew was in a better
position to know and understand the facts, and saying that the
two-hundred-some other vets (and we know from Kerry's campaign that all vets
are honorable, even when they admit to committing atrocities) lied.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

...

Would you also attest to your ability to BETTER observe what was
happening than the pilots (and crew if any) of those other planes?

I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

... it is possible to know very much about
performance even if not a rider in the same vehicle.

...

I will state unequivocally that YES, I could BETTER observe and
comment on the capabilities of the others in formation which I led. I
could definitely tell you more about individuals that were under my
authority as a fighter squadron operations officer, and I know for
sure that the folks who were in my chain of command, even though they
weren't flying in the same airplane with me, could tell you plenty
about my capabilities, leadership, and shortcomings.

If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
(that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.


I am confident that those 13 or so who say they served under him
actually did so because Kery himself would remeber them and they
would remember each other. I am not confident that those 60 or so
others ot whom you allude ever saw him or his boat.

At least one of those 60 or so received a Bronze Star in the same
engagement for which Kerry recieved the Silver Star and yet today
denies that there was enemy fire in that engagement. Does he argue
that he did not deserve his own award?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

At least one of those 60 or so received a Bronze Star in the same
engagement for which Kerry recieved the Silver Star and yet today
denies that there was enemy fire in that engagement. Does he argue
that he did not deserve his own award?

Apparently.....and being a slow starter, it took him 35 years to get his "he
doth protesteth too much" act together. Oh, well......

George Z.

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.
....

If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
(that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.


Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
conclusion.

Has anyone named more than a handful of these men, or asked them
to comment on the book?

This sounds rather much like Senator Islen's '57 communists' in the
Pentagon.

--

FF

On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.

Note 'what we are told', and 'whom we are told'.

Once again you've edited to put someone else's words into my mouth.
Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
"face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry. They don't seem to be
bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
his 4 months of duty.
...

If you give "more stock" to the subordinates on the boat with him
(that would be 13 or so out of 24 that served in that capacity) than
you give to the 60 out of 240 that were in the Swift boat operation
during the period and have come forward to counter the "band of
brothers" comments, then you don't really understand the concept.


Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
conclusion.

I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
agree with the thesis of my book?

Has anyone named more than a handful of these men, or asked them
to comment on the book?

You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
DC at the National Press Club. More than a handful have come forward
and many more still have not yet been heard.

Having known Ken Cordier and Paul Galanti for many years, I've got the
utmost confidence in their honor, honesty and integrity. I know many
other of the Nam-POWs and know that they have a strong front on the
issue as well.

Clearly there are a number of things going on here. One is the focus
of the Kerry campaign on the Vietnam service and not the Vietnam
resistance. That's a recognition of the fact that America IS at war
and we face a serious threat that requires sacrifice and leadership.
It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
combat service.

Another is the tendency of the Kerry campaign to focus on that brief
period while ignoring as much as possible the voting record of the
Senator during his extensive tenure. It would be much better for the
electorate to focus on those positions regarding taxes, welfare,
defense, education, jobs, foreign policy, etc.

Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
his own ox takes a goring. If you want to play one way on offense,
you've got to expect the same back when you're on defense. Soros'
millions don't shrink when compared to a couple of $100K spent by the
Swifties supporters.

The language of Kerry in '71 used in his Senate testimony and much
more explicitly in his Meet the Press interview is deeply offensive
and won't go away quickly if ever. His attempt to mitigate the damage
recently by suggesting he might use less offensive terminology doesn't
get the job done by a long shot.

This sounds rather much like Senator Islen's '57 communists' in the
Pentagon.

A very poor parallel.



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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip


Yet another problem is the very clear application of the 527 loophole
by Kerry supporters (can you say "moveon.org"?) then squealing when
his own ox takes a goring.

moveon.org is not a 527, it predates the legislation, having been started during the Clinton impeachment furor.
It is a PAC, with full disclosure of donors.

Bob McKellar, proud owner of a very bad fitness report signed by a SBVT member