Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.

1935 sounds about right for the retroactive award. Prior to
that, he'd only be out of uniform if he failed to wear the
wound stripe.

Fascinating. Thanks Bill, that solves a little family mystery. My grandfather
didn't know why it arrived when it did. He thought they "just finally got
around to it". That explains perhaps why there are no devices or anything for
wounds during the Mexican campain, though there is a letter from Pershing
somehere around here. "Bah" was an Lt. in the NGW (National Guard, Washington)
at the time. When The Great War for Civilization came along, he was able to
appeal to Pershing to keep his commision when he found himself a private in an
artillery outfit but had lead infantry for ten years.

-- Charlie Springer

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.

I just checked, it came in 1932. I can't find any pictures of a wound stripe.
Do you know where I can see one? There may be some among all the stuff. He also
mixed in a couple of items from the Spanish American War but we don't know
whose they are.

-- Charlie Springer

Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College
votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.

I recall agonizing about this more than fifty years ago (when all
states were winner-take-all). It was a popular condundrum among
political science majors, along with whether or not the populace had a
right to repeal the constitution.

But not until 2000 did anyone in public life decide that it was a Bad
Thing. And then nobody attempted to do anything about it!

Actually, it serves a very good purpose: it transforms close elections
into clear mandates. If you look at returns over the past century, a
"landslide" in American terms is 60 percent of the vote, but even 55
or 52 percent usually is transformed into an overwhelming margin in
the electoral college.

2000 was the exception: Bush 271, Gore 266. (That's closer than it
looks. New Hampshire with 4 votes would have tipped the election to
Gore, and if I recall correctly Bush carried New Hampshire by 7,000
votes. So if a mere 3,501 Yankees had changed their minds, Gore would
have won, 270 to 267.)

I doubt very much that this election will be as close. History doesn't
often repeat itself. The popular vote may be a squeaker (that often
happens), but the rule is that the electoral college will turn it into
a mandate.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...
That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
reason.

In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.

This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
father in the Spanish-American War who said any such thing regarding
the correctness of our entry into WW II. I was making a literary
comparision between the nay-sayers of 2004 and the similarity in the
past.


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

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.

You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun. I've got a
great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until
February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor
didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal.


My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
able to get some stick time in the RG;-)

Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.



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

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
A British newscaster on BBC did it much simpler in trying to explain the
differences in our political parties:

The Republicans are very much like our...Conservatives.
The Democrats are very much like our...Conservatives.

Funny thing is, the Conservative party in the UK are a bit
out in the cold now that Labour (or "New Labour") have
adopted all their policies...

Paul

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

Arthur Kramer

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor. A shootdown went from a moderate statiistical
probability to a random event. In our first in-theater we were told repeatedly
that if we were going to get shot down, it most likely be on the the first 15
missions. I am reminded of guys like Paul Tibbets and Bob Montgomery who flew
multiple tours in multiple airplanes in WWII. I wou ld have to call the
committment.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.

Yes it did, with an option for control wheels on both sides. Later
models have the more common dual control setup seen in Piper, Cessna, et al.

Apparently it hasn't been found to be a problem as Found Aircraft of
Canada http://www.foundair.com/Features also has an aircraft recently
certified in Canada and the USA with a similar throw-over control setup,
though I'm sure that far less training is done in Bonanzas and Bush
Hawks than in Cessnas and Pipers, collectively.


Jack

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

Arthur Kramer

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor. A shootdown went from a moderate
statiistical
probability to a random event. In our first in-theater we were told
repeatedly
that if we were going to get shot down, it most likely be on the the first 15
missions. I am reminded of guys like Paul Tibbets and Bob Montgomery who
flew
multiple tours in multiple airplanes in WWII. I wou ld have to call the
committment.


Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


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

Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


Arthur Kramer

Maybe for WWII. Are you saying that it took no commitment to fly over that
"statistical happenstance that controlled the skies over Germany"?.

You've totally lost me here. Was I said was that Kerry didn't seem
particularly committed to his crew and his oath to serve since he took an
"early out" from Vietnam. Possibly Bush wasn't as committed to serve as some
in that era though I am not sure his actions prove it one way or another, given
that there were others in similar circumstances in the same role as his who
didn't serve in Vietnam either.

Are you saying Kerry told his "early out" because his concern over being
wounded overrode his sense of duty and committment?

Not that it really matters because what should matter is who would best lead
the country not so much as 35 year old history. I am sorry that I just see a
pattern with Kerry that tells me that he is more concerned for himself and his
own interests than the country's. You would probably argue the same thing
about Bush. That is what the election is all about, or should be, not who
stole the election. Gire lost according to the laws of the land and no amount
of grousing is going to change that.

Steve