Two MOH Winners say Bush Didn't Serve

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Ed, can I ask when John Kerry ever said that _everybody_ serving in
Vietnam has committed atrocities and were war criminals (verifiable cite
please)?

I don't see him how saying that atrocities were going on translates to
everybody was doing them.


Can I ask who said that Kerry said that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had
committed atrocities and were war criminals? (Verifiable cite please?)


Don't you think its polite to answer previous questions directed at and
ignored by you before demanding cites for subsequent questions not
directed at you??? How about we start with your weak credible evidence
posting.

Even so, I'll entertain you:


06.12.04, 22:21/Ed Rasimus
...From one of Kerry's accused war criminals

How could Ed write such a thing unless either a) he's alleging Mr. Kerry
accused him personally of being a war criminal or b) he's insinuating
that Kerry 30 years ago believed everybody in theater was a war criminal?


Since it's extremely doubtful Mr. Kerry knew Ed then or even knows him
now, b is the logical interpretation.


06.13.04, 15:22/Ed Rasimus
...It isn't Kerry's combat experience that can speak for itself...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


Ed did not write "most of the military," "some of the military," or even
a "few of the militart." He wrote "the" military which implies all. He
certainly seems to have a fondness for constantly repeating that John
Kerry accused Ed Rasimus of being a war criminal 30 years ago.




Kerry said that thousands had committed atrocities in Vietnam, that it was a
policy ordered from the top and known at all levels in the chain of command.


Are you talking to me or to Ed?


"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others in that I
shot in free fire zones, used harassment and interdiction fire, joined in
search and destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts were
established policies from the top down, and the men who ordered this are war
criminals." John Kerry, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 1971


I don't see anything overtly unbelievable in that statement made 30+
years ago. Such statements probably hold true in most wars on either
side since the dawn of man.


"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." John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement,
April 23, 1971

see above response


--Mike

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

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 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).

This condition has been in effect for a very long time.

If a military member is receiving BAS (Basic Allowance for Subsistance), and
is also receiving meals in a military facility (mess facility or hospital),
s/he is required to either pay for the meals at whatever the standard rate
is, or forfiet the per day BAS pay.


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?)

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.



--Mike

In article ,
Buzzer wrote:

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..." ?

If you're going make citations, don't you think you should be including
attributions as well?

Who said that? In what context? How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?


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.

When I was in, only military personnel who lived off-base received such
compensation. If you were at sea or in the field, BAS stopped.


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."

Better to go after the kid not even old enough to drink who will never
walk again for that $8.10 than chickenhawk government cronies like
Cheney who fleece there way out of millions.


--Mike

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


and whose
name was given to the press by "a Republican close to Bush" and who
claims to have witnessed all these appearances which nobody else can
recall constitutes credible evidence on your planet?


Yes, on my planet, Earth, this man is a credible witness. Not so on your
planet?



Let's see:

1) one person whose name was submitted to the press by a "Republican
close to Bush"

2) Who seems to recall all these things in vivid detail where not a
single other soul in the unit (including the unit CO) recalls even
seeing Bush there.

3) Who admits to being a staunch Republican

...is a credible witness?


How exactly is it you define credible? That which is in concurrence with
what you personally want to believe?




--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Don't you think its polite to answer previous questions directed at and
ignored by you before demanding cites for subsequent questions not
directed at you??? How about we start with your weak credible evidence
posting.


What the hell are you talking about?



Even so, I'll entertain you:


06.12.04, 22:21/Ed Rasimus
...From one of Kerry's accused war criminals

How could Ed write such a thing unless either a) he's alleging Mr. Kerry
accused him personally of being a war criminal or b) he's insinuating
that Kerry 30 years ago believed everybody in theater was a war criminal?


I'll take that to be an admission that nobody said that Kerry said
that_everybody_ serving in Vietnam had committed atrocities and were war
criminals.



Are you talking to me or to Ed?


I responded to your message, my statement follows quoted material written by
you, it should be obvious I'm talking to you.

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Let's see:

1) one person whose name was submitted to the press by a "Republican
close to Bush"

2) Who seems to recall all these things in vivid detail where not a
single other soul in the unit (including the unit CO) recalls even
seeing Bush there.

3) Who admits to being a staunch Republican

..is a credible witness?


Yes. Why not?



How exactly is it you define credible? That which is in concurrence with
what you personally want to believe?


Capable of being believed; plausible. Worthy of confidence; reliable.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 04:40:44 GMT, Michael Wise wrote:

How much did Bush slash from the health
care budget before increasing it?

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Bob
Stump (R-AZ) welcomed the Clinton/Gore Administration’s proposed $1.3
billion increase for VA health care in fiscal year 2001, but wondered
why veterans had to wait so long to get their attention.
The proposed increase is the first from the Administration since the
1996 budget.

"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?)

You have been in the military, right?

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../pay/blbas.htm
"Enlisted members, with or without dependents, used to lose BAS if they were
deployed (or "in the field"). In 1998, Congress changed this. Now, enlisted
members temporarily assigned to duty away from their permanent duty station
or to duty under field conditions at their permanent duty station are
entitled to BAS at a rate not less than that which they had at their
permanent duty station."

hmm...it seems it has changed slightly since I retired. But not by Bush...

i.e....you used to lose your BAS, and were provided either per diem pay, or
meals in the dining facility or field kitchen, or MRE's.
Now, it is...you don't lose your BAS (your paycheck remains the same), but
you must pay for all meals, either by deduction, or cash.

Either way, it ends up the same. You cannot double dip. The members actual
money remains the same. You get BAS, or meals, but not both.

Aquaint yourself with DOD 7000.14-R Vol 7A, Chapter 25
http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fmr/07a/07A25.pdf

2502
250201
Section P
"Military members *may not receive* a full BAS (SEPRATS, RIKNA, EMRATS, or
officer BAS) and meals or rations at no charge for the same period of
service. Members in reciept of any type of full BAS *must pay for meals and
rations*. This is a personal obligation of the individual. Meals and rations
may be paid for with cash, by payroll deduction or by collection/reduction
of otherwise entitled per diem. "

[emphasis mine]

2505
250501 Meal Collection Rates
"Any member receiving a full BAS type *must pay for* all meals and rations
that he or she receives from, or on behalf of, the government."

[again, emphasis mine]

It has always been thus.


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.

They're not being 'charged'. They are giving back BAS money that they are
not entitled to because they're getting meals provided by the govt. It
'looks like' a charge, because the finance dept at Walter Reed or Landstuhl
may not be set up to automatically change a members TDY status upon
admission. Their system might be to charge the daily rate, and the member
works it out as far as TDY/per diem/BAS status with their particular finance
office.

It used to **** me off too, having to be the accountant shifting DOD money
from MyHomeBase to the TDY location housing and dining facility. (That's
what computers are for...you figure it out!) But it wasn't extra money I was
entitled to.

Or are you suggesting that military members be entitled to BAS *and* free
meals?

Pete

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Kristan Roberge" wrote in message
...


Michael Wise wrote:

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

...
What did we get out of it? We changed the way we organize, train and
fight our wars. We lost one F-105 for every 65 sorties over N. Vietnam
in '66 and '67. We lost one fixed wing aircraft for every 3500 sorties
during Desert Storm. We lost one fixed wing aircraft...period, in
Iraqi Freedom for 16,500 sorties. We learned some lessons.

Do you suppose the fact that Iraq didn't have the advantage of real-time
super-power support (from the Soviets) in the form of arms, training,
and "advisors" has anything to do with it?

nevermind the fact that the US didn't really have air superiority over
vietnam,

air superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force
over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its
related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without
prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/dod...a/a/00291.html
It appears that by that definition (though maybe you are not using the
definition agreed to by the US military branches) we did indeed have air
superiority--can you identify any targets we wanted to strike that we were
prevented from striking, whenever we so chose?

nor
did they have the benefit of having waxed almost all the SAM batteries
already,

An unfortunate political decision, but regardless, having ADA and SAM's does
not by definition deny us 'air superiority". Though you are getting a bit
warmer here--the US did learn a lesson in regards to taking down the IADS,
instead of letting some politico back DC decide it was not a worthwhile
target...

nor
did they have AWACS aircraft to tell their fighters where the Migs were
200
or 300 miles
out.

Maybe not to the degree that we have now, but we did have these nifty things
called EC-121's...

Yeah...learned some lessons... learned how not to do it next time.

I don't know about that; yes, we did learn from the mistakes we made (which
is why we are the best, right?), but everything we did was not a mistake.
LBII seemed to be on the right track, and accomplished its goals. The first
truly effective use of heavy bombers in support of tactical ground units on
a widespread basis, the use of modern PGM's, effective use of helicopter
gunships (to include use of reliable ATGM's from helos, during the 72 Easter
Offensive IIRC), and the most effective use of heliborne airmobile assets up
to that time, etc.

And
how not to do it
is against someone as capable as themselves again.

Well, after we get finished with round one, the opposition tends to not be
very effective at all; witness ODS.

Go after the small
enemies, then your president
can look good on tv. ignore the big fish that'd kick yer arse again.

And which fish would that be?

china, ya know...that great country full of human rights abusers/oppressors that
the USA is so buddy-buddy with lately because they need their help in dealing
with north korea.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Michael Wise 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?


Billy

http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php