If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Records Show Bush Guard Commitment Unmet
Records show pledges unmet
September 8, 2004 This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson. In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice. On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit. But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview. And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads. Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show. The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months. Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not ''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: ''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years." That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions. ''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard." Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush ''took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty." But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. ''There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said. Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. ''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said. After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that obligation in two successive fiscal years. Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb, who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. ''I see no evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that document, he should have fulfilled his obligation." The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend. Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970, after five additional months of specialized training in F-102 fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year. And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months. Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill. Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard." http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...duty_at_guard/ Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command. Walt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt, and he got Powell to perjure himself in front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick. 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. 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?) and I am holding my breath to see if we are going to get clear of this nightmare. The other night, Cheney tried to convince the nation that a vote for Kerry could lead to an attack by the terrorists - without mentioning that his own DHS has foretold many times that we are definitely going to be struck again, not if, but when. Cheney was trying to scare the "sheep people" into thinking that somehow, a vote for Bush would mean we'd somehow sidestep that inevitability. What kind of a tactic is that? Certainly not very honest of him. 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. 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. 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? Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that is a poor judge of character. 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. 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? 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. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote 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. 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. We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'. Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 __________________________________________________ _____________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com The Worlds Uncensored News Source |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks, George. These days, stating your political beliefs is basically
inviting a load of hurt, but I refuse to believe our country would be better off without the debate. v/r Gordon |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush's guard record | JDKAHN | Home Built | 13 | October 3rd 04 09:38 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |