Treason
Dr Zen
fellows not to be killed wastefully in a pointless war, prosecuted not
to defend your nation but to subjugate another's.
Doubly strange the mind that insists that it is better to have strings
pulled and cower from your duty than to serve your nation honourably
and faithfully, and having seen face to face the horror of that
service argue that others should be spared it. (Of course, I would
have got my arse to Canada quick smart but I'm not pretending
otherwise. I don't paint myself as a man o' war, a man of action --
*snigger*.)
Which of them makes the world we want to live in? Which keeps you in
work? Which strengthens the economy so that you are enriched even?
Which creates the better environment for your children and their
children? To these minds these are side issues because they have
ceased to love even themselves.
Worst of all, these minds commit their own treason. They betray
themselves and their fellows by diminishing the world, making their
expression of caring about it a matter of namecalling and wearing the
right headscarf (I thought only LA gangs cared about that stuff, but
full marks to Kkklutz for his attempt to embrace other cultures).
Zen
Ray Haddad
>It's a strange sort of mind that insists it is treason to wish your
>fellows not to be killed wastefully in a pointless war, prosecuted not
>to defend your nation but to subjugate another's.
Davey,
The motives are not in question, just the deeds. Kerry aided the enemy whether
he did it intentionally or not. Information from his speeches were used to
enhance the torture of prisoners of war attempting to get them to cross over to
the same side as Kerry.
Message-ID: <93hhe09k3bq449l2h...@4ax.com>
>Doubly strange the mind that insists that it is better to have strings
>pulled and cower from your duty than to serve your nation honourably
>and faithfully, and having seen face to face the horror of that
>service argue that others should be spared it. (Of course, I would
>have got my arse to Canada quick smart but I'm not pretending
>otherwise. I don't paint myself as a man o' war, a man of action --
>*snigger*.)
The National Guard had a lot of units in Vietnam. To not know that is truly a
mistake the BushBots will regret. BushBots like yourself march in lockstep with
the only goal in mind to eliminate what you see as a threat. President Bush was
expecting to be called to Vietnam as were all National Guard units of the time.
John Kerry was quite surprised to find himself a combatant since he had joined
the US Navy. Some of us in service at the time volunteered to go to Vietnam and
some were plucked unwilling and assigned that task.
The National Guard's record in Vietnam is recorded here:
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/research_topics/vietnam_war_casualty_lists/statistics.html
>Which of them makes the world we want to live in? Which keeps you in
>work? Which strengthens the economy so that you are enriched even?
>Which creates the better environment for your children and their
>children? To these minds these are side issues because they have
>ceased to love even themselves.
People or ideologies, Davey? Which are you questioning? I'd rather have Bush
over Kerry any day. He's already proven he can do the job in spite of critics.
>Worst of all, these minds commit their own treason. They betray
>themselves and their fellows by diminishing the world, making their
>expression of caring about it a matter of namecalling and wearing the
>right headscarf (I thought only LA gangs cared about that stuff, but
>full marks to Kkklutz for his attempt to embrace other cultures).
This is just as disingenuous as your own post here obliquely attempting to
whitewash Kerry's abetting the enemy by giving them fodder to use against the
minds of prisoners of war.
You may continue to childishly ignore my comments until someone else quotes
them. I find no small delight in your ignorant silence.
Ray
I have met the enemy, the gods of SPAM, and I have triumphed.
Ray Haddad
>The motives are not in question, just the deeds. Kerry aided the enemy whether
>he did it intentionally or not. Information from his speeches were used to
>enhance the torture of prisoners of war attempting to get them to cross over to
>the same side as Kerry.
WAS, not WERE.
Information from his speeches was used . . .
Alan Hope
>The National Guard had a lot of units in Vietnam. To not know that is truly a
>mistake the BushBots will regret. BushBots like yourself march in lockstep with
>the only goal in mind to eliminate what you see as a threat. President Bush was
>expecting to be called to Vietnam as were all National Guard units of the time.
Is that why he refused to take a medical in 1972, effectively
grounding himself? He joined up, went from training to training, left
to go to work on a political campaign, got himself grounded and never
flew a fighter again. The rest of his service -- when he wasn't absent
-- he spent walking around on his own two feet.
What was that about? People don't normally sign up ready to serve (he
ticked the box saying he didn't want to go overseas, as you probably
know) and undergo millions of dollars worth of pilot training just so
they can later refuse to pee in a cup and chuch it all on the
rubbish-tip, do they?
What reason could he possibly have for refusing a mandatory medical
exam?
--
AH
Ray Haddad
>Ray Haddad goes:
>
>>The National Guard had a lot of units in Vietnam. To not know that is truly a
>>mistake the BushBots will regret. BushBots like yourself march in lockstep with
>>the only goal in mind to eliminate what you see as a threat. President Bush was
>>expecting to be called to Vietnam as were all National Guard units of the time.
>
>Is that why he refused to take a medical in 1972, effectively
>grounding himself? He joined up, went from training to training, left
>to go to work on a political campaign, got himself grounded and never
>flew a fighter again. The rest of his service -- when he wasn't absent
>-- he spent walking around on his own two feet.
Alan,
There's no evidence that he didn't show up for physicals except by his own
admission that he postponed them legitimately.
Even this left wing, Bush hating rag states that there is no evidence to
disprove the claims that he refused to muster for a physical. What they fail to
conclude is that there is equally no evidence there to prove the allegations
that he never showed up for them.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/17/records/index_np.html
>What was that about? People don't normally sign up ready to serve (he
>ticked the box saying he didn't want to go overseas, as you probably
>know) and undergo millions of dollars worth of pilot training just so
>they can later refuse to pee in a cup and chuch it all on the
>rubbish-tip, do they?
It's a false allegation. Simple as that.
Throughout my career, if you asked me the day before I deployed on any mission
whether I wanted to stay home with my family or go on a mission, my answer would
have been to stay home. Really. Not much of a surprise there. I'm only human.
But, once I got underway, I completed my missions to the best of my abilities,
which were considerably more than my abilities today.
>What reason could he possibly have for refusing a mandatory medical
>exam?
Again, he never refused. He only postponed it through the correct channels. In
order to be discharged or have his resignation of commission accepted, an
outgoing physical is mandatory.
I was required to have a physical every year I was in service. Two times that I
can recall (it may have been more), I was off doing official business where I
could not even make arrangements to postpone them. I just wasn't there. When I
returned to my unit, I simply rocked up to the medical department and spent a
whole day being poked, pricked, prodded and peed in a cup. End of problem.
The military is known for that sort of thing. Problem solving, that is. If Bush
couldn't make it for some reason, it wasn't a big deal. It only becomes a big
deal if someone wants to make one of it 30 years on.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
>The motives are not in question, just the deeds. Kerry aided the enemy whether
>he did it intentionally or not.
In which case, there is certainly no grounds to try Kerry for treason,
since intent is essential to finding someone guilty of treason.
"But one essential element of the crime of treason-indisputably
present in the Fonda situation, but lacking in the case of the three
Congressmen, and Kerry-is intent to betray the United States.. "
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=37308
--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Ray Haddad
<7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:34:10 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>The motives are not in question, just the deeds. Kerry aided the enemy whether
>>he did it intentionally or not.
>
>In which case, there is certainly no grounds to try Kerry for treason,
>since intent is essential to finding someone guilty of treason.
>
>"But one essential element of the crime of treason-indisputably
>present in the Fonda situation, but lacking in the case of the three
>Congressmen, and Kerry-is intent to betray the United States.. "
>
>http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=37308
If he was still a reservist, he would be subject to this from the UCMJ:
904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money,
or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives
intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse
with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military
commission may direct.
Without proper authority, Kerry willingly communicated with the enemy of the
United States of America.
If he wasn't in the reserves, he may be subject to other federal laws of
treason. The likelihood of his being in the reserves is the most damaging
possible reason for his refusal to make his military record public.
President Bush did it because he had nothing to hide. What's Kerry's reason?
Ray Haddad
I stand corrected. Kerry has released his discharge papers. He was released from
the reserves in 1978.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
So, he's just too stupid to realize how incriminating that is.
And this is the man so many want to see as President.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:25:59 +0200, Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
><7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:34:10 +0800, Ray Haddad
>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>The motives are not in question, just the deeds. Kerry aided the enemy whether
>>>he did it intentionally or not.
>>
>>In which case, there is certainly no grounds to try Kerry for treason,
>>since intent is essential to finding someone guilty of treason.
>>
>>"But one essential element of the crime of treason-indisputably
>>present in the Fonda situation, but lacking in the case of the three
>>Congressmen, and Kerry-is intent to betray the United States.. "
>>
>>http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=37308
>
>If he was still a reservist, he would be subject to this from the UCMJ:
Assuming this, why didn't they prosecute him then? Are they going to
prosecute him now?
>If he wasn't in the reserves, he may be subject to other federal laws of
>treason.
If he wasn't in the reserves, then of course he is subject to the
federal laws of treason. However, I have shown you that under those
conditions, he did not commit treason.
>The likelihood of his being in the reserves is the most damaging
>possible reason for his refusal to make his military record public.
So... someone is asking him to turn over his military records and he
has refused? I didn't know this. Because according to this site:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0422c.html
(biased, I know) the records are available here:
The direct address for Kerry’s Official Naval records is:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/military_records.html
The direct address for the After-Action Combat reports is:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/combat_reports.html
The direct address for the Command History of Coastal Division 11 –
1969 is: http://www.johnkerry.com/about/command_history.html
>President Bush did it because he had nothing to hide. What's Kerry's reason?
Apparently, he has none, since he has complied.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
In which case, I suggest that someone bring this to the attention of
the proper authorities. And at once.
>And this is the man so many want to see as President.
If the military believe that he did, in fact, commit treason, then he
certainly should be prosecuted - and it should start now, before the
election.
Ray Haddad
<7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:24:50 +0800, Ray Haddad
><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>I stand corrected. Kerry has released his discharge papers. He was released from
>>the reserves in 1978.
>>
>>http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
>>
>>So, he's just too stupid to realize how incriminating that is.
>
>In which case, I suggest that someone bring this to the attention of
>the proper authorities. And at once.
>
>>And this is the man so many want to see as President.
>
>If the military believe that he did, in fact, commit treason, then he
>certainly should be prosecuted - and it should start now, before the
>election.
Davida,
As of a few weeks ago, when I had last checked, those records were not all there
only the awards documents.
I am gobsmacked that he would allow himself to be so wide open.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 13:34:13 +0200, Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
><7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:24:50 +0800, Ray Haddad
>><rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I stand corrected. Kerry has released his discharge papers. He was released from
>>>the reserves in 1978.
>>>
>>>http://www.johnkerry.com/about/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf
>>>
>>>So, he's just too stupid to realize how incriminating that is.
>>
>>In which case, I suggest that someone bring this to the attention of
>>the proper authorities. And at once.
>>
>>>And this is the man so many want to see as President.
>>
>>If the military believe that he did, in fact, commit treason, then he
>>certainly should be prosecuted - and it should start now, before the
>>election.
>
>Davida,
>
>As of a few weeks ago, when I had last checked, those records were not all there
>only the awards documents.
>
>I am gobsmacked that he would allow himself to be so wide open.
>
Why are you so surprised? Either he's extremely stupid (which I'm
sure you may prefer to believe), or he knows something that neither
you nor I do in regards to his being liable for prosecution or not.
Nothing more simple than that, is there?
Ray Haddad
<7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
You may be laughing now, Davida. The joke may be on you.
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
I'm not laughing at all. I'm totally serious about this, I assure
you. Justice is, after all, supposed to be blind. If there really is
reason for him to be tried as a traitor, then he certainly should be
hauled into court (apparently, in this case, military court), and the
sooner the better.
No jokes, no sarcasm - that's my honest to goodness feeling about
this.
Alan Hope
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 09:54:40 +0200, Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> wrote:
>>Ray Haddad goes:
>>>The National Guard had a lot of units in Vietnam. To not know that is truly a
>>>mistake the BushBots will regret. BushBots like yourself march in lockstep with
>>>the only goal in mind to eliminate what you see as a threat. President Bush was
>>>expecting to be called to Vietnam as were all National Guard units of the time.
>>Is that why he refused to take a medical in 1972, effectively
>>grounding himself? He joined up, went from training to training, left
>>to go to work on a political campaign, got himself grounded and never
>>flew a fighter again. The rest of his service -- when he wasn't absent
>>-- he spent walking around on his own two feet.
>Alan,
>There's no evidence that he didn't show up for physicals except by his own
>admission that he postponed them legitimately.
Then why was he suspended? Read Paragraph 6 of the memo you can see at
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif.
From : http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154#item1
"In the Air National Guard, expensively trained pilots are not
casually suspended. There is normally a Flight Inquiry Board, which
exercises the military chain of command's obligation to insure due
process. If one had been convened, its three senior officer members
would have documented why such a severe action was justified in
relation to the country's military objectives at the time, as opposed
to the simple desire of a trained pilot to just "give up flying".
[...]
"In fact, there is no evidence now in the public domain that a Flight
Inquiry Board was convened to deal with Bush's official
reclassification to a non-flying, grounded status. However, the
records of such a Board would not be subject to an ordinary FOIA
request because of privacy protections under FOIA.
[...]
"Once again, the only way to get to the truth would be for George W.
Bush to personally request the release of his full military records."
I've redacted several paragraphs which contain conclusions I don't
necessarily endorse, and which in any case I've no desire to introduce
into this discussion.
>Even this left wing, Bush hating rag states that there is no evidence to
>disprove the claims that he refused to muster for a physical. What they fail to
>conclude is that there is equally no evidence there to prove the allegations
>that he never showed up for them.
Then why was he suspended from flying? Why did he never fly again?
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/17/records/index_np.html
>>What was that about? People don't normally sign up ready to serve (he
>>ticked the box saying he didn't want to go overseas, as you probably
>>know) and undergo millions of dollars worth of pilot training just so
>>they can later refuse to pee in a cup and chuch it all on the
>>rubbish-tip, do they?
>It's a false allegation. Simple as that.
It isn't. It's right there in the record.
>Throughout my career, if you asked me the day before I deployed on any mission
>whether I wanted to stay home with my family or go on a mission, my answer would
>have been to stay home. Really. Not much of a surprise there. I'm only human.
>But, once I got underway, I completed my missions to the best of my abilities,
>which were considerably more than my abilities today.
Yes, well I dare say there wasn't too much danger involved in pulling
pigeons out of hats.
>>What reason could he possibly have for refusing a mandatory medical
>>exam?
>Again, he never refused. He only postponed it through the correct channels. In
>order to be discharged or have his resignation of commission accepted, an
>outgoing physical is mandatory.
Then why was he suspended?
>I was required to have a physical every year I was in service. Two times that I
>can recall (it may have been more), I was off doing official business where I
>could not even make arrangements to postpone them. I just wasn't there. When I
>returned to my unit, I simply rocked up to the medical department and spent a
>whole day being poked, pricked, prodded and peed in a cup. End of problem.
Which Bush never did. His pilot status was never reinstated.
>The military is known for that sort of thing. Problem solving, that is. If Bush
>couldn't make it for some reason, it wasn't a big deal. It only becomes a big
>deal if someone wants to make one of it 30 years on.
There's simply no reason whatsoever why he couldn't make it. From the
above URL:
"Campaign officials originally brushed off this crucial event by
suggesting that Bush was simply unable to travel to Houston to visit
his family physician. But the Boston Globe reported that Air Force
Flight Surgeons were assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery
Alabama, where he was then living."
--
AH
Rick
<rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote:
> You may be laughing now, Davida. The joke may be on you.
Oh dear. Haddad is going to make a citizen's arrest.
--
Rick
Ed Rasimus
>>>Is that why he refused to take a medical in 1972, effectively
>>>grounding himself? He joined up, went from training to training, left
>>>to go to work on a political campaign, got himself grounded and never
>>>flew a fighter again. The rest of his service -- when he wasn't absent
>>>-- he spent walking around on his own two feet.
I know this will be difficult to understand, but as someone who spent
23 years in the USAF flying tactical jets (AKA "fighters"), who spent
two combat tours in SEA, who instructed USAF pilots in undergraduate
pilot training and in operational fighters, and who spent two years in
AF personnel during the period of the SEA drawdown, I can provide you
a bit of background and fact. (If, of course, you are willing to be
informed--even if it conflicts with your predilections.)
>
>>Alan,
>
>>There's no evidence that he didn't show up for physicals except by his own
>>admission that he postponed them legitimately.
>
>Then why was he suspended? Read Paragraph 6 of the memo you can see at
>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif.
>
>From : http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154#item1
>
>"In the Air National Guard, expensively trained pilots are not
>casually suspended. There is normally a Flight Inquiry Board, which
>exercises the military chain of command's obligation to insure due
>process. If one had been convened, its three senior officer members
>would have documented why such a severe action was justified in
>relation to the country's military objectives at the time, as opposed
>to the simple desire of a trained pilot to just "give up flying".
I never heard of a Flight Inquiry Board. There is a Flight Evaluation
Board, which is convened to determine suitability to continue to
exercise the privileges of an aeronautical rating (pilot's wings). It
would not be the venue for action for someone who did not get a
physical.
The situation was that during the period in question (the last few
months of Bush' service obligation), the Texas ANG unit of which he
was a member was transitioning from F-102 to F-101 aircraft. Bush did
not have sufficient remaining service obligation to make it reasonable
or cost-effective to retrain him in the new aircraft. Not qualified in
the unit's equippage means no flying.
He requested (documentation has been shown) temporary assignment to
Alabama ANG to support a political campaign. the Montgomery ANG unit
to which he was "attached" (not "assigned") was converting from F-84
aircraft to RF-4C. Bush was qualified in neither and was not
transferred to fill a unit aircrew slot. Regardless, during the period
in question, the F-84 aircraft had been grounded and the RF-4C
aircraft not yet delivered. No airplanes to fly means no flying.
Do you get a picture here?
>
>>Even this left wing, Bush hating rag states that there is no evidence to
>>disprove the claims that he refused to muster for a physical. What they fail to
>>conclude is that there is equally no evidence there to prove the allegations
>>that he never showed up for them.
>
>Then why was he suspended from flying? Why did he never fly again?
See above. During the period of '71-'72, I was the director of the
office of primary responsibility for USAF new aircrew training at
Randolph AFB TX. We managed all input and graduation assignment for
pilot, navigator and helicopter training as well as half a dozen
various survival courses.
Drawdown of SEA requirements left the AF with an excess of pilots.
Annual production was decreasing from more than 5000 pilots/year to
just over 3000. (Currently it's about 1200/yr.) Early outs for pilots
close to completing their service obligation were easy to obtain.
Retraining spaces for people in transitioning units were hard to come
by. If an ANG pilot was with 18 months of completion of his active
Guard commitment it would be no problem to get released.
Do you get a picture here?
>
>>>What was that about? People don't normally sign up ready to serve (he
>>>ticked the box saying he didn't want to go overseas, as you probably
>>>know) and undergo millions of dollars worth of pilot training just so
>>>they can later refuse to pee in a cup and chuch it all on the
>>>rubbish-tip, do they?
>
>>It's a false allegation. Simple as that.
>
>It isn't. It's right there in the record.
Random drug testing didn't start until much later in the '70s. My
recollection of the first urinalysis I was ever subjected to is around
'76-'77. That was active duty. I don't know how much later the program
would have been extended to Guard/Reserve aircrews.
As for "ticking the box saying he didn't want to go overseas" that
isn't quite true. In fact, documentation has been provided that he
volunteered for Palace Deuce, the F-102 ANG deployments to SEA. He
didn't go because his unit didn't go and he didn't have sufficient
flying time in the aircraft when he volunteered. By the time he did
amass sufficient flying hours, the F-102 had been withdrawn from SEA.
Do you get a picture here?
>
>>Throughout my career, if you asked me the day before I deployed on any mission
>>whether I wanted to stay home with my family or go on a mission, my answer would
>>have been to stay home. Really. Not much of a surprise there. I'm only human.
>>But, once I got underway, I completed my missions to the best of my abilities,
>>which were considerably more than my abilities today.
>
>Yes, well I dare say there wasn't too much danger involved in pulling
>pigeons out of hats.
But, if you consider, Bush entering UPT in '68 and voluntarily
becoming a member of an ANG unit flying an aircraft that was
participating in SEA hostilities, you would have to concede that
lacking prescience he would not have been able to know that he would
never go. He could not have foreseen that the F-102 would no longer by
playing the game by the time he completed UPT, survival and
operational qualification.
>
>>>What reason could he possibly have for refusing a mandatory medical
>>>exam?
>
>>Again, he never refused. He only postponed it through the correct channels. In
>>order to be discharged or have his resignation of commission accepted, an
>>outgoing physical is mandatory.
>
>Then why was he suspended?
See above regarding equippage by units and Bush' flying qualification.
If not assigned to a flying position, an annual flight physical is not
required. Non-rated officers, or rated officers in non-flying billets
don't need a flight physical and revert to the five-year cycle for
physicals (at least they did in those years.) He would lose his
monthly flying pay, but clearly he wasn't "in it for the money."
>
>>I was required to have a physical every year I was in service. Two times that I
>>can recall (it may have been more), I was off doing official business where I
>>could not even make arrangements to postpone them. I just wasn't there. When I
>>returned to my unit, I simply rocked up to the medical department and spent a
>>whole day being poked, pricked, prodded and peed in a cup. End of problem.
>
>Which Bush never did. His pilot status was never reinstated.
He didn't need to be on flying status. See above for details.
>There's simply no reason whatsoever why he couldn't make it. From the
>above URL:
>
>"Campaign officials originally brushed off this crucial event by
>suggesting that Bush was simply unable to travel to Houston to visit
>his family physician. But the Boston Globe reported that Air Force
>Flight Surgeons were assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery
>Alabama, where he was then living."
"Campaign officials" and the "Boston Globe" apparently don't have a
clue here. The rationale that "his family physician" would have given
him a flight physical is bogus under any scenario. Flight physicals
for USAF are only given by USAF flight surgeons. But, see above for
rationale for not getting one.
Do you get a picture here?
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
gekko
attribution:
> Is that why he refused to take a medical in 1972,
Not that I advocate Bush's attempts to dodge a rather ugly situation
where other young men were not given that choice, but as long as
you're bashing him for something he did 30 years ago, I'd just like
to drop this little quote in here from someone who is arguing pretty
much the same side as you are:
And you hold up some testimony that Kerry made to Congress
30 years ago as proof that he's slimy today? What were *you*
like 30 years ago? Grown at all since then? Changed at all?
Learned any lessons?
Message-ID: <iadhe015gr7dh3s69...@4ax.com>
--
gekko
All reports are in. Life is now officially unfair.
Alan Hope
Stick to the point. Why would a young pilot, son of a pilot, who had
had all the strings pulled to allow him to become a pilot (he leapt to
the head of the line despite scores in the 25th percentile) then walk
away from piloting because he couldn't make it to a medical?
Nothing to do with drug tests?
He might have been slimy then. He's slimy now if he doesn't clear
things up.
Not that I'm at all bound by what some other poster says.
You should try arguing better. You're really sucking swamp-mud lately.
--
AH
gekko
and, furthermore, said:
> Stick to the point.
Bwah.
--
gekko
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
society.
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop,
>and, furthermore, said:
>> Stick to the point.
>Bwah.
You have nothing to say, and so you post in increasing profusion.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>>>Alan,
>>From : http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154#item1
Taking your correction, and looking at
https://www.perscomonline.army.mil/opdistacc/WO/CWOmain.htm:
b. Approved applicants for AH-64 training will be accessed
contingent upon progression to readiness level (RL1) within the
timelimits prescribed in the appropriate AH-64 aircrew training manual
(ATM). Individuals who do not progress to RL1 in the prescribed time
will be referred to a flight evaluation board and considered for
separation.
c. All applicants must have an approved Class II flight physical.
Approved applicants without a current Class II flight physical will be
accessed contingent upon successful completion of a Class II flight
physical. This must be completed within 90 days of entry on active
duty. Individual who do not pass a Class II flight physical will be
separated.
Does that sound like the kind of thing you're talking about?
Paragraph c. seems to contradict what you say.
>The situation was that during the period in question (the last few
>months of Bush' service obligation), the Texas ANG unit of which he
>was a member was transitioning from F-102 to F-101 aircraft. Bush did
>not have sufficient remaining service obligation to make it reasonable
>or cost-effective to retrain him in the new aircraft. Not qualified in
>the unit's equippage means no flying.
That's not what the memo says he was suspended for.
>He requested (documentation has been shown) temporary assignment to
>Alabama ANG to support a political campaign.
His request had been refused at the time he was supposed to have taken
his medical. He was "attached" there later, though.
> the Montgomery ANG unit
>to which he was "attached" (not "assigned") was converting from F-84
>aircraft to RF-4C. Bush was qualified in neither and was not
>transferred to fill a unit aircrew slot. Regardless, during the period
>in question, the F-84 aircraft had been grounded and the RF-4C
>aircraft not yet delivered. No airplanes to fly means no flying.
That all came after he failed to take the medical.
You're arguing beside the point here, Ed. I've already shown you're
wrong on one main point, and you're waffling on the rest.
Read up on the myriad sources, and then get back to arguing on the
point.
[snip]
--
AH
gekko
Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and wrote this:
> nothing to say,
innit
--
gekko
I've learned that we don't have to ditch bad friends because their
dysfunction makes us feel better about ourselves.
Ed Rasimus
>Ed Rasimus goes:
I know this will be difficult because it challenges your deeply held
conclusions. Read the address slowly. Very slowly. Note "army". Please
acknowledge that while this may be a part of the US military, it has
not, REPEAT NOT, been synoymous with the USAF since the reorganization
act of 1947 which established the USAF as a separate service.
Bush was in the AIR National Guard, which is governed by USAF rules
regarding flying.
Now, go back to that URL and notice the WO/CWO--those are
abbreviations/acronyms for Warrant Officer/Chief Warrant Officer. Bush
was a commissioned officer, not a Warrant and not in the Army.
Your URL is irrelevant.
>
> b. Approved applicants for AH-64 training will be accessed
>contingent upon progression to readiness level (RL1) within the
>timelimits prescribed in the appropriate AH-64 aircrew training manual
>(ATM). Individuals who do not progress to RL1 in the prescribed time
>will be referred to a flight evaluation board and considered for
>separation.
Other than the mention of "flight evaluation board" which confirms
what I said, the remainder is about AH-64 training, a helicopter which
was not even in the ARMY inventory at the time that Bush was flying a
USAF fixed wing airplane.
> c. All applicants must have an approved Class II flight physical.
>Approved applicants without a current Class II flight physical will be
>accessed contingent upon successful completion of a Class II flight
>physical. This must be completed within 90 days of entry on active
>duty. Individual who do not pass a Class II flight physical will be
>separated.
The terminology "Class II" flight physical refers to FAA flight
physicals, which are different than USAF. They come in Class I, II and
III. A private pilot gets a Class III which lasts two years. A
commercial rating requires a Class II which is good for a year
(reverts to Class III for the second year), and Class I which is
required for ATP (Air Transport Pilot rating), i.e. airline pilot, and
is good for six months.
>
>Does that sound like the kind of thing you're talking about?
Only in that it refers to an air vehicle from another service.
>
>Paragraph c. seems to contradict what you say.
Actually not at all relevant.
>
>>The situation was that during the period in question (the last few
>>months of Bush' service obligation), the Texas ANG unit of which he
>>was a member was transitioning from F-102 to F-101 aircraft. Bush did
>>not have sufficient remaining service obligation to make it reasonable
>>or cost-effective to retrain him in the new aircraft. Not qualified in
>>the unit's equippage means no flying.
>
>That's not what the memo says he was suspended for.
The memo is trying to make a political point for partisan gain and
isn't dealing with the facts of the time. He wasn't "suspended" which
isn't a terminology that applies to USAF pilots on flying or
non-flying duty. You get "grounded" if you are not medically fit to
fly.
>
>>He requested (documentation has been shown) temporary assignment to
>>Alabama ANG to support a political campaign.
>
>His request had been refused at the time he was supposed to have taken
>his medical. He was "attached" there later, though.
Later, as in when the attachment was authorized.
>
>> the Montgomery ANG unit
>>to which he was "attached" (not "assigned") was converting from F-84
>>aircraft to RF-4C. Bush was qualified in neither and was not
>>transferred to fill a unit aircrew slot. Regardless, during the period
>>in question, the F-84 aircraft had been grounded and the RF-4C
>>aircraft not yet delivered. No airplanes to fly means no flying.
>
>That all came after he failed to take the medical.
The conversion of the TANG unit preceeded his going to Montgomery.
>
>You're arguing beside the point here, Ed. I've already shown you're
>wrong on one main point, and you're waffling on the rest.
I'm not waffling. I listed my credentials on the matter and I've given
you the chronology. You've not shown me wrong on any "main point" and
in fact have shown a remarkable disregard for the facts. You've also
displayed a somewhat cavalier disregard for some basics like the
difference between Army and AF, helicopters and airplanes, and facts
versus political posturing.
>
>Read up on the myriad sources, and then get back to arguing on the
>point.
You aren't about to admit to error, and you've demonstrated a lack of
the basics. I've argued directly to the point to refute your
assertions. Repetition doesn't make it so. Although Joe Goebbels tried
to assert that it did....repeatedly.
Alan Hope
>>>>>Alan,
>>>>From : http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154#item1
>Your URL is irrelevant.
Right. Let me explain to you how this works, Ed, since you're new
here.
I've given two cites which tend to support my argument, both of which
are *reasonably* reliable, in that they're not kook-sites, or blogs or
whatnot. You raised an objection to the first, part of which I took on
board. I then addressed another.
You object to that as well. It's getting to be around that time, Ed,
when you have to come up with something of your own. You're saying
that a Flight Evaluation Board in the Army is not the same thing as a
Flight Evaluation Board in the Air Force, which I'll be perfectly
willing to believe, once you put up something to prove it.
The site I pointed to made it clear that (I paraphrase) a suspension
would follow the failure to take a medical. You say that's not the Air
Force line. I'm delighted with your .sig, Ed, and with your apparent,
for all I know, facility with acronyms and so on. Now you have to show
something to prove your point, though.
A lot of people will be thinking, well why *don't* Air Force pilots
*have* to take medicals in order to keep on flying? That's what you
seem to be saying, Ed. Can you enlighten them? Can you point to where
it says that, in regulations or somewhere?
>> b. Approved applicants for AH-64 training will be accessed
>>contingent upon progression to readiness level (RL1) within the
>>timelimits prescribed in the appropriate AH-64 aircrew training manual
>>(ATM). Individuals who do not progress to RL1 in the prescribed time
>>will be referred to a flight evaluation board and considered for
>>separation.
>Other than the mention of "flight evaluation board" which confirms
>what I said, the remainder is about AH-64 training, a helicopter which
>was not even in the ARMY inventory at the time that Bush was flying a
>USAF fixed wing airplane.
Do you think that makes a difference to the substantive point?
>> c. All applicants must have an approved Class II flight physical.
>>Approved applicants without a current Class II flight physical will be
>>accessed contingent upon successful completion of a Class II flight
>>physical. This must be completed within 90 days of entry on active
>>duty. Individual who do not pass a Class II flight physical will be
>>separated.
>The terminology "Class II" flight physical refers to FAA flight
>physicals, which are different than USAF. They come in Class I, II and
>III. A private pilot gets a Class III which lasts two years. A
>commercial rating requires a Class II which is good for a year
>(reverts to Class III for the second year), and Class I which is
>required for ATP (Air Transport Pilot rating), i.e. airline pilot, and
>is good for six months.
>>Does that sound like the kind of thing you're talking about?
>Only in that it refers to an air vehicle from another service.
So a fighter pilot would be under less of a regime than a chopper
pilot? Is that what you're saying?
>>Paragraph c. seems to contradict what you say.
>Actually not at all relevant.
So pilots don't need to take medicals?
>>>The situation was that during the period in question (the last few
>>>months of Bush' service obligation), the Texas ANG unit of which he
>>>was a member was transitioning from F-102 to F-101 aircraft. Bush did
>>>not have sufficient remaining service obligation to make it reasonable
>>>or cost-effective to retrain him in the new aircraft. Not qualified in
>>>the unit's equippage means no flying.
>>That's not what the memo says he was suspended for.
>The memo is trying to make a political point for partisan gain and
>isn't dealing with the facts of the time.
Excuse me? The document is dated 29 September 1972. What are you
talking about?
>He wasn't "suspended" which
>isn't a terminology that applies to USAF pilots on flying or
>non-flying duty. You get "grounded" if you are not medically fit to
>fly.
Whatever. The memo nonetheless talks about "verbal orders of the
Commander on 1 Aug 1972 *suspending* 1stLt George W. Bush etc". My
emphasis. It goes on to talk about "Reasons for suspension".
Did you even look at the document?
>>>He requested (documentation has been shown) temporary assignment to
>>>Alabama ANG to support a political campaign.
>>His request had been refused at the time he was supposed to have taken
>>his medical. He was "attached" there later, though.
>Later, as in when the attachment was authorized.
Yes, but after he was supposed to have taken the medical.
>>> the Montgomery ANG unit
>>>to which he was "attached" (not "assigned") was converting from F-84
>>>aircraft to RF-4C. Bush was qualified in neither and was not
>>>transferred to fill a unit aircrew slot. Regardless, during the period
>>>in question, the F-84 aircraft had been grounded and the RF-4C
>>>aircraft not yet delivered. No airplanes to fly means no flying.
>>That all came after he failed to take the medical.
>The conversion of the TANG unit preceeded his going to Montgomery.
Not the point. He skipped his medical before his transfer was
approved. He was away from Houston, and that was at one point his
excuse: he couldn't get back to base. Never mind that there were
doctors on the base where he was (and shouldn't have been). Never mind
that at no point in the future did he make up the gap, and take the
medical.
>>You're arguing beside the point here, Ed. I've already shown you're
>>wrong on one main point, and you're waffling on the rest.
>I'm not waffling. I listed my credentials on the matter
Ahem. Worth the paper they're written on, Ed.
>and I've given
>you the chronology. You've not shown me wrong on any "main point" and
>in fact have shown a remarkable disregard for the facts.
You think Bush was in Alabama when the medical should have taken
place. He was, but not officially. In any case, there are doctors in
Alabama, fully authorised, who could have done the job. You waffle
about suspension or not-suspension without reading the memo. You even
claim the memo is partisan and not contemporaneous, when the date is
right on it.
>You've also
>displayed a somewhat cavalier disregard for some basics like the
>difference between Army and AF, helicopters and airplanes, and facts
>versus political posturing.
I don't pretend to be an expert on things that fly, but I've at least
shown that some pilots are required to take a regular medical. I've
also shown that Bush was "suspended" for not taking a medical.
You, with your credentials, are telling me that fighter pilots don't
need to take medicals.
>>Read up on the myriad sources, and then get back to arguing on the
>>point.
>You aren't about to admit to error, and you've demonstrated a lack of
>the basics. I've argued directly to the point to refute your
>assertions. Repetition doesn't make it so. Although Joe Goebbels tried
>to assert that it did....repeatedly.
So why was Bush suspended? It says right there on the document that he
was suspended. How come?
Why did he throw away his whole pilot's training? If it was so
important to him that he got into it despite his apparent lack of
promise (25 percentile, Ed) how come he just binned it in 1972, and
never flew his fighter planes again?
And since you're a flying expert, and I'm not, what do you make of the
strange stories on this site: http://tinyurl.com/k81y in which Bush is
apparently unable to fly a Cessna?
"Computer records show last Physical [link on page] as May 1971. Which
also shows him as CR MEM ON FS (crew member on flight service) not
PILOT."
He obviously never became a pilot after that, being grounded. So was
he a pilot or wasn't he?
--
AH
gekko
wrote this:
> You've not shown me wrong on any "main point" and
> in fact have shown a remarkable disregard for the facts. You've also
> displayed a somewhat cavalier disregard for some basics like the
> difference between Army and AF, helicopters and airplanes, and facts
> versus political posturing.
What? Say it isn't so! The Bluff Master's been caught with his weenie
in the glory hole!
--
gekko
Denial is how an optimist keeps from becoming a pessimist. (from the
Cynic's Dictionary)
John Kulczycki
Dr Zen wrote:
>It's a strange sort of mind that insists it is treason to wish your
>fellows not to be killed wastefully in a pointless war, prosecuted not
>to defend your nation but to subjugate another's.
>
>Doubly strange the mind that insists that it is better to have strings
>pulled and cower from your duty than to serve your nation honourably
>and faithfully, and having seen face to face the horror of that
>service argue that others should be spared it. (Of course, I would
>have got my arse to Canada quick smart but I'm not pretending
>otherwise. I don't paint myself as a man o' war, a man of action --
>*snigger*.)
>
>Which of them makes the world we want to live in? Which keeps you in
>work? Which strengthens the economy so that you are enriched even?
>Which creates the better environment for your children and their
>children? To these minds these are side issues because they have
>ceased to love even themselves.
>
>Worst of all, these minds commit their own treason. They betray
>themselves and their fellows by diminishing the world, making their
>expression of caring about it a matter of namecalling and wearing the
>right headscarf (I thought only LA gangs cared about that stuff, but
>full marks to Kkklutz for his attempt to embrace other cultures).
>
>Zen
>
It's the same mind frame that allows religious groups to proclaim
blasphemy and heresy. The more fanatical the cause the sooner the call.
The Spaniards had a word for it.
>
>
Dr Zen
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote:
>Alan Hope <ah...@skynet.be> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop,
>and, furthermore, said:
>
>
>> Stick to the point.
>
>Bwah.
Come off it. The point wasn't whether he would serve today. It was why
he ducked the drugs test back then.
Zen
gekko
this:
> Please note that *I* have not lit into Bush for his <let's be
> honest: abysmal> showing during the Vietnam war.
Oh, I noted. My words were indicative of that, too.
I'm just sayin' yer man, there, might want you nosing in there
reminding him.
--
gekko
I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has
data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of
theories to suit facts. - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Sherlock
Holmes
gekko
been? Last time i saw you, you were posting in misc.writing and
wrote this:
Whooosh.
--
gekko
The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing
without work. - Emile Zola (1840-1902)
Ray Haddad
>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 23:43:03 GMT, gekko said in misc.writing:
>
>>What? Say it isn't so! The Bluff Master's been caught with his weenie
>>in the glory hole!
>
>Where would that be, exactly?
Need a diagram?
Ray Haddad
There was no drug testing back then, zenboy. None at all.
That didn't start until after the EA-6B crashed on USS Nimitz.
Ray Haddad
I'll leave that up to you, Rick.
Ed Rasimus
>Ed Rasimus goes:
>>>>I know this will be difficult to understand, but as someone who spent
>>>>23 years in the USAF flying tactical jets (AKA "fighters"), who spent
>>>>two combat tours in SEA, who instructed USAF pilots in undergraduate
>>>>pilot training and in operational fighters, and who spent two years in
>>>>AF personnel during the period of the SEA drawdown, I can provide you
>>>>a bit of background and fact. (If, of course, you are willing to be
>>>>informed--even if it conflicts with your predilections.)
>
>>>Taking your correction, and looking at
>>>https://www.perscomonline.army.mil/opdistacc/WO/CWOmain.htm:
>
>>I know this will be difficult because it challenges your deeply held
>>conclusions. Read the address slowly. Very slowly. Note "army". Please
>>acknowledge that while this may be a part of the US military, it has
>>not, REPEAT NOT, been synoymous with the USAF since the reorganization
>>act of 1947 which established the USAF as a separate service.
>
>>Bush was in the AIR National Guard, which is governed by USAF rules
>>regarding flying.
>
>>Now, go back to that URL and notice the WO/CWO--those are
>>abbreviations/acronyms for Warrant Officer/Chief Warrant Officer. Bush
>>was a commissioned officer, not a Warrant and not in the Army.
>
>>Your URL is irrelevant.
>
>Right. Let me explain to you how this works, Ed, since you're new
>here.
>
>I've given two cites which tend to support my argument, both of which
>are *reasonably* reliable, in that they're not kook-sites, or blogs or
>whatnot. You raised an objection to the first, part of which I took on
>board. I then addressed another.
Army regulations on helicopters cover Army personnel. AF regulations
on airplanes cover USAF personnel. To cite one as relevant to the
other is "apples v oranges."
>
>You object to that as well. It's getting to be around that time, Ed,
>when you have to come up with something of your own. You're saying
>that a Flight Evaluation Board in the Army is not the same thing as a
>Flight Evaluation Board in the Air Force, which I'll be perfectly
>willing to believe, once you put up something to prove it.
Sorry, but your reading comprehension difficulty is manifesting here.
I said no such thing. I said I had never heard of a "Flight Inquiry
Board"--that the terminology was Flight Evaluation Board, but that
mechanism does not address maintenance of medical qualification for
flying status.
>
>The site I pointed to made it clear that (I paraphrase) a suspension
>would follow the failure to take a medical. You say that's not the Air
>Force line. I'm delighted with your .sig, Ed, and with your apparent,
>for all I know, facility with acronyms and so on. Now you have to show
>something to prove your point, though.
I did not say that either. I said that an FEB would not address the
issue. I do not dispute at all that a current flight physical is
necessary to perform rated duties. I DID say that since his unit was
transitioning (the Texas squadron), that he was not going to be flying
with the TANG. I DID say that during his posting to Montgomery that he
was qualified in neither the F-84 which was no longer flying or the
RF-4C which had not yet arrived at the unit. Since he would not be
flying in either location, a current flight physical was not a
critical requirement.
And, WTF does my sig have to do with the discussion?
>
>A lot of people will be thinking, well why *don't* Air Force pilots
>*have* to take medicals in order to keep on flying? That's what you
>seem to be saying, Ed. Can you enlighten them? Can you point to where
>it says that, in regulations or somewhere?
Read slowly and try not to move your lips.
>
>>> b. Approved applicants for AH-64 training will be accessed
>>>contingent upon progression to readiness level (RL1) within the
>>>timelimits prescribed in the appropriate AH-64 aircrew training manual
>>>(ATM). Individuals who do not progress to RL1 in the prescribed time
>>>will be referred to a flight evaluation board and considered for
>>>separation.
>
>>Other than the mention of "flight evaluation board" which confirms
>>what I said, the remainder is about AH-64 training, a helicopter which
>>was not even in the ARMY inventory at the time that Bush was flying a
>>USAF fixed wing airplane.
>
>Do you think that makes a difference to the substantive point?
Considerable difference. It isn't by any stretch applicable.
>
>>> c. All applicants must have an approved Class II flight physical.
>>>Approved applicants without a current Class II flight physical will be
>>>accessed contingent upon successful completion of a Class II flight
>>>physical. This must be completed within 90 days of entry on active
>>>duty. Individual who do not pass a Class II flight physical will be
>>>separated.
>
>>The terminology "Class II" flight physical refers to FAA flight
>>physicals, which are different than USAF. They come in Class I, II and
>>III. A private pilot gets a Class III which lasts two years. A
>>commercial rating requires a Class II which is good for a year
>>(reverts to Class III for the second year), and Class I which is
>>required for ATP (Air Transport Pilot rating), i.e. airline pilot, and
>>is good for six months.
>
>>>Does that sound like the kind of thing you're talking about?
>
>>Only in that it refers to an air vehicle from another service.
>
>So a fighter pilot would be under less of a regime than a chopper
>pilot? Is that what you're saying?
Not at any time did I say that. I said that Bush was not going to be
flying in either the TANG or the AANG during the period in question
for very valid reasons, hence a flight phyical was not an issue.
Suspension/grounding for non-currency of a medical would be an
administrative action to confirm this status. I had a similar
situation at one time when I was medically grounded for a year. My
flight physical lapsed during the period and an aeronautical order was
issued confirming my status as not able to fly during the period. When
I was returned to eligibility for flight status, a complete flight
physical was accomplished and another aeronautical order was issued
rescinding the grounding.
>
>So pilots don't need to take medicals?
Can you read at all?
>
>>>>The situation was that during the period in question (the last few
>>>>months of Bush' service obligation), the Texas ANG unit of which he
>>>>was a member was transitioning from F-102 to F-101 aircraft. Bush did
>>>>not have sufficient remaining service obligation to make it reasonable
>>>>or cost-effective to retrain him in the new aircraft. Not qualified in
>>>>the unit's equippage means no flying.
>
>>>That's not what the memo says he was suspended for.
>
>>The memo is trying to make a political point for partisan gain and
>>isn't dealing with the facts of the time.
>
>Excuse me? The document is dated 29 September 1972. What are you
>talking about?
Happy Birthday to me. What does the date have to do with anything?
It's four years after Bush commenced service which is nice. It also is
viewed by some as Michelmas day--the feast of St. Michael, the
archangel; and by those in the Southwest as the feast of St.
Geronimo--or St. Jerome. Happy Birthday to me.
>
>>He wasn't "suspended" which
>>isn't a terminology that applies to USAF pilots on flying or
>>non-flying duty. You get "grounded" if you are not medically fit to
>>fly.
>
>Whatever. The memo nonetheless talks about "verbal orders of the
>Commander on 1 Aug 1972 *suspending* 1stLt George W. Bush etc". My
>emphasis. It goes on to talk about "Reasons for suspension".
See above for a discussion of the administrative handling of a change
in flight status. No smoking gun here.
>>>That all came after he failed to take the medical.
>
>>The conversion of the TANG unit preceeded his going to Montgomery.
>
>Not the point. He skipped his medical before his transfer was
>approved. He was away from Houston, and that was at one point his
>excuse: he couldn't get back to base. Never mind that there were
>doctors on the base where he was (and shouldn't have been). Never mind
>that at no point in the future did he make up the gap, and take the
>medical.
He was going to be given an early out--six months prior to completion
of his service obligation. He never would fly again because of the
change in TANG equippage at Houston.
He would reasonably take his flight physical (if he were seeking
reinstatement either through personal preference or unit requirements)
at his home station. That is where his medical records would be
maintained. It would be decidedly exceptional to get a flight physical
at a military medical facility which did not maintain his med records.
Medical records do not usually accompany a military member during
temporary duty assignments.
>
>>>You're arguing beside the point here, Ed. I've already shown you're
>>>wrong on one main point, and you're waffling on the rest.
>
>>I'm not waffling. I listed my credentials on the matter
>
>Ahem. Worth the paper they're written on, Ed.
I think a discussion of USAF pilot procedures, requirements,
terminology, etc. would make them relevant. Do you have any
credentials to offer which might lend credibility to your statements?
>>You've also
>>displayed a somewhat cavalier disregard for some basics like the
>>difference between Army and AF, helicopters and airplanes, and facts
>>versus political posturing.
>
>I don't pretend to be an expert on things that fly, but I've at least
>shown that some pilots are required to take a regular medical. I've
>also shown that Bush was "suspended" for not taking a medical.
>
>You, with your credentials, are telling me that fighter pilots don't
>need to take medicals.
Never said any such thing. I said that Army is different than AF and
that FAA Class I/II/III physicals (which you cited) are different than
AF flight physicals.
>
>>You aren't about to admit to error, and you've demonstrated a lack of
>>the basics. I've argued directly to the point to refute your
>>assertions. Repetition doesn't make it so. Although Joe Goebbels tried
>>to assert that it did....repeatedly.
>
>So why was Bush suspended? It says right there on the document that he
>was suspended. How come?
Have I mentioned this in the past? He was no longer going to be flying
during the remainder of his tenure in the ANG--for very valid reasons.
That's how come.
>
>Why did he throw away his whole pilot's training? If it was so
>important to him that he got into it despite his apparent lack of
>promise (25 percentile, Ed) how come he just binned it in 1972, and
>never flew his fighter planes again?
He flew for more than four years. His unit "never flew his fighter
planes again" -- they changed systems and Bush did not have sufficient
tenure remaining to make the transition. He was never going to fly
while on active duty again. Lots of folks during that period were
offered early outs. Lots of contraction in flying units.
>
>And since you're a flying expert, and I'm not, what do you make of the
>strange stories on this site: http://tinyurl.com/k81y in which Bush is
>apparently unable to fly a Cessna?
Ya know what? I'm unable to fly a Cessna today as well. But, did you
read about the trip on the S-3 out to the carrier off San Diego? The
USN instructor who flew the President said the boss got some stick
time on the way and handled it just fine.
>
>"Computer records show last Physical [link on page] as May 1971. Which
>also shows him as CR MEM ON FS (crew member on flight service) not
>PILOT."
Duh! Crew Member on Flight STATUS (not service) is what a pilot is.
It's also what a navigator, an EW, even a weapons controller is. It's
the terminology to identify someone with regard to their duty status.
All crew members on flight status take the same physical and are
subject to the same PRP/HRP (Personnel and Human Reliability Program)
certification.
>
>He obviously never became a pilot after that, being grounded. So was
>he a pilot or wasn't he?
Do you have a language comprehension problem? I never flew an airplane
again after I retired from active duty in 1987. I've been asked why I
didn't go to work with the airlines. My reply is usually that Mario
Andretti never went to work for Greyhound after he retired from auto
racing. Was I a pilot or wasn't I?
You bet your sweet ass I was and will always be, whether I exercise my
rating or not. It's the same as there being no such thing as an
"ex-Marine."
Alan Hope
>>>Your URL is irrelevant.
So go on, then. Provide the correct URL. Or are you saying a fighter
pilot can skip his routine medical with no consequences?
>>You object to that as well. It's getting to be around that time, Ed,
>>when you have to come up with something of your own. You're saying
>>that a Flight Evaluation Board in the Army is not the same thing as a
>>Flight Evaluation Board in the Air Force, which I'll be perfectly
>>willing to believe, once you put up something to prove it.
>Sorry, but your reading comprehension difficulty is manifesting here.
>I said no such thing. I said I had never heard of a "Flight Inquiry
>Board"--that the terminology was Flight Evaluation Board, but that
>mechanism does not address maintenance of medical qualification for
>flying status.
So who does?
>>The site I pointed to made it clear that (I paraphrase) a suspension
>>would follow the failure to take a medical. You say that's not the Air
>>Force line. I'm delighted with your .sig, Ed, and with your apparent,
>>for all I know, facility with acronyms and so on. Now you have to show
>>something to prove your point, though.
>I did not say that either. I said that an FEB would not address the
>issue. I do not dispute at all that a current flight physical is
>necessary to perform rated duties. I DID say that since his unit was
>transitioning (the Texas squadron), that he was not going to be flying
>with the TANG. I DID say that during his posting to Montgomery that he
>was qualified in neither the F-84 which was no longer flying or the
>RF-4C which had not yet arrived at the unit. Since he would not be
>flying in either location, a current flight physical was not a
>critical requirement.
But his medical came due before his posting to Montgomery, Ed.
>And, WTF does my sig have to do with the discussion?
You seem to think it will carry you through any discussion, without
the need for any corroborative evidence. How do I know you're not a
14-year-old girl with a grasp of Google?
>>A lot of people will be thinking, well why *don't* Air Force pilots
>>*have* to take medicals in order to keep on flying? That's what you
>>seem to be saying, Ed. Can you enlighten them? Can you point to where
>>it says that, in regulations or somewhere?
>Read slowly and try not to move your lips.
Answer the question.
>>>> b. Approved applicants for AH-64 training will be accessed
>>>>contingent upon progression to readiness level (RL1) within the
>>>>timelimits prescribed in the appropriate AH-64 aircrew training manual
>>>>(ATM). Individuals who do not progress to RL1 in the prescribed time
>>>>will be referred to a flight evaluation board and considered for
>>>>separation.
>>>Other than the mention of "flight evaluation board" which confirms
>>>what I said, the remainder is about AH-64 training, a helicopter which
>>>was not even in the ARMY inventory at the time that Bush was flying a
>>>USAF fixed wing airplane.
>>Do you think that makes a difference to the substantive point?
>Considerable difference. It isn't by any stretch applicable.
So what is?
>>>> c. All applicants must have an approved Class II flight physical.
>>>>Approved applicants without a current Class II flight physical will be
>>>>accessed contingent upon successful completion of a Class II flight
>>>>physical. This must be completed within 90 days of entry on active
>>>>duty. Individual who do not pass a Class II flight physical will be
>>>>separated.
>>>The terminology "Class II" flight physical refers to FAA flight
>>>physicals, which are different than USAF. They come in Class I, II and
>>>III. A private pilot gets a Class III which lasts two years. A
>>>commercial rating requires a Class II which is good for a year
>>>(reverts to Class III for the second year), and Class I which is
>>>required for ATP (Air Transport Pilot rating), i.e. airline pilot, and
>>>is good for six months.
>>>>Does that sound like the kind of thing you're talking about?
>>>Only in that it refers to an air vehicle from another service.
>>So a fighter pilot would be under less of a regime than a chopper
>>pilot? Is that what you're saying?
>Not at any time did I say that. I said that Bush was not going to be
>flying in either the TANG or the AANG during the period in question
>for very valid reasons, hence a flight phyical was not an issue.
What valid reasons?
>Suspension/grounding for non-currency of a medical would be an
>administrative action to confirm this status. I had a similar
>situation at one time when I was medically grounded for a year.
Not at all the same situation, of course.
>My
>flight physical lapsed during the period and an aeronautical order was
>issued confirming my status as not able to fly during the period. When
>I was returned to eligibility for flight status, a complete flight
>physical was accomplished and another aeronautical order was issued
>rescinding the grounding.
Which never happened in Bush's case. I wonder why.
>>So pilots don't need to take medicals?
>Can you read at all?
You keep on saying, "No, not that. Not that either. Uh-uh, that's not
right." You could help by putting something in the place of all the
things you're rejecting.
Let me put it to you simply, and ask if you could make an effort to
answer in terms that will make sense to someone who's not a career Air
Force officer. Here's the situation:
A trained fighter pilot fails to turn up for a medical, and is
thereafter suspended from flying. He never flies again, despite having
gone to great lengths to become a flier some four years before. The
hugely expensive training to turn him into a flyer in wartime is
therefore wasted. He swans around the place helping in political
campaigns instead, and enters the Harvard Business School eight months
before his commitment is up, all the while having never flown again.
Does this strike you as normal?
>>>>>The situation was that during the period in question (the last few
>>>>>months of Bush' service obligation), the Texas ANG unit of which he
>>>>>was a member was transitioning from F-102 to F-101 aircraft. Bush did
>>>>>not have sufficient remaining service obligation to make it reasonable
>>>>>or cost-effective to retrain him in the new aircraft. Not qualified in
>>>>>the unit's equippage means no flying.
We're not talking about the last few months, by the way.
>>>>That's not what the memo says he was suspended for.
>>>The memo is trying to make a political point for partisan gain and
>>>isn't dealing with the facts of the time.
>>Excuse me? The document is dated 29 September 1972. What are you
>>talking about?
>Happy Birthday to me. What does the date have to do with anything?
It's exactly dealing with the facts of the time, having been written
at the time. And what political point could one hope to make regarding
a young flyer, for heaven's sake?
>It's four years after Bush commenced service which is nice. It also is
>viewed by some as Michelmas day--the feast of St. Michael, the
>archangel; and by those in the Southwest as the feast of St.
>Geronimo--or St. Jerome. Happy Birthday to me.
Are you saying the person who wrote the memo knew Bush was one day
going to be President?
>>>He wasn't "suspended" which
>>>isn't a terminology that applies to USAF pilots on flying or
>>>non-flying duty. You get "grounded" if you are not medically fit to
>>>fly.
>>Whatever. The memo nonetheless talks about "verbal orders of the
>>Commander on 1 Aug 1972 *suspending* 1stLt George W. Bush etc". My
>>emphasis. It goes on to talk about "Reasons for suspension".
>See above for a discussion of the administrative handling of a change
>in flight status. No smoking gun here.
The word "suspend" and its derivatives is used. Why does the memo give
his failure to take the medical as the reason for his change in flight
status, and not all the rest of the stuff you're faffing on about
above? Do you think he perhaps took the medical and somebody is lying?
>>>>That all came after he failed to take the medical.
>>>The conversion of the TANG unit preceeded his going to Montgomery.
>>Not the point. He skipped his medical before his transfer was
>>approved. He was away from Houston, and that was at one point his
>>excuse: he couldn't get back to base. Never mind that there were
>>doctors on the base where he was (and shouldn't have been). Never mind
>>that at no point in the future did he make up the gap, and take the
>>medical.
>He was going to be given an early out--six months prior to completion
>of his service obligation.
No, Ed. He was placed on inactive duty six months before the end of
his commitment in September 1973. He failed to take the medical in May
1972. You're confused.
>He never would fly again because of the
>change in TANG equippage at Houston.
But he wasn't suspended for that. He was suspended for failing his
medical.
>He would reasonably take his flight physical (if he were seeking
>reinstatement either through personal preference or unit requirements)
>at his home station. That is where his medical records would be
>maintained. It would be decidedly exceptional to get a flight physical
>at a military medical facility which did not maintain his med records.
He was in Alabama, Ed, and needed to be in Houston. He wasn't stuck up
the North fucking Pole.
>Medical records do not usually accompany a military member during
>temporary duty assignments.
He wasn't on a duty assignment, because his transfer had not been
approved. Are you just making this shit up?
>>>>You're arguing beside the point here, Ed. I've already shown you're
>>>>wrong on one main point, and you're waffling on the rest.
>>>I'm not waffling. I listed my credentials on the matter
>>Ahem. Worth the paper they're written on, Ed.
>I think a discussion of USAF pilot procedures, requirements,
>terminology, etc. would make them relevant. Do you have any
>credentials to offer which might lend credibility to your statements?
I can have all the credentials my little fingers can type, if I want
them. On the Internet, Ed, nobody knows you're a dog.
>>>You've also
>>>displayed a somewhat cavalier disregard for some basics like the
>>>difference between Army and AF, helicopters and airplanes, and facts
>>>versus political posturing.
>>I don't pretend to be an expert on things that fly, but I've at least
>>shown that some pilots are required to take a regular medical. I've
>>also shown that Bush was "suspended" for not taking a medical.
>>You, with your credentials, are telling me that fighter pilots don't
>>need to take medicals.
>Never said any such thing. I said that Army is different than AF and
>that FAA Class I/II/III physicals (which you cited) are different than
>AF flight physicals.
So did he have to take one or didn't he?
>>>You aren't about to admit to error, and you've demonstrated a lack of
>>>the basics. I've argued directly to the point to refute your
>>>assertions. Repetition doesn't make it so. Although Joe Goebbels tried
>>>to assert that it did....repeatedly.
>>So why was Bush suspended? It says right there on the document that he
>>was suspended. How come?
>Have I mentioned this in the past? He was no longer going to be flying
>during the remainder of his tenure in the ANG--for very valid reasons.
>That's how come.
That's how come he was *suspended*?
>>Why did he throw away his whole pilot's training? If it was so
>>important to him that he got into it despite his apparent lack of
>>promise (25 percentile, Ed) how come he just binned it in 1972, and
>>never flew his fighter planes again?
>He flew for more than four years. His unit "never flew his fighter
>planes again" -- they changed systems and Bush did not have sufficient
>tenure remaining to make the transition. He was never going to fly
>while on active duty again. Lots of folks during that period were
>offered early outs. Lots of contraction in flying units.
Were they offered the early out of being suspended, with special
mention of a failure to take a medical? What a sweetheart deal that
must have seemed. How could he refuse?
>>And since you're a flying expert, and I'm not, what do you make of the
>>strange stories on this site: http://tinyurl.com/k81y in which Bush is
>>apparently unable to fly a Cessna?
>Ya know what? I'm unable to fly a Cessna today as well. But, did you
>read about the trip on the S-3 out to the carrier off San Diego? The
>USN instructor who flew the President said the boss got some stick
>time on the way and handled it just fine.
Gosh. I'd certainly swallow testimony like that whole.
>>"Computer records show last Physical [link on page] as May 1971. Which
>>also shows him as CR MEM ON FS (crew member on flight service) not
>>PILOT."
>Duh! Crew Member on Flight STATUS (not service) is what a pilot is.
>It's also what a navigator, an EW, even a weapons controller is. It's
>the terminology to identify someone with regard to their duty status.
>All crew members on flight status take the same physical and are
>subject to the same PRP/HRP (Personnel and Human Reliability Program)
>certification.
Right. So there's no separate designation for pilots, then?
>>He obviously never became a pilot after that, being grounded. So was
>>he a pilot or wasn't he?
>Do you have a language comprehension problem? I never flew an airplane
>again after I retired from active duty in 1987. I've been asked why I
>didn't go to work with the airlines. My reply is usually that Mario
>Andretti never went to work for Greyhound after he retired from auto
>racing. Was I a pilot or wasn't I?
>You bet your sweet ass I was and will always be, whether I exercise my
>rating or not. It's the same as there being no such thing as an
>"ex-Marine."
Right. We're into the territory of cultish magic, then. Not much point
trying to get any sense out of you beyond this point, is there?
--
AH
The address shown is obviously not valid. Use Reply To.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>>And, WTF does my sig have to do with the discussion?
>
>You seem to think it will carry you through any discussion, without
>the need for any corroborative evidence. How do I know you're not a
>14-year-old girl with a grasp of Google?
I'm not sure a 14-year-old-girl wouldn't be more successful at
communicating with you.
But, regarding my sig:
http://www.sipress.si.edu/books/books_main.html (Smithsonian Press)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110003192 (Wall Street Journal)
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/rasimus.html
(Air University)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1588341038/qid=1032533163/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-2895018-8812013?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
(Amazon.com with reader reviews)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1588341992/qid=1085429178/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-2895018-8812013?v=glance&s=books
(Amazon.com for the upcoming Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891418547/qid=1085429178/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-2895018-8812013?v=glance&s=books
(Amazon for the paperback of When Thunder Rolled)
>>>Ahem. Worth the paper they're written on, Ed.
Somehow, I've managed to dupe Smithsonian Press, the Wall Street
Journal, Amazon.com and Random House with that paper.
>
>I can have all the credentials my little fingers can type, if I want
>them. On the Internet, Ed, nobody knows you're a dog.
Dogs bite.
Alan Hope
>But, regarding my sig:
>Dogs bite.
No, Ed. Dogs sit up and beg.
See forest of URLs, above.