wrote:

Geez, don't we have _enough_ threads on the election already?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:29:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

wrote:

Geez, don't we have _enough_ threads on the election already?

Thread is not about the election, J. Clarke. Thread is about the wimp
pretending to be warrior. I see a big difference.

If he wasn't up for election would anybody give a damn?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:29:35 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

wrote:

Geez, don't we have _enough_ threads on the election already?

Thread is not about the election, J. Clarke. Thread is about the wimp
pretending to be warrior. I see a big difference.

It isn't??? Perhaps you should drop the style of writing that you are using
take this dime and go call some one that cares.

theButler did say:

Thread is not about the election, J. Clarke. Thread is about the wimp
pretending to be warrior. I see a big difference.

I see a dead horse. Why don't we beat it some more...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:19:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Thread is not about the election, J. Clarke. Thread is about the wimp
pretending to be warrior. I see a big difference.

If he wasn't up for election would anybody give a damn?

Yeah, me. If this sissy hadn't of had daddy bail him out and and had
taken his rightful place serving his coutnry, it might be his friggin
back aching for the past 40 years and not mine.

So I do give a god damn. And would be damn glad to pass the ache on to
you too. You want it?

May be if you crawl back under your rock, you will not be so scared.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:37:46 GMT, "Leon"
Thread is not about the election, J. Clarke. Thread is about the wimp
pretending to be warrior. I see a big difference.

It isn't??? Perhaps you should drop the style of writing that you are
using
take this dime and go call some one that cares.

Leon, clever line! Where did you learn this one? And also where did
you find it in yourself to admire male snicker cheerleaders. An
Andover cheerleader on top of being a draftdodger.



When you got hooked and reeled in did you fight much?

wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:19:27 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


Thread is not about the election, J. Clarke. Thread is about the wimp
pretending to be warrior. I see a big difference.

If he wasn't up for election would anybody give a damn?

Yeah, me. If this sissy hadn't of had daddy bail him out and and had
taken his rightful place serving his coutnry, it might be his friggin
back aching for the past 40 years and not mine.

Or maybe neither of yours would be aching or both or maybe he'd have ended
up your CO and gotten you both and everybody else in your unit killed or
maybe you'd have seen that coming and fragged him and spent the rest of
your life in prison if you didn't get executed. But most likely he'd have
been somewhere else and had no effect whatsoever on your life. And he'd
_still_ be where he is now, only you'd have to find something else to whine
about.

So I do give a god damn. And would be damn glad to pass the ache on to
you too. You want it?

If he were not in politics would you have even _heard_ of "this sissy"? And
if it's not about the election then why are you bitching about this
particular sissy and not the tens of thousands of others who managed to
avoid service in various and sundry ways?

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

And since if I keep reading your posts I'm going to get sucked into this
discussion, plonk.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:48:02 GMT, "Leon"
So I do give a god damn. And would be damn glad to pass the ache on to
you too. You want it?

May be if you crawl back under your rock, you will not be so scared.


Answer the question, brain. Another ratBoy Bush brainless retort but
how about the back, you want it?

You note Leon it was the rat who was scared of bin Laden, you did
notice that didn't you? Talked big and then ran. Alligator mouth and
hummingbird ass, story of his life.

Are you always a TWIT?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:50:31 GMT, "Leon"
When you got hooked and reeled in did you fight much?

Well we know you almost certainly didn't if you are old enough. Guard
for you too? Obviously not, your ambience tells us that. Or five
student deferrents like the cadaver or maybe seven like old denture
breath Ashcroft? Or did you run off to England like Slick?

George 'ratBoy' Walker Bush.... your hero. A coward.

Not a coward and for sure not a BUTLER. LOL

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

If he were not in politics would you have even _heard_ of "this sissy"? And
if it's not about the election then why are you bitching about this
particular sissy and not the tens of thousands of others who managed to
avoid service in various and sundry ways?

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.

The crowd who espouse "Candidate 'X' dodged service in Vietnam because
he didn't serve there", are denigrating a HUGE majority of their fellow
veterans.

There are roughly 9 million Vietnam-era veterans. Only (roughly) 3
million served in Vietnam. Those who bash service in the Air National
Guard (which, BTW, served in the very ACTIVE role of nuclear intercept
missions in defense of CONUS), or who bash Army National Guard, or who
bash active duty vets who were assigned to Germany or Japan,
effectively bash TWO-THIRDS of Vietnam-era veterans.

Not everyone went to Vietnam. Many were subject to deployment. Get over
it.

Kevin

Kevin Craig writes:

The crowd who espouse "Candidate 'X' dodged service in Vietnam because
he didn't serve there", are denigrating a HUGE majority of their fellow
veterans.

There are roughly 9 million Vietnam-era veterans. Only (roughly) 3
million served in Vietnam. Those who bash service in the Air National
Guard (which, BTW, served in the very ACTIVE role of nuclear intercept
missions in defense of CONUS), or who bash Army National Guard, or who
bash active duty vets who were assigned to Germany or Japan,
effectively bash TWO-THIRDS of Vietnam-era veterans.

Not everyone went to Vietnam. Many were subject to deployment. Get over
it.

It didn't quite work that way back in the '70s. The ANG was a lot different
than today's ANG, and was mostly a refuge for those who didn't want to go but
didn't want to say so.

Nuclear intercept missions? From a part-timer, who didn't show up his last
year? They trained, on obsolete equipment, for a mission that never happened.

And that latter part is the crux of the problem most of us have with Bush's
military service. It took connections and string yanking to get him into the
Guard. When he decided 'enough was enough' he lit out, with no repercussions,
and still got an honorable discharge.

I can assure you, as a former corporal in the USMC, that there was no actual
'bug-out when it gets rough or boring' option that ended with an honorable
discharge. At least not for the average guy, which is what Shrub tries to
portray himself as.

Charlie Self
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

Charlie Self wrote:

Kevin Craig writes:

The crowd who espouse "Candidate 'X' dodged service in Vietnam because
he didn't serve there", are denigrating a HUGE majority of their fellow
veterans.

There are roughly 9 million Vietnam-era veterans. Only (roughly) 3
million served in Vietnam. Those who bash service in the Air National
Guard (which, BTW, served in the very ACTIVE role of nuclear intercept
missions in defense of CONUS), or who bash Army National Guard, or who
bash active duty vets who were assigned to Germany or Japan,
effectively bash TWO-THIRDS of Vietnam-era veterans.

Not everyone went to Vietnam. Many were subject to deployment. Get over
it.

It didn't quite work that way back in the '70s. The ANG was a lot
different than today's ANG, and was mostly a refuge for those who didn't
want to go but didn't want to say so.

Nuclear intercept missions? From a part-timer, who didn't show up his last
year? They trained, on obsolete equipment, for a mission that never
happened.

And that latter part is the crux of the problem most of us have with
Bush's military service. It took connections and string yanking to get him
into the Guard. When he decided 'enough was enough' he lit out, with no
repercussions, and still got an honorable discharge.

I can assure you, as a former corporal in the USMC, that there was no
actual 'bug-out when it gets rough or boring' option that ended with an
honorable discharge. At least not for the average guy, which is what Shrub
tries to portray himself as.

I suppose that the US Navy officers and enlisted men who served in Boomers
were also dodging actual military service since they "trained for a mission
that never happened". Also the flight crews of the Strategic Air Command
who never dropped a single hydrogen bomb in anger. Also all the troops who
did garrison duty in Germany but never stopped a single Russian tank. Not
to mention the guys who spent their entire military careers sitting in
missile silos waiting for an order that never came. Or the ones who manned
the Nike sites and never shot at a single Russian bomber.

Are you familiar with the notion that "they also serve who stand and wait"?

But you'd find something to complain about if you won the Powerball and Anna
Kournikova and Britney Spears decided that they'd throw themselves in as
part of the prize, wouldn't you.

Charlie Self
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , Charlie Self
wrote:

Kevin Craig writes:

The crowd who espouse "Candidate 'X' dodged service in Vietnam because
he didn't serve there", are denigrating a HUGE majority of their fellow
veterans.

There are roughly 9 million Vietnam-era veterans. Only (roughly) 3
million served in Vietnam. Those who bash service in the Air National
Guard (which, BTW, served in the very ACTIVE role of nuclear intercept
missions in defense of CONUS), or who bash Army National Guard, or who
bash active duty vets who were assigned to Germany or Japan,
effectively bash TWO-THIRDS of Vietnam-era veterans.

Not everyone went to Vietnam. Many were subject to deployment. Get over
it.

It didn't quite work that way back in the '70s. The ANG was a lot different
than today's ANG, and was mostly a refuge for those who didn't want to go but
didn't want to say so.

But the subject at hand is Air National Guard, which *did* serve in
Vietnam.


Nuclear intercept missions? From a part-timer, who didn't show up his last
year? They trained, on obsolete equipment, for a mission that never happened.

The mission *did* happen. The mission was deterence and intercepts.

Part-timer? Well, okay, if you care to call 53 weeks of initial active
duty for training, then another year of training, "part-time". And then
880 hours of flight time logged over the next three years, which is
staying pretty darned busy.

Bush spent more time on active duty than Kerry, and also volunteered
for an active rotation over Vietnam. (He was rejected because they were
only accepting pilots with 1,000+ hours for F-102 missions.)


And that latter part is the crux of the problem most of us have with Bush's
military service. It took connections and string yanking to get him into the
Guard.

There were waiting lists and strings to be yanked to get into the
*Army* National Guard. The *Air* National Guard was actively recruiting
and seeking pilots; Bush himself appeared in a recruiting poster. There
was no waiting list, nor strings to be pulled, for someone qualified to
be a pilot.


When he decided 'enough was enough' he lit out, with no repercussions,
and still got an honorable discharge.

Bush met the drill and time requirements every single year he was in
the Air National Guard, including the so-called "missing" year. By
1972, the Air Guard was surfeit with pilots with no planes to fly. As
you said, the F-102 was obsolete and being phased out. The active war
in Vietnam was rapidly drawing down. It would be foolish to retrain an
Air Guard pilot when there was a surplus of trained F-4 pilots coming
off of active duty.

I can assure you, as a former corporal in the USMC, that there was no actual
'bug-out when it gets rough or boring' option that ended with an honorable
discharge.

I dunno, Kerry managed to find a way.

Speaking of getting out early, ponder this:

- On 18 February 1966 John Kerry signed a 6-year enlistment contract
with the Navy, plus a 6-month extension during wartime.

- On 18 February 1966 John Kerry signed an Officer Candidate contract
for 6 years. This included 5 years of active duty & drilling Naval
Reserves, and 1 year of inactive reserves.

- John Kerry was discharged from active duty after only 3 years and 18
days on 3 January 1970. With his Naval Reserve contract, he was
obligated to attend 48 drills and 17 days active duty for training
every year until the end of his obligation (two more years). There is
no evidence that he participated in any USNR activity.

- In his letter of 21 November 1969 asking for an early release from
active duty, Kerry falsely said, "My current regular period of
obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

- While the news media have turned over every possible rock to find
Bush's service records (despite his authorization for them to be
released), Kerry has steadfastly refused to authorize release of his
records.

Please note, I don't denigrate Kerry's Navy service. He voluntarily
went to a scary place where Bad Things Happened. His motivations are
suspect, and his actions afterward are contemptable (and criminal), but
he did serve. So did Bush. So did supply clerks in Germany, or cooks
who spent their active duty in CONUS, or National Guard enlisted
infantrymen who happened to be in the right place at the right time to
get a Guard slot.

But when we're talking about candidates' military service, let's be
sure to mention the obligations of BOTH candidates.

Kevin

J. Clarke responds:


I suppose that the US Navy officers and enlisted men who served in Boomers
were also dodging actual military service since they "trained for a mission
that never happened". Also the flight crews of the Strategic Air Command
who never dropped a single hydrogen bomb in anger. Also all the troops who
did garrison duty in Germany but never stopped a single Russian tank. Not
to mention the guys who spent their entire military careers sitting in
missile silos waiting for an order that never came. Or the ones who manned
the Nike sites and never shot at a single Russian bomber.

Are you familiar with the notion that "they also serve who stand and wait"?

Sure. Especially those who train on obsolete equipment on a part-time basis.
They stand and stand and stand.

But you'd find something to complain about if you won the Powerball and Anna
Kournikova and Britney Spears decided that they'd throw themselves in as
part of the prize, wouldn't you.

Bush doesn't fit any of those categories.

Charlie Self
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Or the ones who manned
the Nike sites and never shot at a single Russian bomber.

There's so much I don't know about history...

I had no idea folks were trained to shoot sneakers at the Ruskies. Were
they old and smelly? Otherwise I don't see the effectiveness of that
weapon system. Oh, wait just one minute - was this some sort of
biological warfare? Spread an epidemic of athlete's foot?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

The problem in this country is that the bar is constantly being lowered;
we then cheer clearing the bar as a great accomplishment and achievment.

Kevin Craig wrote in message ...


But the subject at hand is Air National Guard, which *did* serve in
Vietnam.

It is true that both NG and ANG forces were deployed in Vietnam.
Most remained in the US. Enlisting in the NG was not a sure bet
to avoid serving in Vietnam, but those who did enlist in the NG
or ANG were much less likely to end up in Vietnam than were those
who were drafted.



Bush spent more time on active duty than Kerry, and also volunteered
for an active rotation over Vietnam. (He was rejected because they were
only accepting pilots with 1,000+ hours for F-102 missions.)

False to Fact. Bush volunteered for the Palace Alert program which
was flying F-102s overseas but was not flying F102s in Vietnam. The
F102 was withdrawn from service in Vietnam before Bush volunteered.
The F102 was a missiles-only interceptor, it had no guns and was not
designed to carry bombs. It was designed for the sole mission of
intercepting bombers. As such it was sub-optimal for the sorties
being flown in Vietnam where the enemy had no bombers.

You are correct that he was rejected from the program because he had
insufficient experience, but even if accepted, he would not have
flown in Vietnam.

Also, one presumes that Bush knew of the minimum stick-time requirement
befor he volunteered. According to personal corespondence from one
veteran aviator it was commonplace for guys to volunteer for service
where they knew they would not be accepted because it looked good
in their records.

All of which is fine with me. IMHO none of that reflects poorly
on Bush as a young man The misinformation about 'volunteering for
Vietnam' does reflect poorly on his campaign but one presumes that
Bush does not take an active role in campaign issues.


Bush met the drill and time requirements every single year he was in
the Air National Guard, including the so-called "missing" year.

It is a trying exercise to atempt to follow the chronology. But
the worse I have seen is that during that 'missing year' he got
behind on drills and made them up later, which was evidently not
unusual.

By
1972, the Air Guard was surfeit with pilots with no planes to fly. As
you said, the F-102 was obsolete and being phased out. The active war
in Vietnam was rapidly drawing down. It would be foolish to retrain an
Air Guard pilot when there was a surplus of trained F-4 pilots coming
off of active duty.

True enough although his Texas ANG group continued to fly the F102
until 1974. I see no reason to suppose that he stopped flying for
any reason other than the one he stated--to do political work out-
of-state. I'm also sure that wasn't particularly unusual.

--

FF