Kerry's war record Vs Bush's

time for a little humor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DAVI.html

Quote:

0 Replies

I am a war president proclaims Mr. Bush. I guess he is even though he had to stage a preemptive attach upon another nation to attain that status. The only tittle I would like to hang on him is Ex-president.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973, Ed. Knaack, M. S., Office of Air Force History, US Govt. Printing Office, 1986, Rev 1997: ... That's sitting on my bedside table.

Oh, I know its not exactly a Trade Paperback, but A) It is the definitive source for that particular type of material, superior to, and referenced by, the superb publications from Janes (which I also have and keep current), and B) It IS on my bookshelf ... well, more accurately at that moment, it was on my desk. Its about the size of a big-city phonebook, BTW, with very few illustrations, and incorporates some 2300+ footnotes. You really don't wanna ask me about 19th Century-thru-present military tech trivia - aircraft, armor, artillery, vehicles, logistic and support systems, weapons systems, naval vessels, uniforms, personal, squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, regiment, division or corps level weapons and/or organization, large-and-small-unit tactics -that sort of thing - unless you want more information than you need; I have LOTS of "Specific Interest Technical Reference Material" readily at hand. Its a hobby of sorts, but one I rarely get to dazzle folks with. I gleefully sieze every opportunity to do so. :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Tantor wrote:
[
As Reagan said, the problem with liberals is that many of the things that liberals know to be true, simply aren't.

Useless ad hominem/

Edited to withdraw comment

0 Replies

Ad Hominem is as Ad Hominem does. Just don't do it. Nobody other than the flamethrowers gets anything out of it, it adds nothing to the discourse, and I'm getting damned tired of the barrage of Report PMs I've been getting. Lets leave this sort of foolishness to the politicicians ... they get paid for it.

0 Replies

Must have been boring at the conservative blog mill.

0 Replies

timber

In fact, I'm envious of the knowledge your passions have led you to. And I'm certainly envious of anyone who flies.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Tantor wrote:

As Reagan said, the problem with liberals is that many of the things that liberals know to be true, simply aren't.

Useless ad hominem/

Not an ad hominem argument but a factual observation. Your argument is an example of a liberal furiously believing a false position unsupported by facts.

Quote:

F-102s were deployed to Southeast Asia and Europe in the Palace Chase program, which wound down just as Lt. Bush graduated from pilot training and entered F-102 training. The F-102s played no significant combat role in Vietnam, though had the Soviets given the North Vietnamese bombers, they would have been hip deep in combat. That's the problem with war, it's so unpredictable.

hobitbob wrote:

[I think you are thinking of the F-106. The F-102 was obsolete by 1965. The F-106 was close to that point.

Wrong. F-102s were still in service and being deployed in the Palace Chase program as detailed by witnesses from the Guard, despite your fuzzy-wuzzy speculation to the contrary. You might recall that Bush was training in F-102s after 1965, the year you evidently think that they were all replaced by F-106s. The TANG flew its F-102s until 1973, eight years after you claim they were no longer in service.

This is an example of liberals furiously believing in something false. For example, you weigh your speculation about F-102s being replaced by F-106s more than the accounts of contemporary witnesses stating that F-102s were indeed deployed to Vietnam. You simply dismiss inconvenient facts to pursue your fantasy, just as Reagan pointed out.

Quote:

It is true that I have flown as a WSO in F-4s. It is also true that your point about tactical and interceptor roles in air power is incomprehensible. Interceptors are tactical aircraft. Interception is a tactical mission, a mission I rehearsed nearly every day in the F-4. What do you think those air-to-air missiles hanging on the jet were for, Mr. Airpower Genius?

hobitbob wrote:

So you aren't aware that an entirely sepearte major command existed in teh 1950s-1980s that had as its mission defence of the continental US? This misson was mostly carried out by aircraft designed as interceptors, the F-106 and 102 were sterling examples, equipped with missiles to shoot down long range soviet bombers. The F-4 did not begin to assume the interceptor mission with the Air Force until the later 1970s, when the F-106 was being phased out.
BTW, are you aware that your ad hominems make you seem silly?

This argument is a non sequitur from your original argument that the role of interception is separate from tactical aviation. It's not. My many practice interception missions in the F-4 as a member of the Tactical Air Command demonstrate that interception is a tactical mission. Likewise, interceptions of fighters were carried out by F-4s in North Vietnam many times.

You cited this erroneous distinction as "proof" that F-102s were never deployed to SEA because the air war there was primarily tactical. That's false. F-102s were deployed to SEA in the Palace Chase program, even though that reality differs with your fantasy that it could never be.

Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda blog

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

... Edited ...

Well done. Thanks. I know it may not feel better, but it sure looks a lot better. I'm sure most folks appreciate what you did.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Designed for the Airforce's Air Defense Command specifically as a high-speed-high-altitude bomber interceptor, the F-102 was not mission-suited for deployment in Vietnam; there were no enemy bombers for it to intercept, whatever the speed or altitude.

Thank you for a factual post, a rare treat on this thread.

I agree that the F-102 had no real role in Vietnam as there were no appropriate threats for it to counter. I also agree that it played no significant combat role. However, you do point out that it was in fact deployed to SEA, despite the less informed posters strident assertions to the contrary.

That's my point. F-102s were deployed to SEA in penny packets as part of the Palace Chase program, a program for which Lt. Bush volunteered.

Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda blog

0 Replies

Hey, Tantor ... good to see you around again, by the way ... wondered where you'd been. I hope everything's OK with your world. I gotta say I agree that your quote from Reagn was not an Ad Hominem directed by you to anyone here, but your comment

Quote:

...Your argument is an example of a liberal furiously believing a false position unsupported by facts. ...

comes pretty close to being such, whether I agree with you on the point or not Twisted Evil

As to the Plane Game, did you miss THIS little bit of pertinent silliness? Just wondering.

0 Replies

Looks like our posts crossed there. No biggie.
Glad you enjoyed the "factual post", but I don't think that genre is all that rare in my posting history. I'm pretty persnickety about facts, even if my opinions might not be the same as those of others who may or may not have considered the same facts. Not to rag on you, but I believe you're still confusing "Palace Chase" with "Palace Alert". You might wanna check that out.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Must have been boring at the conservative blog mill.

It was a little boring, I must admit. Time to mix it up a little bit and sharpen my arguments.

Thanks for playing,

Tantor

0 Replies

so as I understand it Bush was trained to fly the F-102, at large expense, a plane which was in the process of being scrubbed and replaced by the F-106?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Hey, Tantor ... good to see you around again, by the way ... wondered where you'd been. I hope everything's OK with your world.

I got bored with posting. I wasn't learning anything from the demagogues I was debating with. They were just repeating the party line.

timberlandko wrote:

I gotta say I agree that your quote from Reagn was not an Ad Hominem directed by you to anyone here, but your comment
Quote:
...Your argument is an example of a liberal furiously believing a false position unsupported by facts. ...
comes pretty close to being such, whether I agree with you on the point or not .

What I find in discussions with the hard core liberals is that they are heavily indoctrinated with unexamined beliefs. Much of the liberal orthodoxy is simply propaganda untethered to the real world. Even casual liberals seem to acquire their beliefs in a haphazard way. They adopt a position that conforms to their friends views and then look for anecdotes that support it rather than establish the facts and follow them to a conclusion.

This entire Bush Is AWOL campaign illustrates this line of fallacious reasoning. Liberals, looking for an issue, simply invented this issue and desperately distorted through a sort of willful ignorance what few things they could find to promote it. Now that the witnesses and documents are surfacing to authoritatively refute it, I don't think it is enough to simply place the facts on the table. You must point out that the way that liberals acquire their views is an erroneous process that produces positions that are not credible, just as alchemy leads to false conclusions or religious cults or necromancy or astrology.

If somebody were to state the Earth was flat, it is not enough to simply prove that assertion false but also to demonstrate that the method of coming to that conclusion is wrong. Likewise with liberals, it's not enough to prove their ideas are unworkable and wrong but to demonstrate that their method of acquiring them is flawed and produces intellectual junk.

The whole point of pointing out the Left's furious adherence to their orthodoxy, their Politically Correct party line, is to force them to make their case on the facts rather than by reassertion of the party line in a rage.

Tantor

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

so as I understand it Bush was trained to fly the F-102, at large expense, a plane which was in the process of being scrubbed and replaced by the F-106?

There isn't a fighter in the Air Force inventory that isn't in the process of being replaced by a new design. Everything in tactical aviation is expensive. Just gassing the jet is expensive.

In Bush's case, his unit swapped F-102s for either F-100s or F-101s, can't remember which. That's one reason why his unit let him go early. To convert from one tactical jet to another probably takes about six months or less of training. For example, the full syllabus for F-4 RTU took six months for newbies like me. I think there was a Reader's Digest version of the syllabus for experienced fighter jocks that took less time.

Bush's TANG unit had a history of flying fighter-bombers so flying a pure interceptor was a departure for them.

Tantor

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

As Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, I think both Bushes have handled themselves quite admirably. The times we are living in demand a president who will not be weak against our enemies. Bush II has shown no weakness. Some decry Bush's sending our young-men off to die. I say that he is sending our soldiers off to do their jobs. To protect America and the American way of life. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". Bush has done just that.

What Bush did or didn't do 30 years ago does not matter a bit to me. He has shown himself to be a man of distinction and a man that has been forced to make many tough decision's. I would not want to be in his position, deciding another man's fate is no easy task. Bush has shown that he is a man of character and faith. He has shown himself to be a true leader of our armed forces.

My God, you are truly unbelievable.....

0 Replies

facts just keep this avowed liberal confused:
fact one-On Meet the Press, President Bush promised Tim Russert he'd authorize the release of all his service records.
fact two-Scott McClellan: "No, I think the question was payroll records.
facts seem to get fuzzy, but what the hey, I am just another stinking liberal anarchist following the party line.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
As Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, I think both Bushes have handled themselves quite admirably. The times we are living in demand a president who will not be weak against our enemies. Bush II has shown no weakness. Some decry Bush's sending our young-men off to die. I say that he is sending our soldiers off to do their jobs. To protect America and the American way of life. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". Bush has done just that.

What Bush did or didn't do 30 years ago does not matter a bit to me. He has shown himself to be a man of distinction and a man that has been forced to make many tough decision's. I would not want to be in his position, deciding another man's fate is no easy task. Bush has shown that he is a man of character and faith. He has shown himself to be a true leader of our armed forces.

My God, you are truly unbelievable.....

I couldn't agree with the first paragraph more. The Bush's are good war presidents, certainly much better than JFK and LBJ, who screwed up the wars they fought. And Clinton, holy cow. He screwed up a little humanitarian mission in Somalia. You really can't improve on the Bush's if you need to fight a war.

It does matter to me what Bush did thirty years ago. To be blunt, Bush in his twenties sounds like a headstrong knucklehead who needed a good kick in the pants every other day. However, he did join the military when it was very unpopular to do so. I have no doubt that he took casual abuse from hippie jerks just like all of us in uniform did at that time. Bush did not take some time-serving job in the military either like Gore or Dukakis, but a very demanding job in a dangerous profession: flying tactical jets. Even in peacetime, there is a steady drip of deaths just going out to the range and back. You can get killed just walking away from the jet.

Just being in the military gives you a perspective and values that make you a more effective commander. You are more likely to value the lives of those military people and less likely to think of them as chess pieces in a political game, as Clinton did.

Tantor

0 Replies

tantor

If you truly want to discuss, and sharpen your arguments, then lay off the generalizations and ad hominems. Be specific, be polite, and be careful.

0 Replies

Kerry's war record Vs Bush's

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know