June 30, 2009, - 10:44 am

EXCLUSIVE – Obama’s Boundless Pettiness: Has “Lt. Bush” Name Painted Over on Plane From Former Prez’s Air Force Service

By Debbie Schlussel
The pettiness and low-class behavior of the current Commander-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, apparently knows no bounds and no nadirs too low to which to aspire.
That’s displayed by the Obama administration’s paint-over of the name of former President George W. Bush on an airplane he flew as a pilot in the United States Air Force.
As readers know, I was not a fan of Bush, due to his endless pandering to Islam, push for illegal alien amnesty, and spending like a non-drunken Democrat. But this is an outrage, as sent to me by a good friend, last week:

When George W. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, he was stationed at Ellington Field in Houston, Texas.
At Ellington Field there are several retired aircraft on display. It has been reported that the F-102 on display at Ellington Field was the one then Lt Bush trained on when he was with the 147th Fighter Wing at Ellington Field.


“LT G W BUSH” Removed From Bush USAF Plane

For many years, the name “LT G W BUSH” was stenciled on the aircraft just below the cockpit, and I’ve seen it. However, after January 20, 2009, I noticed that “LT G W BUSH” had been painted over. I asked one of the senior officers of the 147th if Bush’s name had been deliberately removed. I was told that it was removed temporarily while the aircraft was being repainted. I accepted that explanation.
Today I was back on Ellington Field, and I noticed that “LT G W BUSH” had not been restenciled onto the aircraft. I asked a member of the 147th why and their response was a laugh and a “What do you think?”
So, it seems that now that Obama is President, the 147th has become politically correct and removed indicators that President Bush had served with them. This could be because now there is talk that the 147th at Ellington Field should be shut down.
So much for loyality among airmen.

Sickening. Say what you want about Bush’s service in the Air Force. That was his plane, and to paint over it and cover up his name is just disgusting.
At least President Bush served, unlike a certain guy whose only Selective Service registration on file is a fraudulent, fabricated one from 2008.
And please don’t tell me that there’s no evidence Obama knew about this or ordered it. He’s the Commander-in-Chief. The fish rots from the head down. He was the one responsible for the plane flyover debacle in Manhattan.
And he’s responsible for this deliberate act of the uber-petty.
American soldiers are still being killed every week in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our country has a lot of problems domestically.
But we have to worry about the priorities: painting over a former President’s name and erasing all acknowledgement of his past military service.


33 Responses

It’s a pattern, and no surprise that the weasel in chief woudl do this. Liberals took delight in calling Bush a draft dodger when he served in the ANG. I doubt many people eve realize that the ANG was frequently called ot service in Vietnam, and their primary jobwas to protecct the continental united states while the majority of air forces were deployed overseas. Hardly draft dodging when compared to the manwho falsified his previously never files selective service paperwork mearly 30 years after he was requited to do so.
What’s next? Will the Aircraft Carrier Ronald Reagan be renamed the CVN Jeremiah Wright?

Mistress_Dee on June 30, 2009 at 11:44 am

Was it Obama or was it the military? The ignorant immature response this man got from the military people, the 147th, sounds like it might have been their idea. I’d like to know. I’ve wondered many times if or when anything happens, whether I need to fear my own military or be proud of them like the Honduras military.

JP on June 30, 2009 at 11:47 am

“At least President Bush served, unlike a certain guy whose only Selective Service registration on file is a fraudulent, fabricated one from 2008.”
It’s been pointed out that you published a doctored version of President Obama’s selective service registration.

Middleman on June 30, 2009 at 11:49 am

And don’t forget the elephant in the room–the fact that Obama is not a US citizen. Never mind “natural born”, he is not even a citizen. He was born in Kenya and does not have a Hawaiian birth certificate. Like his aunt, he may be an illegal alien!

lexi on June 30, 2009 at 12:12 pm

Obama is a Stalinist–as in “The Commissar Vanishes”.

lexi on June 30, 2009 at 12:16 pm

I wonder if he’s going to have IAH changed from George Bush International Airport? Unbelievable. It sickens me when I see this man salute. Commander in Chief my eye.

Marc on June 30, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Middleman: What say you about Obama’s lack of a US birth certificate? That’s Hawaiian BIRTH CERTIFICATE, not CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH.

lexi on June 30, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Outrageous! The historical-revisionist-in-thief has struck again! Something wicked this way comes! How can anyone who distorts American history to the point that it is as murky as a swamp while conjuring ridiculous embellishments of Arabic history steer us through one of the most dangerous predicaments any American has ever seen? Americans are a peculiar bunch when compared to other nations who have had despots in positions of authority for years; we really donít have a problem being led, but no American appreciates being driven! Longfellow expresses American tenacity this way,
In the world’s broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!
So many have totally lost their way due to confusing, conflicting, and spurious press releases that are deliberately seeded into the media stream for psychological abuse and social manipulation. This is no different. Those who donít recall the past are doomed to re-live it. Thus, those who distort history are in fact inviting such doom…

Mewize on June 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    My research indicates that GWB by-passed active war duty and was accepted by the Air National Guard do to the political clout of his family…particularly HW Bush.

    It is not hard to determine that GWB refused to appear for a routine physical and thereby was removed from flight status never to return. If it wasn’t for the political pressure he would have been reported as AWOL but special privileges to the entitled as per usual.

    While I dread all things political, and don’t doubt the poli influences all about, I wonder if the name should have been on the plane in the first place.

    Politics seems most distasteful to those that are not in control (or their party is not in control). I’ve heard both sides completely overlook and rationalize things when it suits their party but are very quick to chastise when the opposing party carries them out.

    It all makes me quite ill and is far from what this country was intended to be by our Founding Fathers.

    Casey on July 21, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Let Affirmative Action President Barry play with painting over names on retired jets. Let Dubya act on his taxpayer funded monuments if it is so offensive. Seriously, such a big deal about something so easily rectifiable in 2012? It’s just a can of Krylon and a stencil [yawn]. Temporary distractions. However, this is exactly the kind of distractions the Democrat Party seeks and seems to work.
Now, what won’t be easily rectified if it happens before January 20, 2013 is Cap & Tax and, Hussein/Michelle Obama healthcare. Cap & Tax is destructive enough, but as far as my healthcare is concerned… that’s one HMO I want no part of. If we can manage to avoid the tragedy of Cap & Tax and HMOcare, we might be able to turn this mess around. Then bust out the Krylon all you want.
1299 days to go…

West Dearbornistan on June 30, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Lexi —
I’ve already responded to the COLB issue in two earlier threads on Debbie’s site. I’m not about to waste bandwidth and infringe on Debbie’s site again.
Lexi, you’ve repeatedly shown that you are not interested in the truth.

Middleman on June 30, 2009 at 12:40 pm

“And please don’t tell me that there’s no evidence Obama knew about this or ordered it.”
You’ve offered no evidence that he did order it – only baseless accusations.

Middleman on June 30, 2009 at 12:45 pm

So, as Commander in Chief, Obama is responsible for every action that every member of every branch of the service takes, no matter how big or small? The US military has 1.5 MILLION members (and that’s not including civilian employees) – to say that the President is responsible for EVERY action taken by EVERY one of those 1.5 million people shows a lack of understanding of how the military command structure works, both in theory and in practice. To assume, without a shred of evidence, that the President of the United States is making decisions about the paint job of a plane displayed at a military base is patently absurd.

just another commenter on June 30, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Progressive and Communist rewritting of history is nothing new.
Did Big Ears PERSONALLY order the removal of Bush’s name? Probably not.
Did one of his minions or a high ranking official being “politically astute” do so? Most likely.
Don’t be decieved. The upper echelon of the military is as politcal as any government agency.
My 21+ years with advancement to a senior rank tells me this.

SamAdams on June 30, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Normally, I would doubt that there was any real intention of doing such a thing. However, we have seen a tendency with Obama and his aides to be rather petty and vindictive, so I would not put it past them. President Obama makes Bill Clinton seem like a model of magnanimity by comparison.

Worry01 on June 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm

[Debbie: At least President Bush served]
[Mistress_Dee: I doubt many people eve realize that the ANG was frequently called ot service in Vietnam]
My father served in the Reserves during the Korean war. He joined a unit that he knew was never going to get called up and admits to it (We have a relative who was a senior officer and told my father which units were way down on the list to get called up for active duty).
We know Dan Quayle did the same thing my father did, and I am fairly certain that George W Bush did the same thing (but I cannot prove it). As much as I detested George W Bush’s father, at least he served bravely (and in fact may have lied about his age to make sure he got in).

i_am_me on June 30, 2009 at 4:30 pm

It weren’t Obama that ordered the paint job!
I can assure you it was any one our 1.5 million upstanding military men or women who didn’t want that cowardly, coke-head, rich-boy, active-duty-dodgin’ so-called ‘lieutenant’ to defecate his name on military property anymore. Heck, the fake Texan frat boy from Maine didn’t even patrol domestic skies well–he was AWOL at bars all the time, and had to be bailed out by his daddy. No suprise that real AF personnel would scratch his grafitti off even a scrapyard plane.

Sgt. Rock on June 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Sgt Rock. How DARE you. While PRESIDENT G.W. Bush was not perfect, he certainly was NOT a coke head, as you seem to be. You wouldn’t say such things unless you were 10 miles high. I live in North Carolina but was born in Missouri – am I a fake North Carolinian? My husband served in the AF and was an air rescue pilot. He served his country well and I resent the fact that YOU are charging our former president of being a coke head.

Swamprat on June 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Has Sgt Rock been smoking rock?
Bush flew a plane that was reletively difficult to master. He volunteered for ‘Nam but the plane was being phased out of service.
Many officers were “AWOL” during this time. There were more pilots than aircraft. Many were just back from ‘Nam and given some slack.
As a result many were accounted for and carried on the roles while not being required by the command to be physically present.

SamAdams on June 30, 2009 at 5:33 pm

Beat up on Sgt. Rock all you like. But do your homewark first. He is correct about Bush’s past cocaine use:
“On the tapes, recorded over the course of the two years before Bush became the Republican presidential nominee, Bush discusses strategy for his presidential run and appears to acknowledge past drug use. He says he will refuse to answer questions about using LSD, cocaine and marijuana because ‘I don’t want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago.’ ”
See: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148504,00.html

The Jurist on June 30, 2009 at 6:52 pm

just another commenter hit the nail on the head.
I know you don’t like the guy, but think for a sec, as if the leader of the free world is going to pick up the phone and ask for some name on a fighter jet to be removed, im sure as President he has some more pressing issues to deal with

ctevez on June 30, 2009 at 9:52 pm

Debbie, it doesn’t come as a surprise that the long legged mack daddy KING HUSSEIN COBRAMA would disrespect another President. He was very petty in the campaign with Hillary, he was very petty to John McCain and has been petty to his critics from Day 1. The media has defended his moves from the start. He is the machinations of the MSM who want a Black President to shove it in the face of the American public. He guilted a majority of voters to get his crown.

californiascreaming on June 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm

@ i_am_me: My husband served three combat tours in a Phantom in Vietnam (70,71, 72) and he told me that deployed ANG squadrons logged 30,000 plus missions in combat, plus Material Airlift Command deployed thousands more ANG pilotsin SE Asia to support the war effort. The ANG wasn’t by any means a sure way to keep your butt out of Vietnam. Here are some stat sites:
andif you doubt they had casulties among the ANG- http://www.mnroa.org/0703/Research/vnseaunits/vietnam_research_1.htm
I coudl go on but you get the idea, I think.

Mistress_Dee on July 1, 2009 at 6:29 am

I just wrote the ANG asking them to clarify their position on this. Let’s see if they answer.

Vilmar on July 1, 2009 at 9:39 am

[Mistress_Dee:The ANG wasn’t by any means a sure way to keep your butt out of Vietnam]
I agree that this was/is overwhelmingly the case.
However, there are those instances where units were set up to keep “special” people out of harms way. I am not sure if my father’s unit was set up that way or not (Either way there was no way his unit was going to get called up), but we know that Dan Quayle’s was and I believe Bush’s was also.
My father and Dan Quayle (and I believe Bush) used special connections available to only a very few to stay safe.
During the 1988 Presidential campaign Quayle used to state that National Guardsmen from Indiana died in Vietnam. What he failed to state, and the press in its negligence failed to ask, was how many from his unit died.

i_am_me on July 1, 2009 at 10:43 am

I think the whole subject about the ANG is picking fly crap out of pepper, to be honest. Is it some kidn of diversionary thing to someohow make Bush look worse than the current coward in chief who had to falsify his selective service records in 2009 becuase he probably never filed them when he was supposed to nearly 30 years ago?
Having gone to Vietnam or not, Bush (and Dan Quayle) served in the Armed Forces of the USA. There were plenty of peopel in the “regulars”, be it army, navy or any other branch who didn’t set foot in Vietnam for a variety of reasons. Are “we” making light of their service as well? Equally so there were a lot of servicemen IN Vietnam who didn’t see combat because of their assignments or duties.
I’m just syaing I think it stinks when you start castigating peopel who legitimately served their country as a means to defend the cowardly who either dodged it (Clinton) or didn’t register at all for Selective Service to avoid service in its entirety.

Mistress_Dee on July 1, 2009 at 12:10 pm

Mistress_Dee –
I am not defending anyone. Obama is scum, for the reasons pointed out in this piece by Debbie and for a zillion other reasons. However, I resent it when people take credit for having served when they really did not do so legitimately.
It is a fact that “special” people escaped danger by using means not available to others. That is all I wanted to point out.
As for the rest who served honorably I thank them for the risks they took to provide me the freedom to express my views here. That includes those who risked their safety by joining the ANG. This goes to those who had duties that did not put them in danger as long as they did not do anything wrong to get those duties.

i_am_me on July 1, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Bush’s name is still there, in a fresh coat of bright paint. You’re looking at the wrong plane.

johnnyb on July 1, 2009 at 2:23 pm

There is another possible angle to this story. The fighter unit at Ellington is an Air National Guard unit. In the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process, the ANG unit at Ellington lost its F-16 aircraft and associated mission and was chosen to convert to a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle – “Predator”) mission. So, the local “fighter pilot” community lost its fighters during Bush’s watch. In the pecking order of the glory-boys, a fighter pilot without a fighter-jet is no longer a “fighter pilot.”
The removal of the Bush name could be explained by this ‘slight’ to the fighter pilot ego. The Air National Guard is a fairly political institution and in some cases is a regular conduit for pork-like funding games. Unfortunately, some within the prima donna fighter pilot community within the military are more concerned about their personal special glamor status than they are about our form of government or where our country is headed.

defender on July 2, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Well if W wanted to stay safe, strapping on an F-102 was hardly the best way to do it. It was underpowered and because it was a delta wing it had issues other more conventional aircraft did not. The F-102 was an interceptor, designed to deny US (and Canadian) airspace to Soviet bombers. Bush’s ANG wing had pilots in Viet Nam, and Bush flew the standard air defense missions many others did.
It’s obvious you have no idea of the challenge, including the intellectual challenge, of becoming just a general aviation pilot, much less one who can fly a hot, dangerous fighter. Here is a link that provides more background on the ANG, Bush and the F-102:
From the article, quoting statistics from the Air Force Safety Center:
Even in peacetime conditions, F-102 pilots risked their lives on every flight. Only highly-qualified pilot candidates were accepted for Delta Dagger training because it was such a challenging aircraft to fly and left little room for mistakes. According to the Air Force Safety Center, the lifetime Class A accident rate for the F-102 was 13.69 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours, much higher than the average for today’s combat aircraft. For example, the F-16 has an accident rate of 4.14, the F-15 is at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps’ AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush’s tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.

Jack Okie on July 2, 2009 at 9:36 pm

@ defender: ” some within the prima donna fighter pilot community within the military are more concerned about their personal special glamor status than they are about our form of government or where our country is headed.

And you know this how?
Watch a re-run of Top Gun last night or what? I grew up in the shadow of Mirimar (Home of Top Gun) and I’m married to a “zoomie”- (3 Combat ToD’s of Vietnam, commanded a weaposn training wing at Nellis in the 80’s, Commanded an SEAD provisional wing in GW1, and spent 2 years RORP’ed to active duty from retirement in Iraq from 04-06). I’ve seen first hand how these men are- few others in life have the dedication necessary to do what they do to discipline, develop the necessar skills, and to train themselves in defense of our nation.
FIghter jocks, be they navy or air force, risk death from aerial interdiction, SAM’s, AAA, and their own planes themselves every time they go on a sortie. Also, more than others, they run the highest risk captivity a long way from homebase, let alone home.
Anyone who serves in our armed forces deserves more respect than I think you have shown here.
For you to say they care more about their “glamor status” , when every military officer is sworn to defend the constitution of the United States, and knowing how much conviction it takes to have this courage to strap on tin, is an insult specifically to our forces in general and to the USAF in particular.
Additionally, the president doesn’t determine base closures and realignments- that is done by congressional comittee working with the Dept of the AF, so your contention that it was “revenge on Bush” enacted by renegade, revenge-seeking pilots is ludicrous.

Mistress_Dee on July 3, 2009 at 6:08 am

I said that “SOME” care more about their glamour status. I have no intent to diminish honorable service and personal sacrifice toward the ideals that support our Liberty.
An interesting dimension of the internet is that we can gain insight into details of areas where we otherwise would not be able to.
I have worn a uniform. I have flown those sorties. …and I have seen the scummy politics of BRAC, the BRAC Commission, and innumerable instances of military officers participating in the graft that is known today as “the Federal Budget.” I have also witnessed senior military officers as well as congressional delegations throw childish tantrums when they did not get their presumed front-row seat at the federal trough – while throughout it all, national defense was only a tertiary concern below their concerns of running their local jobs program and continued self-puffery.
The oath spoken by military officers is very much like the oath sworn by members of congress. Obviously the words do not have magical power. Remember, it was a Texas guardsman who forged the infamous Bush “Letter of Reprimand” that surfaced in October of 2004 (rapidly debunked by the new power of the net).
The great threats to our liberty that we face today are not limited to the radical ideology of Obama and his minions. There are dynamics within our society that have led us to this precipice. Chief among them is a broad narcissism and sense of entitlement that plays exactly into the hands of those who would enslave us all. These negative characteristics of personal and intellectual softness are not absent among individuals to whom we might automatically ascribe a greater integrity of character.
My purpose in bringing the BRAC issue into the conversation was to stimulate a broader ability of analysis. We will succeed in saving our nation only by leveraging truth. Although Obama embodies an agenda that is purely evil, it does not serve our greater purpose to jump to simplistic conclusions that all badness radiates from him. Obama did not get to where he is all on his own. He got there because our society placed him there.
Although the stated purpose of the BRAC process was to determine the best answer in the interest of our nation, like so many other processes of our federal government, it was poisoned by political intimidation of the federal purse. Many states maneuvered politically (in a way that is now accepted as common) to maximize the flow of federal dollars into their opportune districts. Some of those who thought that their base (or planes) were “politically protected,” and were subsequently disappointed, took it as a personal offense from any federal politician (e.g. GW Bush) who could have secured the “protection.” This is starting to sound like a racket of The Mob!

defender on July 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm

In accordance with Air Force regulations, the aircraft is issued to the crewchief or mechanic responsible for its upkeep,
not the pilot/pilots that is allowed to fly it. I know because as an enlisted man I was issued an F-80C that I was responsible for in 1958. I was in the the 147th Fighter Group in 1961 and that was still true.

Roy H. Fredrichsen on November 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field