Also, here is a page that has lists of scuttlebutt that has either been
proven true or false, to incl the Hanoi Jane/POW story.
Stew
http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/mbody.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: JJ&A [mailto:w7ls@blarg.net]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:45 PM
To: Rayfield, Robert S Jr Mr DUSA-IA/ANTEON
Subject: Re: Robert: Please elaborate on the story.
Thanks, Robert. Appreciate it. I guess I'll consider it a total rumor unless
I
hear that Clinton is about to take a sailing trip over there. Jim
"Rayfield, Robert S Jr Mr DUSA-IA/ANTEON" wrote:
> Jim (and AlCon):
> Here is what I was given addressing the flag issue on Navy ships carrying
> Clinton on visit to China and Vietnam, hope this clears it up; it make me
> mad first time I read it but it appearantly is not true:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Failacci <failacci@monumental.com>
> To: buck allbritton <bucka@monumental.com>
> Date: Thursday, August 31, 2000 8:47 AM
> Subject: US Flag (Clinton)
>
> > Hi Buck
> > Pass the following info on to those who were passing phony
information
> >about the Navy and the flag that was on the Internet/
> > I received the following information pertaining to the flag issue
and
> >Clinton. this information was passed to me by a friend and was obtained
by
> >TROA from United States Navy Chief of Operations CHINFO.
> > FROM CHINFO:
> > The Navy is not aware of any planned trips by the President to China
> >or Vietnam aboard a Navy ship. I have also read the article in the
> >Internet publication and can assure you that there are no plans to change
> >the regulations governing the flying of the US flag on US Navy warships.
> >Federal statutes determine Navy Regulations on the flying of the national
> >ensign on Navy vessels and are not subject to alteration by the
Department
> >of the Navy.
> > Excerpts from Navy Regulations that apply are below:
> > Navy Regulations, 1990, Chapter 12
> >
> > Section 1277, Paragraph 1: "When the national ensigns of two or
more
> >nations are required to be displayed from the same masthead, the United
> >States national ensign, if required, shall be displayed to starboard of
all
> >others. The national ensigns of other nations shall be displayed,
> >starboard to port, in alphabetical order of the names of the nations in
the
> >English language; except that the ensign of a foreign nation within whose
> >waters the ship is located, if displayed, shall be to starboard of other
> >foreign ensigns."
> > Paragraph 3:
> > "In rendering honors, the national ensign of one nation shall not be
> >displayed above that of another nation at the same masthead."
> >
> > Section 1279, Paragraph 3:
> > "When dressing a full-dressing ship in honor of a foreign nation,
> >the national ensign of that nation shall replace the United States
national
> >ensign at the main, or at the masthead in the case of a signle-masted
ship;
> >provided that when a ship is full-dressed or dressed in honor of more
than
> >one nation, the ensign of each nation shall be displayed at the main, or
at
> >the masthead in a single-masted ship."
> > Paragraph 6:
> > "Ships not under way shall be dressed or full-dressed from 0800
until
> >sunset. Ships under way shall not be dressed or full-dressed."
> >
> > This information comes from Alan P. Goldstein, Assistant chief of
> >Information, Technology Integration Navy Office of Information, The
> >Pentagon, Washington DC.
> > The official navy's web site is <htpp://www.navy.mil/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JJ&A [mailto:w7ls@blarg.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:21 PM
> To: Rayfield, Robert S Jr Mr DUSA-IA/ANTEON
> Subject: Robert: Please elaborate on the story.
>
> Who and where did they prove this false? I'd like to know for sure.
Thanks.
> Jim
>
> "Rayfield, Robert S Jr Mr DUSA-IA/ANTEON" wrote:
>
> > For All Hands: This was proven false about 2 months or so ago; Clinton
> may
> > or may not go to SEA, but the colors aboard U.S. warships will still not
> be
> > dipped for anyone, especially Vietnam or China.
> >
> > R. S. Rayfield, Jr.
> > Major USMC (Ret)
> > Wash DC
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JOHN SEIDTS [mailto:john@astory.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:09 PM
> > To: mil-veh@mil-veh.org
> > Subject: [MV] Long, but should be read by every red-blooded American
> >
> > I don't know if this has made it to the list, or if it is bogus or not,
> but
> > here it is for the list to digest. There are enough references for
> somebody
> > else to check out it's validity, but I am just not going to take the
time
> to
> > further find out about our Commander in Chief- I know enough already....
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Goldsberry <gunner44@erols.com>
> > To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
> > Date: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:38 AM
> > Subject: [vintage-and-warbirds] Long, but should be read by every
> > red-blooded American
> >
> > > President Clinton reportedly plans to visit China and Vietnam before
the
> > > end of his term, and, according to high-ranking Navy officers, the
> > > commander in chief will alter long-standing naval regulations to allow
> > > the American flag to fly below that of Vietnam when he sails into the
> > > communist nation's territorial waters on a US Navy ship.
> > >
> > > Highly placed Navy sources who spoke on condition of anonymity believe
> > > this action on the president's part would further devastate already
> > > tenuous Navy morale.
> > >
> > > As part of his swan song, Clinton reportedly intends to visit two
ports
> > > aboard Naval vessels.
> > > Trip one takes him to the People's Republic of China, which has a
> > > regulation that no war ship of any country may enter its territorial
> > > waters flying a flag higher than that of the People's Republic of
China.
> > >
> > > According to one Navy source, China and the US have effected a
> > > compromise whereby both flags-the US and the PRC-will be flown from US
> > > naval vessels at the same height. But visceral outrage is resulting
> > > from a proposed change to Navy regulations that would result in the
> > > American flag being displayed subordinate to the flag of Vietnam.
> > >
> > > Navy regulations and tradition prescribe that no country's flag will
be
> > > displayed in a superior position to the US flag.
> > >
> > > However, Vietnam's rules reportedly demand that the Vietnamese flag
> > > shall always fly in a superior position to any other country's flag.
> > >
> > > High-ranking naval officers, speaking on condition that their names
not
> > > be published, say the reason for all the alarm, anger and
> > > career-threatening rhetoric is that Clinton allegedly has either
> > > ordered, or is about to order, the secretary of the Navy to amend
> > > regulations to permit the Vietnamese flag to be displayed over the US
> > > flag.
> > >
> > > "I'd like to blow the @#&*% thing up!" said one frustrated officer.
> > >
> > > The United States Navy Regulations began with the enactment by the
> > > Continental Congress of the "Rules for the Regulation of the Navy of
the
> > > United Colonies" on Nov. 28, 1775. Just 18 days after they founded
> > > the United States Marine Corps.
> > > So a long and proud history bolsters the long-held Navy tradition that
> > > no country's flag will fly higher than that of the United States.
> > >
> > > Commenting on the report, Col. David Hackworth, America's most
> > > decorated living war veteran, said, "What's new? Clinton has done
> > > everything else to dishonor the flag, why not make it number two?" He
> > > added, "Congress ought to pull this traitor's travel plug ... now."
> > >
> > > Calls to the Navy Staff Operations and Special Events office were
> > > referred to the Public Affairs Office, which then referred WND to the
> > > news desk. When WND outlined the scenario, the spokesman-whose first
> > > comment was,"Wow" -- later called back to say, "We haven't been able
to
> > > find anything on it yet, but we're trying to run the story to ground."
> > >
> > > Adm.Thomas B. Fargo, commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet,
> > > reportedly has visited the People's Republic of China recently also,
> > > although the reason for the trip is not known.
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > NOTE: Some of you may wonder what the fuss is about, but please
remember
> > > that the Navy prides itself on honor and tradition. The Naval
> > > Officers are not being "childish and petty" when they speak out
against
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Morale is at an all-time low, and military commands do not need to
once
> > > again be berated for their job.
> > >
> > > How does this "slap in the face" decision fall under the power(s) of
the
> > > Commander in Chief?
> > >
> > > It reminds me of when Hillary ordered that uniforms not be worn by the
> > > White House in-house Marines. This order still stands, if you visit
> > > the White House today, 8 yrs. later.
> > > What used to be a sought-after, privileged job, is now seen as a tour
of
> > > punishment by these young Marines who stand around in civilian
clothes.
> > > They not only lost their uniform but their self-esteem to be seen in
the
> > > uniform they are asked to defend.
> > >
> > > How much more can the people that are asked to defend our freedom
> > > take?
> > >
> > > The crews on the Navy ships leave their families and loved ones behind
> > > more than 6 months at a time.
> > > Everything possible should be done to praise and encourage them for
> > > their dedication!
> > >
> > > Clinton will enjoy his boat ride for a few hours and never look back
to
> > > see the eyes of the men and women who serve our country.
> > > Just as the Clinton Administration will never look back at the damage
> > > that has been done to our Military and to this Nation.
> > >
> > > Please forward this information to your E-mail list.. It is being
> > > blocked by all major news media.
> > >
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
-------------------------~-~>
> > >eLerts
> > >It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> > >http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/3/_/1197/_/973859926/
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
<mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 20:29:49 PST