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