No, actually the point is flying fighter jets is dangerous stuff, made even more so when flying in enemy territory, but flying the jet itself is extremely hazardous & dangerous work
I have no doubt that may be the point of your diversion.
The original point was whether or not there is a distinction between W's "flying of jets" and Papi's "flying in WWII". I submit there most certainly is.
BT seems convinced that Bush "faced danger" while (allegedly) flying his National Guard jets. Certainly any human being who gets into any airplane and sits at the controls is facing danger but let's be honest, there are very few things to run into once you get the thing in the air. The taking off and the landing are the most difficult parts. Once in the air, you just kind of have to keep it from running into the ground. Which is what W did oh, so admirably according to the esteemed BT.
Now, if you have proof of W flying combat missions like Papi did, then please share.
The fact is what BT is calling "danger" would be more aptly referred to as "assumed risk". You drive a car, you assume the risk of being in a wreck. Now if you drive a car knowing that other drivers will be purposefully throwing bombs at you on occasion, that is "facing danger".
Papi faced danger again and again, even got shot down. W faced the basic assumed risk of being in and/or piloting a plane.