About that National Gaurd service thing again

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A great article about the Bush National Gaurd thing: HERE



I think that it brings up some important questions . . . like why are we satisfied with terrible explanations and half truths at the surface?

and what would we do if National Gaurdsmen acted like that today?



read on . . If you want to read the whole thing just watch the advert and click-on through . . its easy.





here is but the first of four pages:



"Bush's flight from the Guard



April 27, 2004 _|_ The story keeps changing. And regardless of what the White House says about George W. Bush and his time in the Texas Air National Guard, journalists tend to accept the explanation. I can't. The president of the United States is lying to hide his behavior while he was a young pilot during the Vietnam War, and he has almost taken away reporters' ability to get the whole story. Unfortunately, the national media have other distractions, and they apparently don't think the Guard story is important enough to warrant additional effort. I think they are wrong.



The president's behavior while under oath to serve in the military is an important matter. By George W. Bush's own admission, there were at least eight months in 1972 when he was not performing assigned Guard duty. What if today's Guard members behaved as irresponsibly as Bush did during his hitch? Where would our war on terrorism be if they all acted as capriciously as he did and they took off to go do something else while they were still under oath to serve? That's what the records prove George W. Bush did. Aren't there young Americans in Iraq, who have been called to active duty in a war zone, who would rather be in Alabama?



The president and his staff are doing a very good job of convincing the public he has released all of his National Guard records and that they prove he was responsible during his time in Alabama and Texas. But the critical documents have still not been seen. The mandatory written report about Bush's grounding is mysteriously not in the released file, nor is any other disciplinary evidence. A document showing a "roll-up," or the accumulation of his total retirement points, is also absent, and so are his actual pay stubs. If the president truly wanted to end the conjecture about his time in the Guard, he would allow an examination of his pay stubs and any IRS W-2 forms from his Guard years. These can be pieced together to determine when he was paid and whether he earned enough to have met his sworn obligations.



The narrative trail of the president's time in the Guard isn't easy to follow, and I have been pursuing it since Bush ran for governor of Texas in 1994. When he began planning his race for the presidency, a few journalists filed Freedom of Information requests for Bush's retained records at the Texas National Guard Headquarters at Camp Mabry in Austin. The file they received contained 160 pages. Dan Bartlett, now the White House communications director, who was working for the campaign at that time, said that represented the entirety of the record. However, when the Bush administration provided White House reporters with the "complete" file in the dead-news zone of a Friday night in early February, there were about 400 pages. Two hundred forty pages, unavailable to us during the presidential campaign, had suddenly been discovered. Nonetheless, the most important documents were still missing. Reporters just didn't know what was absent.



In April of 1972, the young lieutenant made a unilateral decision that he was no longer going to fly. Although he had taken an oath to serve for six years in his privileged position in the Texas Air Guard, George W. Bush left for Alabama two years before his hitch was up. Taxpayers had spent close to a million dollars training him to fly a fighter jet, but he was intent on working in a U.S. senate campaign. Bush's Guard file shows that he did not request a transfer until a few months later, and it was turned down. Bush, who was due to report to his Houston air base for a physical on or before his July 6 birthday, failed to return from Alabama. He was subsequently grounded on orders from Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief. And this is where the mystery begins."

HERE
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    More left-wing drivel unsupported by the facts. Read here and find out what the real story is about Bush's National Guard service:



    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
  • Reply 2 of 85
    ericgericg Posts: 135member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    More left-wing drivel unsupported by the facts. Read here and find out what the real story is about Bush's National Guard service:



    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp












    Yeah right..... the Real story
  • Reply 3 of 85
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    drivel unsupported by the facts... Read here



    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp




    two or three of the "witnesses" cited in your version admit they were asked by the white house. spin.



    zero impartial confirmation from the microfiche original records, which is what the Salon piece asks.



    plus the fact that the NR version reads more like Gen. Buck Turgidson a lá Strangelove



    Salon's reportage seems more honest, logical, and less scripted.
  • Reply 4 of 85
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    More left-wing drivel unsupported by the facts. Read here and find out what the real story is about Bush's National Guard service:



    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp






    good one - the National Review's at least twice as far out to the right as Salon is to the left
  • Reply 5 of 85
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    More left-wing drivel unsupported by the facts. Read here and find out what the real story is about Bush's National Guard service:



    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp






    That's a real story all right! A really good one!
  • Reply 6 of 85
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Oh, come on guys. National Review is "Fair and Balanced?" isn't it?



    By the way, aren't there a couple "rewards" (like 10k or something)out there for people who had contact with Bush during the time he was supposed to be serving in Alabama to come forward?

    I bet those fools have lost a ton of cash by now!
  • Reply 7 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by curiousuburb

    two or three of the "witnesses" cited in your version admit they were asked by the white house. spin.



    zero impartial confirmation from the microfiche original records, which is what the Salon piece asks.



    plus the fact that the NR version reads more like Gen. Buck Turgidson a lá Strangelove



    Salon's reportage seems more honest, logical, and less scripted.




    Links please. Which two or three witneses were asked by the White House?



    The bottom line is Bush got the honorable discharge and accumulated all the points necessary to get it. End of story. Unless of course you refuse to believe anything the military puts down on paper and if that it is the case it opens a huge can of worms as it relates to Kerry's military awards and whether he deserved them or not.



    Salon is not an impartial observer - they are every bit as liberal as the National Review is conservative and don't try to claim otherwise. Brig. Gen. Turnipseed is an often quoted figure in this controversy and he is one that is often cited by the liberals as proof that Bush was AWOL. But apparently the people who have tried to use him took most of what he said out of context and the National Review article clearly presents Turnipseed's complete comments about the controversy and his feelings that his recollections were not accurately presented by the media.
  • Reply 8 of 85
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    Links please. Which two or three witneses were asked by the White House?



    The bottom line is Bush got the honorable discharge and accumulated all the points necessary to get it. End of story. Unless of course you refuse to believe anything the military puts down on paper and if that it is the case it opens a huge can of worms as it relates to Kerry's military awards and whether he deserved them or not.




    Sure. Unfortunately that's a distorted position you're arguing against-- otherwise known as a strawman. It's doubtful that we have any radicals here to actually doubt everything the military says. But we do generally doubt the circumstances of Bush's military record and have ample evidence to support that doubt. Unlike the mostly unsubstantiated and just plain factually wrong filth that some conservatives think "equals" any legitimate questions about Bush's record...
  • Reply 9 of 85
    Yeah right. Listen to General 'Turnipseed'...like you expect us to believe that's a real person.



  • Reply 10 of 85
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Place your bets as to whether 7E7 is really ol' Scoot or perhaps trumptman.
  • Reply 11 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [ooops: pressd submit early]
  • Reply 12 of 85
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Is the F-102 the equivalent of the T-38 now?
  • Reply 13 of 85
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    Links please. Which two or three witneses were asked by the White House?





    from the NR article:



    Quote:

    "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.



    Quote:

    The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexceptional and contained nothing about drug use.



    note that these are the "sanitized" records provided by the White House,

    not the original files stored on Microfiche which could be impartially shared (as McCain has done)



    no real explanation of how the Son of a politician managed to jump the queue of thousands waiting to get into the ANG, and somehow managed to get posted to the "Champagne unit" full of Senators sons, except for GWB's comment that he "showed up at the right time". suuure.



    then he doesn't even complete his champagne service, but skips the last year.



    release the full records for independent review and then we can discuss whose service deserves praise
  • Reply 14 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    More left-wing drivel unsupported by the facts. Read here and find out what the real story is about Bush's National Guard service:



    http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp




    Well, I will, at least, actually read your article.



    First thing that strikes me is the lack of facts replaced with rhetoric and repetition . . let's see here:
    Quote:

    [Turnpseed:] "So when I say, ?There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"



    Boy . . . that sure is convincing!



    Now look how the article puts a semi positive spin on the Administrations unwillingness to address the issue -making it seem like they are deliberate and methodical:
    Quote:

    ? the White House was slow[!!] to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released [something resembling] records of the president's Guard service.



    another rhetorical gem:
    Quote:

    A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, etc etc



    What were those? . . .. he got paid? hmmm?!?!



    More great words: watch the way in shich they make his basic training sound lke an arduous heroic deed:
    Quote:

    Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.



    Intense indeed!

    then notice how they make training not into two stints of grueling action but THREE!!!
    Quote:

    Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training ? a full-time job ? at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training ? again, full time ? at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training ? full time ?



    And imagine that . . . these were FULL TIME -golly . . .

    probably the only full-time job that Bush had ever had to that point . . I guess we should be proud of him.



    Then they go on about the F-102 training that he underwent, not to toot my own horn but I lived on an airbase in the early 1970s that flew F-102s, I was very very close to the base commander, I thought of him as a father-figure

    The F-102, which has been touted be Repubs, as being 'dangerous and risky' and whatever, was nothing of the sort, it was not a great fighter plane . . . but get this: it was a great TRAINING airplane

    Why/

    Because it was easy to fly and easy to learn!

    Quote:

    "He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972."



    WOW - that's really is full time!

    Quote:

    While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.



    Hm?! So is crossing the street if you think about it.

    BTW, there was only one crash at the airbase that I lived on . . . which also did training, and it was clearly a pilot error. . . . and, I believe, it was in an F-4.

    Quote:

    The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972:



    How does "rigorous" fit with flying once, or maybe twice a week? . . . well it fits nicely if what you want to do is pursuade through emotion rather than reality!.
    Quote:

    as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.



    Hmm?!?!
    Quote:

    The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.



    "hey, my buddy decided to leave Iraq because he wanted to go work on Bush's campaign" . . . "oh yeah, sure, fine . . . heck, the president did it why can't you?" Because, you're not a fortunate son!
    Quote:

    The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service ? was "AWOL" ? in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service).



    Hey . . well . .. he got paid and got dental work . . . so he DID do something . . . he was there at least once . . . to go to the dentist.

    But really Not only may he have been AWOL, he may have been getting paid for it!!!

    Someone else could have picked up checks . . . or 'mail' for Bush

    In fact, who could that have been?

    Who is that name that has been redacted from the Bush records?

    That name of another flyer who also FAILED to get a medical examination so that he would be able to continue flying?

    His name is James Bath, who happens to be mired up to his neck with the Bush family and also the HOUSE OF SAUD . . . and the incipoient fortunes of the Bush/oil fortune. ARTICLE ABOUT THE NAME REACTION

    What are they hiding?

    Why redact his name? why did he stop flying at the same time and through the same means?

    Was it because of the random drug testing that the military was conducting? or was it simply because they didn't want to fly?



    Either way they knew each other very well, Bath called Bush 'Geo', and were tied together through both, being 'fortunate', and ,through family ties and dealings with the House of Saud.
    Quote:

    Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like draft dodger"



    Of course that would feel that way to regular National Gaurdsmen . . . but it still IS a form of draft dodging when you are the son of a wealthy and connected politician and that is the reason that you are not 'in the jungle'



    BTW, why no links or cited sources to this so called amassed points record?



    ANd once again, look at how they turn a liability into a asset: they take the fact that the WHite house didn't listen to anyone outside of their little network and spin it good: the "were not interested in what he ha to say"

    Is that true . . . if so they are a hermetic and insular group

    If not, then it is because, as someone has pointed out, there are rewards for speaking up and 'remembering' and yet they want to pretend that they have no contact . . .



    This article does not address Bush's failure to appear on or before July 6th?!

    In fact the grounding that resulted from his failure to appear was not discussed at all . . . and the 'Reports' that would result from the necessary military investigation in such a case have never materialized . . . why?

    Records of ordinary disciplinary actions following such a case?

    Where are they?



    WHat about the ownership of these 'records' . . .what about the facts that they were vetted by Maj General Danny James?!?! (Promoted to Washington by Bush)

    Why not even a question about the 'custody of evidence'?

    What about the entirety of the records?

    If they were all released then Bush's signiture would be on the release form . . . which it is not?

    So, they were selectively released . . and vetted.
    Quote:

    Burkett says that in the spring of 1997, on the eve of Bush's reelection campaign for governor, and with his spokeswoman Karen Hughes planning to write Bush's biography, a call was placed to Maj. Gen. Daniel James, head of the Texas National Guard. According to the conversation Burkett says he overheard, Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, asked James to assemble Bush's military files, so his aides, including Dan Bartlett, could go over them, and to make sure there was nothing there that would embarrass the governor. Burkett says days later he also saw pages from Bush's military file in a garbage can.



    Burkett hears of vetting
    Quote:

    To remove any embarrassments in case he wants to run for reelection or something higher."



    "Karen [Hughes] and Danny [Bartlett] are going to be coming out to take a look at this file," Allbaugh said. "They're going to write a book."



    Karen Hughes?!?!?

    Not surprising.

    and jsut to close this off . . . since i know 7E7 didn't read the article I will post some of it:
    Quote:

    I had lost friends in Vietnam, and many of them had tried to get into the Guard. We were all told that there was a waiting list of up to five years. The Guard was the best method for getting out of combat in Vietnam.You needed connections. George W. Bush had them.



    "Mr. Bush," I said. "How did you get into the Guard so easily? One hundred thousand guys our age were on the waiting list, and you say you walked in and signed up to become a pilot. Did your congressman father exercise any influence on your behalf?"



    "Not that I know of, Jim," the future president told me. "I certainly didn't ask for any. And I'm sure my father didn't either. They just had an opening for a pilot and I was there at the right time."



    Maybe. But it's more likely he was there at the right time with the right name. Col. Buck Staudt, who ran the air wing in which Bush served, had filled his "champagne unit" with the politically connected and wealthy. The sons of U.S. Sens. Lloyd Bentsen and John Tower of Texas were in that unit, along with the son of Texas Gov. John Connally and the two sons of Sidney Adger, George H.W. Bush's closest friend in Houston. I should have let that speak for itself.





    "As soon as you asked that question," one Guard officer told me, "they went about the business of building their alternative story. They contacted all of Bush's commanders and friends from that time to make sure they would all stand by Bush."



    And, undoubtedly, Rove and company went to work on cleaning up the files. The stonewalling on this is still succeeding. Reporters calling the National Guard offices in Arlington and the Pentagon are being told the staff is no longer authorized to speak about the president and his time in the Guard. One national reporter, who is still trying to get to the bottom of the controversy, told me the White House said they were not going to talk about the Guard matter any further.



    And, sadly, the questions have stopped.



  • Reply 15 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Is the F-102 the equivalent of the T-38 now?



    They are different.



    They trained on F-102Bs known as the F-106s, a two seat version of the F-102
  • Reply 16 of 85
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    They are different.



    They trained on F-102Bs known as the F-106s, a two seat version of the F-102




    I'm just wondering whether the F-102 then functions in the same capacity as the standard training jet as the T-38 now. I used to live outside an AFB in Oklahoma where they flew T-38s.
  • Reply 17 of 85
    7e77e7 Posts: 146member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Well, I will, at least, actually read your article.



    First thing that strikes me is the lack of facts replaced with rhetoric and repetition . . let's see here: Boy . . . that sure is convincing!



    Now look how the article puts a semi positive spin on the Administrations unwillingness to address the issue -making it seem like they are deliberate and methodical: another rhetorical gem: What were those? . . .. he got paid? hmmm?!?!



    More great words: watch the way in shich they make his basic training sound lke an arduous heroic deed: Intense indeed!

    then notice how they make training not into two stints of grueling action but THREE!!! And imagine that . . . these were FULL TIME -golly . . .

    probably the only full-time job that Bush had ever had to that point . . I guess we should be proud of him.



    Then they go on about the F-102 training that he underwent, not to toot my own horn but I lived on an airbase in the early 1970s that flew F-102s, I was very very close to the base commander, I thought of him as a father-figure

    The F-102, which has been touted be Repubs, as being 'dangerous and risky' and whatever, was nothing of the sort, it was not a great fighter plane . . . but get this: it was a great TRAINING airplane

    Why/

    Because it was easy to fly and easy to learn!

    WOW - that's really is full time!

    Hm?! So is crossing the street if you think about it.

    BTW, there was only one crash at the airbase that I lived on . . . which also did training, and it was clearly a pilot error. . . . and, I believe, it was in an F-4.

    How does "rigorous" fit with flying once, or maybe twice a week? . . . well it fits nicely if what you want to do is pursuade through emotion rather than reality!. Hmm?!?! "hey, my buddy decided to leave Iraq because he wanted to go work on Bush's campaign" . . . "oh yeah, sure, fine . . . heck, the president did it why can't you?" Because, you're not a fortunate son! Hey . . well . .. he got paid and got dental work . . . so he DID do something . . . he was there at least once . . . to go to the dentist.

    But really Not only may he have been AWOL, he may have been getting paid for it!!!

    Someone else could have picked up checks . . . or 'mail' for Bush

    In fact, who could that have been?

    Who is that name that has been redacted from the Bush records?

    That name of another flyer who also FAILED to get a medical examination so that he would be able to continue flying?

    His name is James Bath, who happens to be mired up to his neck with the Bush family and also the HOUSE OF SAUD . . . and the incipoient fortunes of the Bush/oil fortune. ARTICLE ABOUT THE NAME REACTION

    What are they hiding?

    Why redact his name? why did he stop flying at the same time and through the same means?

    Was it because of the random drug testing that the military was conducting? or was it simply because they didn't want to fly?



    Either way they knew each other very well, Bath called Bush 'Geo', and were tied together through both, being 'fortunate', and ,through family ties and dealings with the House of Saud. Of course that would feel that way to regular National Gaurdsmen . . . but it still IS a form of draft dodging when you are the son of a wealthy and connected politician and that is the reason that you are not 'in the jungle'



    BTW, why no links or cited sources to this so called amassed points record?



    ANd once again, look at how they turn a liability into a asset: they take the fact that the WHite house didn't listen to anyone outside of their little network and spin it good: the "were not interested in what he ha to say"

    Is that true . . . if so they are a hermetic and insular group

    If not, then it is because, as someone has pointed out, there are rewards for speaking up and 'remembering' and yet they want to pretend that they have no contact . . .



    This article does not address Bush's failure to appear on or before July 6th?!

    In fact the grounding that resulted from his failure to appear was not discussed at all . . . and the 'Reports' that would result from the necessary military investigation in such a case have never materialized . . . why?

    Records of ordinary disciplinary actions following such a case?

    Where are they?



    WHat about the ownership of these 'records' . . .what about the facts that they were vetted by Maj General Danny James?!?! (Promoted to Washington by Bush)

    Why not even a question about the 'custody of evidence'?

    What about the entirety of the records?

    If they were all released then Bush's signiture would be on the release form . . . which it is not?

    So, they were selectively released . . and vetted. Burkett hears of vetting Karen Hughes?!?!?

    Not surprising.

    and jsut to close this off . . . since i know 7E7 didn't read the article I will post some of it:




    It is hard to even respond to some of the most ridiculous BS we have ever seen at this forum. John McCain said that the F-102 was a difficult airplane to fly and that Bush did well - a big reason why he felt no need to attack Bush's Guard record in the 2000 campaign. So why don't you bother to actually research this stuff instead of posting a bunch of fiction about things you so obviously know nothing about?



    The accumulation of service points is in the records released so that is a closed issue. And the issue of why Bush took himself off flight status is well known. Your insinuations of drug use or an unwillingness to fly are nothing more than pure crap and you should be ashamed to post such mindless speculation when there are not any facts anywhere to back up such allegations. In doing so it makes you nothing more than a useless troll who is doing even more damage to an already tattered reputation as someone who is so blinded by his hatred for President Bush that he will post lies in a lame effort to make an educated argument. Let us stick with the facts shall we?



    And National Guard service is not draft dodging. Equating what Bush did to people who fled to Canada or what Bill Clinton did is ludicrous and you know it. In any case you are slandering a guy who served his country and that is disgusting. People can serve their country in a variety of ways. National Guard service is honorable and your assertions that it is not is ridiculous at best and down right slimy at worst.
  • Reply 18 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    I'm just wondering whether the F-102 then functions in the same capacity as the standard training jet as the T-38 now. I used to live outside an AFB in Oklahoma where they flew T-38s.



    Yeah, as far as recall. In the F-102B and F-106B version there are two seats and the rear seat is the 'co-pilot' trainy. The main seat has the ability to override the controls when certain nobs and switches and lights etc are set.

    I think tht there were T-38s also on that base IIRC . . . but that was THIRTY years ago!!!



    My father was base commander, if you didn't pick that one up, and I was an airplane fanatic . . . I used to watch the F-102s after-burn on the runway at night from my back window . . . they had this bright triangular blue flame and a very very loud deep roar . . it was great . . . when they did it in the sky . . . my dad would say "I'm gonna find out who that is and he's going to be sorry"



    But the thing is, my dad, who fought in WW2 (B-17s, two purple hearts Distinguished Flying cross, and some really big ass important medals, lead the first American raid on Berlin, took part in the infamous Schweinfurt raid, had a mid-air collision, also volunteered for Vietnam and Korea, you can see a picture of him drinking a beer in the book "The Mighty Eighth", and stories stories stories!!!) hated the Stateside duty of that period . . . the 'soldiers' were completely lacking in esprit de-corps, they hardly even saluted, they were the worst sort of weekend warriors . . . and he was reg service . . . he retired early and then got an ulcer.

    BTW, aint no way in hell his purple hearts were nothing!
  • Reply 19 of 85
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    In any case you are slandering a guy who served his country and that is disgusting. People can serve their country in a variety of ways. National Guard service is honorable and your assertions that it is not is ridiculous at best and down right slimy at worst.





    The main point of contention is not whether service in the National Guard during the Vietnam war was equivalent in terms of risk or honor to service in a combat zone (although few would assert that it was), but whether Bush even completed his service in the National Guard.
  • Reply 20 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    It is hard to even respond to some of the most ridiculous BS we have ever seen at this forum. John McCain said that the F-102 was a difficult airplane to fly and that Bush did well - a big reason why he felt no need to attack Bush's Guard record in the 2000 campaign. So why don't you bother to actually research this stuff instead of posting a bunch of fiction about things you so obviously know nothing about?



    See my post above . . . I think that my father, with whom I discussed the airplanes surrounding me with rapt attention, pretty much trumpts this McCain quote, form a man who is very politically motivated to remain on the good side of his very conservative constituency in Arizona, a constituency of old vets who want to see the picture in rosy red and stripey blue



    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    The accumulation of service points is in the records released so that is a closed issue.



    Yeah that's pretty compelling . . if its true, or is related at all to the years in question. Want to post a link to these 'records' and point out the point
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    And the issue of why Bush took himself off flight status is well known. Your insinuations of drug use or an unwillingness to fly are nothing more than pure crap and you should be ashamed to post such mindless speculation when there are not any facts anywhere to back up such allegations. blah blah blah



    "took himself off" is absurd . . . he, -get this, its coming soon, ready: FAILED to even show up for a medical examination that is necessary for flying . . . I didn't insinuate it was for drugs, though we do know that Bush snorted COCAINE at a time in his life -a drug that gets young black men many years behind bars and is frowned upon quite highly by Conservative moralistas . . . so it is a question: the medical exam had the potential to include random drug testing . . . is that a part of the story?

    probably not . .more like he just felt that he had had enough playing soldier-boy and had 'more important' things to do.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by 7E7

    And National Guard service is not draft dodging.



    It isn't exactly 'draft-dodging', but it sure is strange that he jump line and fell right into a position that people were clamoring to get . . . and along side all those other rich connected people's sons . . . imagine that!!!!



    BTW, I find it far more repugnant then risking your future by going to Canada . . or abroad . . though the less repugnant, by far, is to join and fight



    though that too is bad when one believes the war is entirely wrong
Sign In or Register to comment.