America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by Thom. 25 replies replies.
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts
usahog Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

Bush’s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Hog
AVB Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
This was posted yesterday. Try to keep up :>)
EI Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-29-2002
Posts: 5,069
But AVB... What are your thoughts on these facts. Or do you still want to go with the spin doctors accounts?
usahog Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
and the Spin is running faster then the Winds of Hurricane Ivan... now because of the fax/photocopies and all other reasons these forms are Ligit but kinda jacked up LMAO!!!! But Dan Rather is standing on his head.. I mean standing by his Job and people he works with these documents are ligit...

Hog
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
perhaps rather is correct. or, maybe the republicans faked these documents hoping to catch rather in a faux pas.

is it possible that the republicans would do that? not our honest, true blue, apple pie eating americans. they would never stoop to dirty tricks.

i believe if there was a video of bush doing coke, the diehards wouldn't believe it.
Herr Rabbit Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
If the Democrats were "fooled" by these crude forgeries, then they are truly too stupid to entrust with our country and security. After all, aren't these people way more smarter than Bush, ROve, Rummy, et al?

At least thats all I hear out of Maven and the Left, how stupid the Right is. Yet these, the very best and brightest, who say they can do better are fooled by the very boobs they despise.

If they released this crap knowing they were fake, then they lack the integrity to even clean up after my dog.
CWFoster Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
"perhaps rather is correct. or, maybe the republicans faked these documents hoping to catch rather in a faux pas.

is it possible that the republicans would do that? not our honest, true blue, apple pie eating americans. they would never stoop to dirty tricks.

i believe if there was a video of bush doing coke, the diehards wouldn't believe it."

Rick, I said in another post that some people are pathologically blinded, and you said it would take an MD to diagnose that. It DOES take an MD to declare someone legally dead, but if you see them not breathing, and starting to reek, you KNOW what the problem is! Your first pasragraph is possible, unlikely, but possible. Your second paragraph makes it sound like it was the Republicans who stole the elcetion from Nixon, getting JFK into the White House. (The man who delivered the Presidency to Kennedy rasied and traind his son, who ran Gores campaign) BTW, did you read about the people who are registered to vote in NY AND FLA? There are some Republicans 12% but there are 60+% of them registered Democrat! The rest are Independent. They had absentee ballotts sent to their resisdences in FLA, and are suspected to have voted in BOTH states! since the Democrats outnember the Republicans 5:1, and there were several THOUSAND of them, if you adjust for this, do you still feel that BUSH stole the election? How can you reach so hard to paint the Republicans as evil when the Democrats are so much worse? Sure it's possible for the Republicans to have framed the Democrats, but it's more beleivable that the Democrats tried to manufacture evidence to support their groundless claims. Would I beleive a video of Bush doing coke? Absolutely not! These baseless allegations have been out for over four years now, and the only person who's been quoted as saying he DID, has denied the interview with the writer went the way the writer quoted, and says the content was fabricated! If there was a video, it would have come out a long time ago.
I would have to suspect that the source was the same as the pic posted of Bush and Saddam cutting up on the picture post boards right now. Before you accuse Bush supporters of being lemmings blindly followingtheir leader, take a good long look in the mirror so you know what one looks like!
Herr Rabbit Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
Well said, CW!
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
Herr Rabbit

i think you are mostly correct. i don't think the right is stupid, i just mentioned bush as he who is without active neurons.

you've done a masterful job of turning my off the wall scenerio into fact and using it against the democrats.

you are a cool dude.
CWFoster Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Wow, Rick, I find it a real oxymoronic situation that you think all these smart people havebeen duped my someone with no active nurons? This is almost as bad as the Gore campaigners referring to George W Bush, son of George H Bush, Jr, while their Candidate was named Al Gore Jr. and his Dad was Al Gore Sr.; And painting the contest as a moron vs. an intellectual, while the moron held more degrees than the so-called intellectual. How does such hypocracy fit Rick?

RICKAMAVEN Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
CWFoster

one thing at a time

"all these smart people have been duped"

which "smart" people are you refering to?

CWFoster Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
why, you and all your elitist, left-leaning DNC pawn collegues of course! To think that documents using formatting styles that were only available on the highest end typewriters at the time, and YOU having been in the military should know that while the government overpays for many items (most items back then) they rarely get lateset generation equipment, unless it has a direct, tactical impact! Therefore, IF you could find a typewriter that had superscript, and IF proportional spacing was even available at that time, an IF Col. Killian was an expert typist (His widow said he couldn't type) It would STLL be unlikely that the documents would be as viewed. Given that CBS says they had handwriting analysts check the signatures, but they started out with photocopies, it's a simple matter to scan a genuine memo (a supply requisition perhaps) and cut and paste the signature to a newly created document (you know how cut and paste works Rick?) and hit print, and send the printed document, or fax it to create one more layer of "copy of a copy" to the mix, and the formatting and typeface arer about all that remain to give it away! The signatures being a scan of a genuine signature, WILL show to be genuine. Of course Most people wouldn't think about different fonts used on old typewriters and new computers, and even fewer about proportional typeface, (I didn't until today!) But you and your fellow travellers say Bush (No active neuons, your words) pulled the woll over the eyes of Dan Rather and the whole 60 Minutes research crew, the DNC (I think another Dem. Congressman or Senator just spoke out using this as fresh ammo yesterday!), and everyone else in the "Anybody But Bush peanut gallery" claims that if they're forgeries, then BUSH pulled a fast one on you all! Rick, wouldn't that make HIM smarter than you ALL?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
Let's not forget the "details" of this fake document! It's filled with holes to big to miss, but Fox, CNN and the rest have!


The 19 May 1972 memo CBS purportedly discovered says:

“1. Phone call from Bush....... Says that he is working on another campaign for his dad.”

“2. Physical .... He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have time.....”

But according to George Herbert Walker Bush’s biography:

“Following an unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat in 1964, Mr. Bush was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 from Texas’ 7th District. One of the few freshman members of Congress ever elected to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, he was reelected to the House two years later without opposition. Mr. Bush lost a second campaign for the Senate in 1970.”

“During the 1970’s, Mr. Bush held a number of important leadership positions. In 1971, he was named U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He served there until 1973, when he became Chairman of the Republican National Committee. ”

Since his dad was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time this memo was supposed to have been written, just what was this campaign that George W. Bush was supposed to be working on in 1972?

CWFoster Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
TYhat part was straight up! He originally transferred to the Alabama ANG to work on the campaign of a family friend. I beleive it was in Fla. or GA.
grond Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
Rick stated,
"perhaps rather is correct. or, maybe the republicans faked these documents hoping to catch rather in a faux pas.

is it possible that the republicans would do that? not our honest, true blue, apple pie eating americans. they would never stoop to dirty tricks.

i believe if there was a video of bush doing coke, the diehards wouldn't believe it."

I'm amazed that you can't even mention that Rather, CBS and the DNC might be caught in faux pas. and to paraphrase you (with a few slight changes), "is it possible that the DEMOCRATS would do that? not our honest, true blue, apple pie eating americans. they would never stoop to dirty tricks.

i believe if there was a video of CLINTON doing coke or KERRY GETTING HIGH WITH JANE FONDA, the diehards wouldn't believe it."

Artistic license was taken.....

Cheers,

grond
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
CWFoster

i really like debating, discussing, or simply chattig with you. you don't make any more leaps then i do.

when i made up the idea that the republicans might have set up rather for a fall, i did catch a few small fish. i believe it is called trolling.

look how many guys have posted the information they have been fed by folks like fox "news." i don't think any of us can make an independent judgement on our own about the documents authenticity, but many of the right persuasion have already accepted as fact, that which is in doubt and is being investigated.

it seems a bit premature not to mention immature to draw conclusions until all the info is on the table. is it possible that those who make premature judgements might also suffer other premature problems.
CWFoster Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
True statement, but the mistakes are so arcane as to be easily overlooked by someone (whoever) that wanted to forge documents, that I doubt they INTENDED for them to be found out. If it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" I imagine the mistakes would be much less ambiguous
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040912-125608-4609r.htm

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Scroll down to see the comparisons!
Cigarick Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 07-28-2002
Posts: 3,078
I'm seeing a lot of name-calling, side-stepping, and smoke-blowing, but aren't any of you Lib's going to address the report that started this thread? Typical...
CWFoster Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
OK, I was pretty sure they're fake now I'm 100% sure!
CWFoster Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Hell, if you magnify the "original", the little distortions are SQUARE, pixelated! The whole thing screams of digital imagery! Even the stray spots on the page are squared off! Careful artificial aging!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
Yup.

RaTHer, er BlaTHer backed himself into a painted corner! He's not backing down and now Dem's are out there stating that if Lurch does have anything to do with this...he's done and should throw in the towel!
drjothen Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 10-17-2003
Posts: 319
Great segment on Meet the Press today with Madeline "No"bright.

Russert showed a clip of Kerry this week blasting Bush on the war spending. Then he showed a portion of an interview with Kerry that he did late in 2003 where Kerry said that we need to spend "whatever it takes" to win the war.

Well big John, which is it?

Anybody but up for a breakfast of Kerry Waffles or Flip Flop Cakes?

DRJ
ilovemaui Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-24-2003
Posts: 48
I'd say this guy clearly shows the memos are forgeries and piss poor ones at that:

[url]http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm[/url]
Herr Rabbit Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 07-13-2004
Posts: 104
Thanks for the citation, most interesting in its authoritativeness. I also learned more about kerning than I ever planned to.

Maven needs to write this guy and tell him he doesn't know diddly-squat about type and explain the facts as related by CBS.
Thom Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2003
Posts: 6,117
Why is it that when anything that is posted, that promotes a Republican or right-wing point of view, somebody wants a liberal, or Democrat to rebut? Ever notice the pack mentallity around here?
Users browsing this topic
Guest