yup good article, interesting perspective, and I would hav eto agree with it too.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Vietnam was a poorly mismanagaged conflict for over a decade, while people from Kerry's line of politics continually mismanaged the stituation. This article is right on the money. Because Kerry is now a member of that stream of thinking, he has become part of the "peace at any cost" crowd. Unfortunately, for the future of America, the cost is often too high and military action may sometimes be a better alternative. Bush is not handicapped by the same lack of vision held by Kerry.

Alright, Conservatives. I was gonna let this shit slide, but I've heard enough.

I'm sorry but this article is a bunch of strawmen crap. There may be a certain group of individuals trying to compare Kerry's record to that of Bush, but that isin't the real f$cking issue on the table here, and you and this idiot Repug. author damn well knows it.

It is about credibility and accountability. Bush has continually dodged giving direct evidence to his whereabouts in that Texas Air National Guard, which was full of a bunch of little ninnies with political ties and "pull" that didn't want to get their asses shot off in the war. And so far Bush's best evidence are spotty records, unsure eyewitnesses, a dental record, and a pay stub. Wow, talk about concrete stuff.

Let's try and forget about the fact that the piece of shit scored a 25 on his f$cking entrance exam, yet was somehow allowed in. Must have been his real charm and quick wit, I suppose. And then we have to forget that he went to Alabama WITHOUT AIR FORCE PERMISSION:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunher...ion/7932511.htm

And then people in Alabama seemingly have a hard time recalling if he was even there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/p...&partner=GOOGLE

I really like this quote from Bush. Boy he really did some memorable work there:

quote:

For his part, Mr. Bush has never offered any detailed descriptions of what jobs he did at the 187th. "I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes," he told reporters in 2000.

These guys were looking forward to meeting him too:

http://www.memphisflyer.com/content...2837&onthefly=1

And then of course the little shit fails to take a physical in '72, and was suspended for flying. What a f$cking hero.

Besides, this whole thing stinks like a frickin' cover-up from the start. First this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/n...&partner=GOOGLE

And then this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...n_bush_accuser/

I don't buy it whatsoever. There are major holes in his story. He has much to explain as far as I'm concerned. Not only does he have to account better when he was in Alabama, but where the f$ck was he when he supposedly went back to Texas?

Political analysts feel this is a non-issue. To me this is a serious issue, because it says much about this piece of sh$t's character. It falls in complete line with a number of his attempts to cover up his ass or delay things to the point of them becoming non-issues (9/11 committee, Kenny Boy giving Cheney having an Energy orgy, smearjob of Valerie Plame, etc.). It is nothing shy of draft dodging, plain and simple. The wonderfully priviledged Bush got to go to his country club while my dad nearly got his ass shot off halfway across the globe in a complete bullshit war. Sorry, but his memory is going to have to be a little better to convince me on this one.

quote:

Published on Thursday, February 19, 2004 by The Nation What Bush's Guard File Reveals by David Corn Okay, we were wrong--the we being those who called on Bush to honor his promise to release his entire Air National Guard records in the hope it would clarify the mysteries surrounding the last eighteen months of his service. After trying to back away from that promise, the Bush White House finally did relent. Last Friday, it handed out packets of hundreds of pages of Bush's Air National Guard file. Yet these records contained not a single sheet that that can be used to resolve the controversy. In fact, the file only reinforces the existing questions. To recap, here are the three key issues. * In May 1972, Bush moved from Texas to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. He still had two years left on his Guard obligation. He requested permission to continue his Guard training in Alabama. But did he show up? * Sometime after the November 1972 election, he returned to Houston. But his immediate supervisors at Ellington Air Base in Houston--his home base--noted in a May 2, 1973, annual performance review that Bush "has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. After that report, he put in several intensive stints of duty. But had Bush ignored his Guard responsibilities for months once he was back in Houston? * In September 1972, he was grounded for failing to take a flight physical. Why did he not go through this simple step to preserve his flying status? The new records provide answers to none of this. Although they detail much of his first years in the Air National Guard--his assignments, his training, his drills--they contain no specific references to duty he might have done in Alabama or Houston in the May 1972 to May 1973 period. Let's look at the three pieces: Alabama On May 24, 1972, Bush filed out a form requesting a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama. But according to this application, he was already in Alabama at work on that Senate campaign. On May 26, the commander of the 9921st wrote Bush to tell him that his application had been accepted. This suggests that Bush moved to Alabama before he had arranged for any Guard reassignment. Was that SOP? In any event, two months later, on July 21, 1972, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver nixed the reassignment, noting that Bush, "an obligated Reservist" could only be "assigned to a specific Ready Reserve Position." Bush, the ARPC said, "is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron." There are no records indicating Bush did a stitch of work for the 9921st. Even the pay sheet summaries and attendance point records that the White House released earlier do not contain a single entry for the entire May to mid-October 1972 period. After Bush's reassignment was turned down, he waited six weeks to request another assignment. On September 5, he requested permission to "perform equivalent duty" at the 187th Tac Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October, and November." He quickly received approval to do so. He was told that the "Unit Training Assembly schedule" for the 187th called for drills on October 7-8 and November 4-5 and that he should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the base commander. During the 2000 campaign, Turnipseed said that Bush had never reported in. He repeated that assertion recently, but then noted he was not completely certain. The Bush records do not list any service on the days of these training assembly drills. The pay sheet summaries note that Bush was paid for two days of service on October 28 and 29. But they do not specify what service was performed or where. After doing no work for the Guard from April through early September, did Bush wait another six weeks before reporting for duty? An unnamed Republican close to Bush did point reporters to a former Alabama Air National Guard officer who had served at the Dannelly Air Base (the home of the 187th) who claimed he had seen Bush report for duty eight to ten times between May and October 1972. But Bush's file shows that Bush did not even apply for reassignment to the 187th until September. And those pay sheet summaries only suggest Bush put in two days of service late in October. His file records contradict this person's account. Houston For the stretch from early January 1973 to early May 1973, the pay sheet summaries indicate eight days of possible service: January 4-6 and 8-10 and April 7-8. The summaries also note days of possible service on May 1-3. Presumably, the April and May service occurred at Ellington. But there is nothing-- nothing--in the files that correspond to these days. Moreover, if Bush did put in time in April and early May 1973, why did his immediate superiors--who were buddies of his--sign a form on May 2 saying that Bush had not been seen at Ellington for a year? (Both men are deceased.) Could this mean that the pay sheet summaries are not accurate? These records--and a one-page document indicating he received a dental examination at an Alabama air base in early January 1973--are the key pieces of evidence for the Bush White House's argument that Bush served during the missing year. Most of the AWOL controversy has focused on Bush's months in Alabama. But the question of whether he shirked his Guard responsibilities upon his return to Texas is as significant. Perhaps it is possible that his Guard file did not reflect his service in Alabama because he was doing temporary duty away from his home base. But why would his main file--which is loaded with information pertaining to his duty at Ellington before May 1972--have nothing in it about his activity at Ellington in the first four months of 1973? This gap is as suspicious as the Alabama hole. The flight physical Bush's file also provides no explanation for the flight physical that did not happen. The White House did allow reporters to look at medical records that were in Bush's Guard files. But the journalists were not permitted to leave with copies. Apparently these records contained nothing unusual. In 2000, the Bush campaign said that Bush did not take a flight physical because he was living in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston. But personal physicians did not administer flight exams; military surgeons did. More recently, the White House has said that because Bush was no longer flying fighter interceptor jets he had no reason to undergo a physical. Some military experts have found that explanation unpersuasive; others have called it reasonable. But why the shift in stories? So the fog of Bush's Guard service remains. The file is no help. Bill Burkett, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard did tell various newspapers recently that in 1997 he was in a National Guard office and overheard Joseph Allbaugh, then chief of staff for Governor George W. Bush, inform another officer that he needed to make sure there was nothing embarrassing in Bush's Guard file. Burkett recalled he later spotted items from Bush's file in the trash. Allbaugh and the White House denied these allegations. Is it possible that Allbaugh--or anyone else--could have rigged files in both the Texas office and the main repository in Denver? Suspicious minds can look at the released file and wonder why an absence in good record keeping happens to match the time period in question. Still, the story of Bush's missing year is unresolved. It may never be settled. Unless more records somehow materialize, or convincing witnesses come forward. And if the Bush White House has played this episode to a who-will-ever-know tie, perhaps that is, in the end, a win for the former Air National Guard first lieutenant with a file full of riddles.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And so far Bush's best evidence are spotty records, unsure eyewitnesses, a dental record, and a pay stub. Wow, talk about concrete stuff.

If there are spotty records, it's not his fault. It's the National Guard's. The President has released ALL of his records, plus what he was able to obtain from his archived files.

And the only unsure eyewitness was the one who said that he wasn't there. It was revealed a week ago that he's in the early stages of Alzheimers. Since then, two people have come forward who are "sure" about their stories, one of which was corroborated by the ex-wife of one of the reservists.

But nevertheless, you have missed the entire point of this article. Regardless of where you think Bush was for 6 months, he still served 5.5 years, spending hours flying a death-trap known as the "Widowmaker." He has as Vietnam experience. Kerry also has a Vietnam experience. But even that's not the point here.

The basic gist: In these times, we need someone who can be a leader, even if it means going to war. Kerry's views are cause for worry, as he is hampered by his experiences that were a result of misguided American policies.

NEWSFLASH: Bush missing some national guard meetings and scoring poorly on a test 30 years ago HAS NO RELEVANCE to what’s going on today!!!

NEWSFLASH: Kerry campaigning against a war and siding with popular opinion 30 years ago HAS NO RELEVANCE to what’s going on today!!!

Please this is getting pathetic. Why don’t we pull up each of their report cards to see if any of them skipped bio class and form our opinions based on that? Or why don’t we throw Clinton and Bush in jail for breaking the law and taking drugs when they were in their 20’s??? People change over the course of 30 years. I only hope none of you are ever put in the situation where you’re being held accountable for irrelevant transgressions when you were in your 20’s 30 years from now.

Only in politics …

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Vietnam was a poorly mismanagaged conflict for over a decade, while people from Kerry's line of politics continually mismanaged the stituation. This article is right on the money. Because Kerry is now a member of that stream of thinking, he has become part of the "peace at any cost" crowd. Unfortunately, for the future of America, the cost is often too high and military action may sometimes be a better alternative. Bush is not handicapped by the same lack of vision held by Kerry.

So at what point did his peace at any cost genetic disorder kick in when he signed the congressional bill allowing the President to go to war as a last resort? There's no indication at all that Kerry was a "peace-nik" since he wasn't campaigning for peace at ANY cost. If he wanted peace at any cost he wouldn't have signed up for two tours of duty. He actually experienced the situation, looked at the costs, looked at the potential benefits, and concluded the costs outweighed the benefits. If Vietnam was a conflict that was poorly mismanaged by the political and military branches as you say, why is it mismangment of the situation to realise that the war is being mismanagement and to recommend that the war be stopped? I see nothing wrong with that nor why he should be faulted for such judgment. Especially since he experienced the situation first hand.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Feb-20-2004 at 22:36

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So at what point did his peace at any cost genetic disorder kick in when he signed the congressional bill allowing the President to go to war as a last resort?

Perhaps the point where he realized he wanted to run for President? He may have voted for the war; he voted against funding it. He voted against the first Gulf War, arguably a more "clear" time to intervene militarily, and gave a speech on the Senate floor that proclaimed to the world that America and Americans were unprepared to fight.

Prior to that, he voted against development of every major weapons system in use today. (Patriot, Tomahawk 2nd gen., Abrams modernization). And my personal favorite - the vote to reduce CIA human intelligence operations by $1 billion the year after the (first) World Trade Center attack.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok The basic gist: In these times, we need someone who can be a leader, even if it means going to war. Kerry's views are cause for worry, as he is hampered by his experiences that were a result of misguided American policies.

So because Kerry went to war, fought for his country, and when he came back he saw what everyone else saw - a misguided fruitless battle that was killing thousands of our soldiers, this makes him hampered by his experiences?

I'm sorry, but I find this quite a stretch to mark against someone. I really don't personally feel a comparison of war experiences are necessary in this campaign between the two. But if there is a comparison, you've got one guy who didn't go to war and is having trouble explaining where he was (and, SURPRISE, felt the war was worth fighting up to the bitter end), and you have another guy who was actually there, actually put his ass on the line to save his men/friends, saw other friends' guts being blown out, and once it was all said and done he felt strongly AGAINST that bullshit war. And wow, I wonder how he and the vast majority of Vietnam vets could harbor such negative feelings toward the war and their stupid politicians for putting them there in the first place?

I guess if the comparison is made, I'll take the latter.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...