More AWOL news

[kallend 2,027]

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tunaplanet 0]

The Boston Globe? ROFLMAO. They're even lower than moveon.org.

You can get more factual intel from the National Inquirer.

Forty-two

[Trent 0]

At least HE's not running on his war record.

Oh, hello again!

[tkhayes 348]

similar stories in the New York times, Washington Post, Reuters, etc

care to eviscerate them too?

[ahegeman 0]

I love seeing liberals go gaa-gaa for the former soldier and blasting the draft-dodger almost as much as I love seeing conservatives trying to defend a spoiled rich boy who used family connections to let others go die in a war he surely supported.

I thought liberals admired people who avoided the draft. You should be giving props to Bush for keeping himself out of a situation where he would have had to have "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side". He was just a peace lovin' flower child, dude! War would have really harshed his mellow!

Its irrelevant. I had no idea that you had to fulfill your commitments during Vietnam to be fit to be President *cough*Clinton*cough*. Perhaps Kerry said it best in 1992, "What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary". Or Presidential election. Whatever. Its all part of the same farce.

The comparisons between Bush's and Kerry's war records would also be a lot more interesting if Kerry would release his records for public review. What's he afraid of, anyway? He claimed he couldn't release them because of "contractual obligations" to his biographer, David Brinkley. Brinkley says there are no such contractual obligations.

Vietnam tells us nothing about these guys. Who it does tell us a lot about is both Republicans and Democrats in general. For both camps, intellectual consistency is a non-essential luxury compared to the need to win an election. Both these doofusses are power-hungry jackasses who feel that the helm of the flagship of liberty is an entitlement stemming from their breeding. Never mind that the flagship floats on the blood of millions of TRUE patriots, while these assholes both just piss over the side*. A pox on both their houses.

You'll be much happier and far less stressed if you resign yourself right now to the fact that no matter who wins, we are all screwed. Both of them are owned by interests that only care about their own ability to use the power of the state to take money from those of us who actually earn it, and neither of them gives two shits about us peasants. Unfortunately, all the other options are unelectable wackos.

Fuck it, lets go skydiving.

*Sorry, I just don't know when to stop a good metaphor

---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
--Dave Barry

[kallend 2,027]

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09guard.html

The White House communications director does not dispute the authenticity of the memos showing Bush failed to fulfill his obligations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

At least HE's not running on his war record.

Well, he kinda is . . . although he's running on the war he started.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

although he's running on the war he started.

You mean the war the US started. Last I checked one man doesn't have the power to start a war all by himself.

Forty-two

[Zenister 0]

if your the president you do, in fact you dont even have to declare it to send troops....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Kennedy 0]

vote by congress to use military force in Iraq

(which Kerry said he would still vote for, even knowing what he does now)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Zenister 0]

check more closely, the president has broad powers to use force without congressonal approval.

but then this isnt a War yet is it??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

The Boston Globe? ROFLMAO. They're even lower than moveon.org.

You can get more factual intel from the National Inquirer.

Mirror tactics are notorious when you put the spotlight on liberals conservatives.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09guard.html

The White House communications director does not dispute the authenticity of the memos showing Bush failed to fulfill his obligations.

What part of HONORABLE DISCHARGE is congruent with "Did not fulfill his obligations"?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What part of HONORABLE DISCHARGE is congruent with "Did not fulfill his obligations"?

Possibly the part where his superior officer stated he was pressured into giving him positive reports.

[akarunway 1]

What part of HONORABLE DISCHARGE is congruent with "Did not fulfill his obligations"?/////////////////////////////////$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

if your the president you do, in fact you dont even have to declare it to send troops....

Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo.... your point?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TheAnvil 0]

A pleasure to discuss the issue. Mr. Byron York presents:

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.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

It's the same old horseshit that gets regurgitated every time Bush runs for anything.

Nothing new here, despite the Globe's attempt to portray it as such.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

if your the president you do, in fact you dont even have to declare it to send troops....

Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo.... your point?

that this

Quote

Last I checked one man doesn't have the power to start a war all by himself.

is a false statement...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelel01 1]

The President can declare war for 90 days without congressional approval.

Kelly

[kallend 2,027]

Apparently he wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The President can declare war for 90 days without congressional approval.

Kelly

IIRC (and I may not), the President can conduct military operations for 90 days without approval.... a formal declaration of war still has to come from Congress.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

The President can declare war for 90 days without congressional approval.

Ummmm, negative. Using the wrong verbage. No individual can officially declare war in this country.

Forty-two

[PhillyKev 0]

That's a technicality. We haven't officially declared war since WWII, but we have gone to war on the say so of the president on numerous occasions.

[billvon 2,998]

>What part of HONORABLE DISCHARGE is congruent with "Did not fulfill his obligations"?

The same sort of congruency you see between "decorated Vietnam vet" and "undeserving liar."