NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm Game, set, match. With Kerry's record of treason I can see why he is trying to slander Bush's military record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 With Kerry's record of treason I can see why he is trying to slander Bush's military record. How is attending/speaking at an anti-war demonstration AFTER SERVING IN SAID WAR treason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 How is attending/speaking at an anti-war demonstration AFTER SERVING IN SAID WAR treason? yes. His antiwar groups rantings were used as justification by a number of troops who had fragged their officers or sergeants. His group encouraged soldiers to desert their units and also was party to what they called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" in which veterans , many of which were later determined to be imposters, were brought forth to recount atrocities committed by our military. That sounds a lot like treason to me. BTW, Here's a pic of the Kerry antiwar groups sponsor during one of her finest moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Thanks for the heads-up, Nuke. You know this won't shut anyone up, though. They'll never stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm Game, set, match. With Kerry's record of treason I can see why he is trying to slander Bush's military record. How does it "dispel the Bush AWOL myths?" It is another news, worthy of pursuit and interpretation, but doesn't dispel anything. Bush making good on his word from Sunday's Meet the Press interview, and telling us what wa sblacked out on his Guard application, why he apparently failed to show up for training for 5 months, WHY NOONE CAN REMEMBER SERVING WITH HIM AT THE TIME... that could dispel the issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 How does it "dispel the Bush AWOL myths?" It is another news, worthy of pursuit and interpretation, but doesn't dispel anything. Bush making good on his word from Sunday's Meet the Press interview, and telling us what wa sblacked out on his Guard application, why he apparently failed to show up for training for 5 months, WHY NOONE CAN REMEMBER SERVING WITH HIM AT THE TIME... that could dispel the issues. Maybe this will help you. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm Or this http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/...tary/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Wow, if anyone actually believes that Bush WASN'T AWOL, they are quite blind to the facts. I love it how Republicans slam Clinton for being a conscientous objector but then come back and praise Bush for going AWOL for roughly a year in the Texas Air National Guard. Texas. Air. National. Guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 How does it "dispel the Bush AWOL myths?" It is another news, worthy of pursuit and interpretation, but doesn't dispel anything. Bush making good on his word from Sunday's Meet the Press interview, and telling us what wa sblacked out on his Guard application, why he apparently failed to show up for training for 5 months, WHY NOONE CAN REMEMBER SERVING WITH HIM AT THE TIME... that could dispel the issues. Moore's (no, not Michael's) book is coming in March. It should clear things up a bit. Boston Globe (I think) already purshased the untorn piece of document in question. To be continued. (FSJ.....save your breath) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Maybe this will help you. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm Yep, clear as mud. There should have been people coming out of the woodwork 5 years ago remembering serving with Bush in AL during the 5 months in question, and there should be now as well. It is a continuing point of interest that this is not the case. And it is a continuing point of interest that He may not have gotten the assignment he did if the rules were adhered to, depending on the substance of his arrest record explanations that have been sharpied out of esistence on his Guard application. Nothing more, nothing less. In 5 years, pay stubs and a dental exam record, and now a spottyrecollection here andf there of Bush being in AL is the most incontrovertable evidence the White House has that the "AWOL" charge is baseless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 Wow, if anyone actually believes that Bush WASN'T AWOL, they are quite blind to the facts. I love it how Republicans slam Clinton for being a conscientous objector but then come back and praise Bush for going AWOL for roughly a year in the Texas Air National Guard. Texas. Air. National. Guard. Uhh, the facts are listed in the 3 links I provided in this thread. Maybe you should read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Uhh, the facts are listed in the 3 links I provided in this thread. Maybe you should read them. Yawn....this was mentioned just the ova dai: http://velvetrope.com/ubbthreads/showflat....sb=5&o=&fpart=5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Washington Times is highly biased and has been exposed by David Brock who used to work for them. Read his book sometime. Maybe if you had a paper that wasn't run by a guy who thought he was the Messiah, it'd be a bit more respected as a source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 BTW, Here's a pic of the Kerry antiwar groups sponsor during one of her finest moments. You're way off. Jane Fonda = quite f***able in her day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 CLEARING THE RECORD The MoveOn.org e-mail errs in a couple of places. First, many officers received commissions after attending Officers' Candidate School (OCS), which, during the Vietnam era, normally ran 10 to 12 weeks. And while fighter pilots may have been in great demand when George W. Bush was in the Texas Air Guard, he was assigned to a unit that, for whatever reason, was not deployed. It would have been very unusual for Lt. Bush to deploy individually to Vietnam. For one thing, it would have entailed more flight training, since he would have been flying something other than the F-102 in Vietnam. A recent e-mail from FactCheck.org, the Annenberg Political Fact Check, corrects many of the other falsehoods circulated by MoveOn.org. FactCheck.org points out that these charges have been around since Bush's campaign against Al Gore, "when a Boston Globe story appeared saying the newspaper could find no record of Bush attending required Air National Guard drills for a full year in 1972-73." But an analysis of the facts paints a different picture. The FactCheck.org e-mail cites the news outlets that pursued the story about Bush's Guard service. According to the Globe account, Bush served the equivalent of 21 months on active duty over the next four years, including more than a year of flight training. The Globe quoted Bush's flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew." The Globe also said that "those who trained and flew with Bush...said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called 'weekend warriors.'" When Bush moved to Alabama in May of 1972, he was supposed to report for duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery Alabama. But the unit's commander at the time, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, was quoted by several news organizations as saying he had no recollection of Bush showing up. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered," the Globe quoted him saying. This is the source of the charge that Bush was AWOL (Absent Without Leave). But while Bush himself later was quoted directly by the Dallas Morning News as admitting he missed some weekend drills while in Alabama, he claimed to have made them up afterward. "I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time," he said. "I made up some missed weekends....I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations." FactCheck.org reports that while records are lacking for that period, the Associated Press quoted two friends who worked with Bush in the Blount campaign as saying they recall him attending Air National Guard drills in Alabama. Bush returned to Houston after the campaign, says FactCheck.org, but never resumed flying. "He spent 36 days on duty back in Houston in May, June, and July of 1973, the Globe reported, making up for weekend drills he was too busy to attend in Alabama Thanks BrandoFan for helping me make my point. Bottom line is that he did miss a few drills, this is pretty commonplace in the guard as I know many guard members personally, but he made them up and served his time. Yeah Bush had it easy during the war but these charges of him being a "deserter" and "AWOL" are totally absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Washington Times is highly biased and has been exposed by David Brock who used to work for them Yes, Washington Post it is certainly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Thanks BrandoFan for helping me make my point. except it doesn't. Scroll down a bit furtha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm Game, set, match. With Kerry's record of treason I can see why he is trying to slander Bush's military record. Kerry's record of treason? Treason? I am having a hard time with that word. As far as the Washington Times goes, the paper is a Moonie operation and I don't trust the Moonies on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 As far as the Washington Times goes, the paper is a Moonie operation and I don't trust the Moonies on anything. Moonies are a cult. They f*** up families. :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 Kerry's record of treason? Treason? I am having a hard time with that word. As far as the Washington Times goes, the paper is a Moonie operation and I don't trust the Moonies on anything. yes, treason His antiwar groups rantings were used as justification by a number of troops who had fragged their officers or sergeants. His group encouraged soldiers to desert their units and also was party to what they called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" in which veterans , many of which were later determined to be imposters, were brought forth to recount atrocities committed by our military. That sounds a lot like treason to me. If encouraging soldiers of our military to desert their units and frag their officers isint treasonous activity i dont know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Nuke, your considering dissent againt the Vietnam War or any war with treason, I suggest you read the US Constitution again. And for Bush? He only got into the national guard because strings were pulled for the son of a US Congressman and grandson of a Senator. If he had been anyone else, he would have been drafted. But influence allowed strings to be pulled for Bush to evade the draft. Both father and son Bush have admitted that strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard ahead of everyone on the list - they just deny "knowing" about it "aherad of time." Just as Cheney was a draft evader - he said and has always said that he was doing more important things than serving in the military. He used every legal loophole to evade the draft. Your calling out a veteran and praising draft evaders and draft dogers is simply incredible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 If encouraging soldiers of our military to desert their units and frag their officers isint treasonous activity i dont know what is. prove that one - you damn well need to prove he said those things and remember that treason is a legal offense, a constitutional matter, and after you prove that Kerry ever said what you have accused him of, you damn well better be able to expalin why he was never charged under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 adminsitrations since I presume you will say Carter and Clionton let him of. And then you damn well might explain why Kerry's closest friend in the Senate, John MvcCain, has broken party lines in the past to support Kerry you have gone over the edge on this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 Your calling out a veteran and praising draft evaders and draft dogers is simply incredible to me. Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and was highly decorated for his service. For that he has my utmost respect. It's what he did after the war that I take issue with. He operated an activist group that engaged in treasonous activity to include encouraging soldiers to desert their units and conducting interviews with phony "veterans" to highlight supposed U.S. atrocities. Do you really want someone in charge of the military who actively encouraged soldiers to desert their units? I sure as hell dont. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 12, 2004 Author Share Posted February 12, 2004 prove that one - you damn well need to prove he said those things and remember that treason is a legal offense, a constitutional matter, and after you prove that Kerry ever said what you have accused him of, you damn well better be able to expalin why he was never charged under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 adminsitrations since I presume you will say Carter and Clionton let him of. And then you damn well might explain why Kerry's closest friend in the Senate, John MvcCain, has broken party lines in the past to support Kerry you have gone over the edge on this one Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley wrote a biography of Kerry called "Tour of Duty" which covers all of Kerry's shenanigans including his antiwar groups financial backing by none other than "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. Yeah, the same Hanoi Jane pictured below at a NVA air defense battery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Something on yahoo. Because it is on yahoo, I don't know how long the link will remain active. "I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there," said Wayne Rambo, who was a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time. The AP contacted more than a dozen former members of the unit on Wednesday, and none could recall ever running into Bush. As a side note, whether he was there or not is not a factor in whether I would vote for him come November (for the record I am in the anyone but Bush camp). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley wrote a biography of Kerry called "Tour of Duty" which covers all of Kerry's shenanigans including his antiwar groups financial backing by none other than "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. Yeah, the same Hanoi Jane pictured below at a NVA air defense battery. I have never heard of him which doesn't mean a thing. If this book is so accurate, and I am waiting still for the exact charges that have been made in that book and such proof because saying "so and so wrote this" does not mean that is what was said - I do work in a law office - but again if this book is not the ravings of a right wing luntaic, why was Kerry never charged and why has POW McCain been so close to Kerry - he after all had a lot at stake there. The reality is that some of us are old en ough to remember John Kerry's testimony to Congress and his other activities. That is one reason I know these accusations are bulls***. Others reasons are, Kerry was very visible - we would all know if had had said anything remotely, remotely close to these lies, nuke, and the Nixon Justice Department would have nailed his ass if anything remotely, remotely close to these lies were so - and John McCain, who lived in the Hanoi Hilton, is vberyu close to McCain and has broken party ranks on Kerry's behalf and I will trust John McCain's word as a POW over any bulls*** that I know never happened. Don't like a guy or his politics is one thing. False accusations of treason are something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.