Um, I posted that at least once in here.
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the factsExcerpts:
There's more...suggested reading material for both sides of the issue."At the time, guardsmen were required to ac ulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation."
...
"...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."
Um, I posted that at least once in here.
Sorry, TD, I missed it. And, apparently, so did many others...because, WHY ELSE IS THE '72 GUARD SERVICE EVEN AN ISSUE ANYMORE?
i wish i will never hear the words "national guard" or "vietnam" anymore before the election
Well, if Kerry and his goons would STFU, you'd get your wish.
Yoni, maybe you know this...is it true that since there are less than 60 days before the election, 527's arent allowed to run anymore ads?
No, I think they are only prohibited from using a candidate's name or image. Issue-based ads are still allowed, if I'm not mistaken.
Oh, and of course, no one is prohibited from producing art -- such as a 45 minute do entary on John F. Kerry's lies about his Vietnam Service, his Vietnam Veterans Against the War exploits, or his astonishingly empty record in 20 years of Senate service.
A National Review writer does a cursory piece on Bush's Guard service and that's the final word?
Once he referred to the Swift Boat Vets for Rent as Swifties he lost any chance of being taken seriously.
What part of the article was incorrect?
C'mon Ruby, refute the article -- don't bash the messenger, show us where the message is wrong.
The questions about Bush's Guard service are:
1. Did he get preferential treatment to get into the Guard? (Why this is important is he (Bush) said he did not.
2. Why did he miss his annual flight physical?
3. Did he ever report for duty in Alabama or Boston when he went there?
The column (article) does not address those questions and those are the core of what is being asked.
Lest I forget that Kerry originally sought a deferment to study in Paris after martriculating at Yale, was turned down, and then joined the Naval Reserves (yeah a real gung-ho volunteer for the Vietnam War is going to join that). Unexpectedly he was called up. Spent a year on a ship in the Pacific. The swift boats originally were patrolling the coast of Vietnam but only a change in tactics led to their use inland.
So much for the Kerry 'volunteered for combat' yarn.
Not according to him, his father, any written record, any known commander of his, and even not according (under oath) to the slimeball now saying, on an already discredited 60 Minutes program, that he did."The questions about Bush's Guard service are:"
"1. Did he get preferential treatment to get into the Guard? (Why this is important is he (Bush) said he did not."
I don't know and why is that important? In fact, why is any of this important?"2. Why did he miss his annual flight physical?"
According to him and the written record, he did. There's nothing but speculation that says otherwise and I think, in a few days, the Demoncrats are going to be sorry they even brought this up again. Especially since we're seeing CBS being caught putting up bogus do ents and partisan interviews."3. Did he ever report for duty in Alabama or Boston when he went there?"
Do you even know who Ben Barnes is? Apparently not.
Well, they're questions that have been asked and answered in a previous campaign. There's nothing new...except the made up parts and the American people didn't care last time."The column (article) does not address those questions and those are the core of what is being asked."
Demoncratic desperation.
1. Yes, most likely. Of course a case could be made that he wanted to follow in his father's footsteps and be a pilot and the guard was the easier path to accomplishing that. Again, not likely, much like John Kerry joining the Navy Reserves because he really wanted to see action in the Vietnam War.
2. Only he knows. Apparently he complied with the requirements in the years prior. And apparently he performed every other duty required of him during his five years in the Guard and received an honorable discharge. The man missed an appointment with a doc. If he missed the plane when his unit was shipping out, then perhaps this would actually matter today.
3. Did he have to report for duty at those locations?
And finally,
4. Who gives a ****? He hasn't run on his national guard record. He's said he made mistakes as a young man. This has been covered before in the 2000 election and again this year when John Kerry himself saw fit to question the service records of Bush.
This is just like 1996 when the GOP thought they could revive the Clinton 'draft dodger' issue with a lackluster, party establishment war veteran senator as their candidate. By then the public had already factored in that Clinton did what he did to get out of military service.
The only people who really think this matters are the same rabid partisans whose blind hate of the in bent president makes them think that everyone else hates him.
I'm sure this would matter to the rabid right if we were talking about Clinton here instead of W. Anyone else see the double standard? Of course, they'll deny it, they always do. They try to hold other party leaders to standards that their own party leaders are grossly inadequate at.The only people who really think this matters are the same rabid partisans whose blind hate of the in bent president makes them think that everyone else hates him.
TD has drawn the comparison to Clinton already.
Of course it would matter to the "rabid right"... Which illustrates the point of this non-issue: the only people who care are Partisans whose vote has already been decided.
Thanks Spurm...I'm sure that was obvious to everyone but Nbadan...but, it needed to be said anyway.
Um I've pointed out how the Kerry campaign and the Democrats in general have gone down the path of the Dole campaign and the GOP back in 1996 previously in this forum.I'm sure this would matter to the rabid right if we were talking about Clinton here instead of W. Anyone else see the double standard?
Who first questioned a candidate's military service in this campaign?Of course, they'll deny it, they always do. They try to hold other party leaders to standards that their own party leaders are grossly inadequate at.
It wasn't Bush.
It wasn't Rove.
It wasn't (John Edwards supporter) John O'Neill.
It wasn't the 250+ Swift Boat Veterans for whatever.
Your assertion that only the GOP engages in negative campaigning or dirty politics is naive, blinded by partisanship, or most accurately, both.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)