1
   

Texans For Truth

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 01:07 pm
Hmmmm, good thinking, littlek! This never occured to me, but it makes sense now that you say it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 07:22 pm
Factcheck.org is diggin' this story.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=254



Quote:
Mintz: I can't say that he didn't do his duties, but I can say for sure that I was there and I never met George Bush.

In the telephone conference, Mintz recalled that he and other bachelor pilots were looking forward to meeting a new officer with "political connections" whom they had heard was going to report to their Montgomery, Alabama unit, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group.

"We were anxious to meet the young lieutenant," Mintz said. But the new arrival never showed, and Mintz says he put it out of his mind until recently when he heard Bush say he had served in the same unit. Then he called some friends, and none of them recalled seeing Bush there either.


Quote:
Separately, The Associated Press said it had obtained new records showing that Bush's Houston unit continued to operate the F-102 Delta Dagger aircraft long after Bush stopped flying in April 1972.

The AP said the Pentagon released the records under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, after previously saying it could not find them.

The AP said the two dozen new pages of records show that Bush's Texas unit flew the F-102A until 1974, and also used the jets as part of an air defense drill during 1972, despite a suggestion by Bush's 2000 campaign that he had skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete.


and why do i love factcheck.org?
partly because timber recommends it :wink:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=862663#862663
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 07:31 pm
haha!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 11:27 pm
Nice to see you again frank.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:18 am
New memo, interesting stuff:

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040909%2F0616749316.htm&sc=1151&photoid=20040908NY117&floc=NW_1-T

Quote:
Memos Show Bush Suspended From Flying
By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) - Newly unearthed memos state George W. Bush was suspended from flying for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war because he failed to meet Guard standards and failed to take his annual flight physical as required.

The suspension came as Bush was trying to arrange a transfer to non-flying status with a unit in Alabama so he could work on a political campaign there.

A memo written a year later referred to one military official ``pushing to sugar coat'' Bush's annual evaluation.


(When did the "60 Minutes" franchise become hard-hitting investigative reporters again? [they turned up the memo]. I think of them as homespun wisdom from Andy Rooney, and "Is Your Closet Safe??" alarmism. But they did this, they did Abu Ghraib...)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:33 am
blatham wrote:
Nice to see you again frank.



Hey Bernie.

Been trying to get in touch with you.

Jonathan and I are still meeting for drinks. occasionally.

Any chance you can join us?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:10 am
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.

link
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:15 am
Bush was a draft evading coward...the kind of person you conservatives found so objectionable when speaking of Bill Clinton.

Now, in order to keep the moron in the Oval Office, you folks are perfectly contend to see several men who had the integrity and courage to go when needed...trashed by this band of draft evaders.

I've always considered American conservatism to be the most hypocritical political philosophy ever to pollute the Earth...and I cannot tell you how much I am enjoying this proof that I am right you good folks are offering.

Please don't stop.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:18 am
Glad to see that your vacation took the edge of your bitterness Frank... :wink:

Now, how can you compare running off the England with joining the National Guard? Regardless of the reasons, one served his country while the other ran away.

Between Kerry and bush, both served their country and that should be that, but neither side will give the other any slack so the debate rages on.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:19 am
So you think that Kerry should have been given slack?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:30 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
blatham wrote:
Nice to see you again frank.



Hey Bernie.

Been trying to get in touch with you.

Jonathan and I are still meeting for drinks. occasionally.

Any chance you can join us?


Frank
Try the email account listed in my profile. I think it's likely we'll quaff again.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:39 am
sozobe wrote:
So you think that Kerry should have been given slack?


Slack? It should never have even been brought up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:41 am
Wow!

I agree of course, but that's a bit of a change from your stance on SBVfT thus far.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:54 am
It should never have been brought for either candidate, but since it has been and it seems to be a hotbutton topic, we discuss it.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:00 am
Should never have been brought up?

McGentrix wrote:
Kerry wants to be president, his past is ripe for the picking. Oh, BTW, your dismissal of the Swift Boat Veterans completely destroys any credibility you could have had.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=859267#859267

McGentrix wrote:
]He wasn't running for Commander-in0Chief then either. Maybe they lied back then hoping that having close ties to a senator could be benficial for them. Or maybe, like Kerry, they are a bunch of flip-floppers. Who knows.

The fact remains that they have brought forth valid questions about Kerry's integrity, honesty, and war record that he stands behind like a shield.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=862286#862286

McGentrix wrote:
This topic certainly does bear further inspection. It's long been known Kerry has a large closet in which to hide A LOT of skeletons.


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=892250#892250

That's just a quick search.

Again, I completely agree with you, and don't want to hold it against you that your opinions evolve.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:05 am
Like I said, it's a hot-button topic. When I said it should never have been brought up, I mean from Kerry. He should have said he was a Viet Nam Vet and that he earned his medals and then moved on. Instead, he was "reporting for duty!"

If one side is going to make jabs at the other, which normally occurs in a political campaign, then they should expect to be jabbed back.

That's why I try not to complain about the Bush draft dodging issue. I may try to refute it, but what's good for one side is good for the other.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:10 am
No no no, McGentrix. Kerry should never have brought up Vietnam?? At all? How does that work?

We've already been over the fact that Kerry has made it far less of a centerpiece of his campaign than as portrayed -- how much Vietnam was actually mentioned during the Democratic convention. And we've already also been over the "who started it" question -- whether it was valid for Kerry to highlight his service given what Bush was already dishing out. I started a topic on that, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg, or HE STARTED IT", we can continue that vein there if you'd like.

Don't worry about having your opinions evolve, it's a good thing. :-)
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:19 am
I think the problem here is that McGentrix doesn't see the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, and now the distinctions are beginning to blur even more here. Kerry's centerpiece isn't Vietnam, it's Iraq. The two wars will continue to merge into one giant quagmire started by a former coke head and alcoholic until 40, who NEVER aspired to be president, and who has surrounded himself by corporate fat cats who never served.

It's obvious that these idiots don't know what they're doing, and Kerry is succinctly pointing that out now.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:28 am
McGentrix wrote:
Glad to see that your vacation took the edge of your bitterness Frank... :wink:

Now, how can you compare running off the England with joining the National Guard?


A better question for you conservatives who made so much of the fact that Clinton avoided Vietnam...is...

...how can you compare getting preferential treatment to join the Air National Guard with actually going to Vietnam and facing the dangers.

Ahhh...in fairness to ya, I guess you poor deluded guys are stuck with trying to make the most of this situation.

What the hell...you folks never really cared about patriotism and a willingness to put one's self on the line in the defense of freedom or our country. You guys just like to talk about it.


Quote:
Regardless of the reasons, one served his country while the other ran away.


If the situation were reversed, I can just see the hypocrites of the right choking on something as laughable as this.

But as I said, you guys are pretty much stuck with this charade...


Quote:
Between Kerry and bush, both served their country and that should be that, but neither side will give the other any slack so the debate rages on.


If the situation were reversed, I can just see the hypocrites of the right choking on something as laughable as this.

But as I said, you guys are pretty much stuck with this charade...

:wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 09:30 am
Dookiestix, Question

The Iraq=Vietnam parallel is arguable, I think there are obvious similarities but also a lot of differences. But how is that "the problem here"? The last several exchanges were about McGentrix's evolving opinions about whether the SBVfT should have brought up Kerry's Vietnam service in the first place.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Texans For Truth
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 10:21:27