• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Interesting article about Kerry

Stickboy

Rebel without a clue
Elite Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2002
Messages
1,114
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
59
Location
NM
Saw this on another board:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOHN KERRY & VIETNAM--THE WOUNDS THAT NEVER HEAL
Marine Corps Times | September 6, 2004 | Dexter Lehtinen former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida

In 1971, I awakened after three days of unconsciousness aboard a hospital ship off the coast of Vietnam. I could not see, my jaws were wired shut, and my left cheekbone was missing, a gaping hole in its place.

Later, while still in that condition at St. Albans Naval Hospital, one of my earliest recollections was hearing of John Kerry's testimony before Congress. I remember lying there, in disbelief, as I learned how Kerry told the world that I served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khan's; that officers like me routinely let their men plunder villages and rape villagers at will; that "war crimes" committed in Vietnam by my fellow soldiers "were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Then Kerry went to Paris, meeting with North Vietnamese enemy officials, all while our soldiers still fought in the field. The pain and disbelief I felt listening to his words went deeper than the pain I felt from the enemy fire which seriously wounded my face.

Eighteen months later I was discharged from the hospital, the wounds inflicted by the enemy fully healed. But more than 30 years later, the wounds inflicted by John Kerry continue to bring pain to scores of Vietnam veterans. Those wounds--the bearing of false witness against me and a generation of courageous young Americans who fought and died in Vietnam--are much more serious than any wound warranting a Purple Heart. Those wounds go to the heart and soul. Those wounds never go away.

Today, my son is a Marine Corps weapons officer, flying the F/A 18 Hornet. He belongs to the same Marine Corps Kerry ridiculed with his 1971 book cover showing protestors simulating the Iwo Jima Memorial, raising an upside-down American flag. He flies the same F/A 18 fighter jet Kerry voted against in the U.S. Senate. And today, Kerry's picture hangs in an honored place in Saigon's war museum, as a hero to the Vietnamese Communists.

Yet, John Kerry shamelessly drapes himself in the imagery of Vietnam, military service and the support of veterans, devoid of any media scrutiny. Meanwhile, the criticism and disapproval of Kerry by scores of veterans continues to fall on deaf ears. Worse yet, any legitimate criticism of Kerry's post-war record is discredited as a "personal" attack or an attack against his service.

John Kerry is quick to surround himself with a handful of veterans and claims overwhelming support from the veteran community. He ignores, however, the wounds he inflicted on millions of veterans, and he refuses to sign a waiver to release his military personnel and medical records. This is the portrait of a man who has failed to come to terms with his treacherous past.
 
Here's another one:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- by Col. George "Bud" Day (to Joe Scarborough of MSNBC)

Dear Joe:

The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam. Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies??? fabrications??? perjury??? fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and given "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies... the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left??? McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers".

A returned war hero said so. Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds??? even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets..."Hey hey LBJ???How many kids did you kill today"????? He obviously was running for political office in 1971.

Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swiftboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.

I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on, they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses.

The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy.

While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce members were being killed in combat. Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness. John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam. He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters. His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one. I am certain of at least one POW death after his testimony, which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs.

My friend and roommate Senator John S. McCain denounced the Swiftboat video by John O'Neil. I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John.

John Kerry opened up his character as a war hero reporting for duty to the country with a hand salute...and his band of brothers...of which he was the chief hero. Most of his convention speech was about John Kerry...Vietnam hero, and his band of brothers. John Kerry's character is not only fair game, it is the primary issue. He wants to use Bill Clinton's "is", as an answer to his lack of character. The issue is trust. Can anyone trust John Kerry?? "Never lie, cheat or steal" is the West Point motto. When a witness perjures himself at trial, the judge notes that his testimony lacks credibility. Should we elect a known proven liar to lead us in wartime??

I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liaison with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. His reward- Political gain. Senator???United States. His record as a Senator for twenty years has been pitiful. Conjure up, if you will, one major bill that he has sponsored.
 
One more. This one's a little surprising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Julian Coman in Newark, Ohio
(Filed: 05/09/2004)


In a fresh blow to John Kerry's flagging presidential campaign, the Pentagon has ordered an official investigation into the awards of the Democratic senator's five Vietnam War decorations.

News of the inquiry came as President George W Bush opened an 11-point lead over his rival - the widest margin since serious campaigning began - according to the first poll released since last week's Republican convention.

The highly unusual inquiry is to be carried out by the inspector-general's office of the United States navy, for which Sen Kerry served as a Swift Boat captain for four months in 1968, making two tours of duty.

He was wounded in action and subsequently awarded three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. But for the past month, the exact details of Mr Kerry's military service in Vietnam have become shrouded in a controversy that the navy has now decided warrants a full-blown search for the truth.

According to a self-styled group of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, many of whom served in Vietnam during the same period, Mr Kerry exaggerated the significance of combat incidents and inaccurately reported the circumstances of his injuries, at least one of which was allegedly self-inflicted. The accusations are repeated in a book, Unfit to Command, which was published last month.

Last week, the Kerry campaign attempted to leave the Vietnam debate behind, as signs appeared that the controversy was damaging Mr Kerry's standing in the polls. But to the consternation of campaign strategists, the US navy has now agreed to a request by Judicial Watch, a bi-partisan lobby group, for a full inquiry. Judicial Watch is calling for the Navy to report before the elections, but Navy officials are so far refusing to give any timetable for the inquiry.

In an August letter to the Pentagon, the group's president, Tom Fitton, requested an investigation into the "determination and final disposition of the awards granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, US Naval Reserve", in response to the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations.

A navy spokesman confirmed on Friday that the inspector-general's office at the Pentagon had authorised the inquiry. "It is the responsibility of all personnel to correct errors in official records," said the spokesman. Another official said privately: "There's a feeling that it's time to deal with this thoroughly, once and for all."

Among other records to be examined is a citation of Mr Kerry for bravery that was apparently signed by the former Navy Secretary, John Lehman, and contributed to the award of his silver star. The glowing citation states: "By his brave actions, bold initiative and unwavering devotion to duty, Lt Kerry reflected great credit on himself." But Mr Lehman denies all knowledge of the commendation. "It's a total mystery to me," he said last week. "I never saw it, I never signed it and I never approved it." The inquiry will also investigate other reports and citations leading to the award of Mr Kerry's medals.

On Friday, Mr Lehman endorsed the investigation of Mr Kerry's awards, saying that the relevant navy records needed to be "thoroughly researched and the facts established". Mr Fitton said: "We hope this is the beginning of an actual investigation of the legitimacy of Sen Kerry's awards by the navy and the Pentagon
 
Interesting reading...
 
Please tell us how you feel about these articles stickboy? How do they make you feel?
 
Robert DiMaggio said:
Let me just get one thing straight, John Kerry went to war, fought, was wounded and decorated.

Now please tell me again what George Bush Jr. did at this time?
Kerry went into the service only after he was turned down for an educational deferment that he applied for.
 
Don't get me started on AWOL G.W.
 
Ive been reporting on Kerrys actions,lack of actions, and actions after the war. George Bush was another rich kid who avoided combat by getting their rich daddy to get them in the National Guard. But at least he didnt ride a wave, for political gain, that bashed his comrade in arms. And at least he didnt hobnob with the North Vietnamese, nor is Bush running on his military career.

Kerry opened this can of worms himself. He's the one who wheeled his boat buddies on stage and he's the one who been toddleing around like GI Joe ever since it became politicaly valuable to be a flag draped sailor again. I suspect he got a few of his ex-boatmates to travel around with him and tell his war story's in an effort to pre-empt the inevitable attacks on his war, and post war, record that he knew was going to come, "by the dozens of other sailors who knew his manipulative ass at the time".

He should have fired whoever gave him this advice. He should have let sleeping dogs lie and stuck to the issues. How many of John Kerrys liberal backers gave a damn about Vietnam, or served? even tho they are banging the drums now?

Howard Dean was/is a better man. At least he has principles. Naders is a better man too, he has more principles then Kerry. The democrats really screwed up picking this guy, as ousting Bush was a reachable goal. It aint gonna happen now, and Kerrys campaign is very worried......take care....................Rich
 
Good thing Rich has me on ignore cuz I'd hate to have him see me agree with him. He is right 100%. Hated to say that. Kerry is not the better candiate of the weaker party, just the one that got the nod.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Luke9583 said:
Please tell us how you feel about these articles stickboy? How do they make you feel?

I think for the most part they are hitting their mark. Kerry has done things in the past that effect others in a negative manner. For example IF his actions caused military servicemen to remain in a POW camp longer - that's inexcusable. (Note that I said IF).

People slam Bush for doing drugs and whatnot, but WHO did he hurt back then? Simple answer, only himself.

The records investigation is a bad idea in my opinion, but I understand that IF (that word again) there are errors, they should be corrected. Don't really think this is the time for it, however.

I try and think about things, instead of "feeling" them. Logic is usually a better choice as opposed to feelings. I told you what I think about the articles, not necessarily how I feel about them. I don't expect that makes sense to you, but there it is.
 
Robert DiMaggio said:
Let me just get one thing straight, John Kerry went to war, fought, was wounded and decorated.

Now please tell me again what George Bush Jr. did at this time?

Why, he was serving in the National Guard. You knew that of course. People say he was AWOL, and perhaps he was, but unless you can prove he was then maybe it should drop. (Notice the newspapers dropped it long ago. WHY?)
 
Didnt Bush release his military records? Something Kerry refuses to do, right? Especially those medical records that recorded his valient wounds that resulted in his 3 purple hearts and early exit from Vietnam,"after 4 months".......take care................Rich
 
Stickboy said:
Why, he was serving in the National Guard. You knew that of course. People say he was AWOL, and perhaps he was, but unless you can prove he was then maybe it should drop. (Notice the newspapers dropped it long ago. WHY?)

If we're going to drop what Bush did regarding the military and war we most certainly should drop what Kerry did. Point being at least Kerry went to war, Bush dodged it....little pussy, but he sure does not have a problem sending our troops in now does he? Bush is a coward just like Saddam Hussein.
 
Oh, Ok, so everyone in the National Guard is a bunch of pussies?

Again, numerous newspapers tried to prove he was AWOL, but the story died. Why?

Perhaps you can enlighten us with whatever proof it is that YOU have?
 
In all honesty I would not have gone to Vietnam either, it was a senseless war and we had NO business being there....ummm...hey, kind of like us being in Iraq! and, I would not go to Iraq either, I would fight for this country don't get me wrong, but not in a war like Vietnam or Iraq cause we certainly are not at either place fighting for the freedom of America.

I just get sick of hearing people bash Kerry for what he did in Vietnam or when he got back, so my response is at least he went unlike pussy, I mean Bush. Oh, and btw I see nothing wrong with how Kerry spoke out against the war when he got back.
 
But at least he didnt ride a wave, for political gain, that bashed his comrade in arms.

thats runny bitch.. uh ... I mean Rich.. b/c coincidentally thats a pretty accurate way to sum up his administration's first term
 
Robert DiMaggio said:
In all honesty I would not have gone to Vietnam either, it was a senseless war and we had NO business being there....ummm...hey, kind of like us being in Iraq! and, I would not go to Iraq either, I would fight for this country don't get me wrong, but not in a war like Vietnam or Iraq cause we certainly are not at either place fighting for the freedom of America.

Well, guess what? You join the service, you don't get to pick and choose what shit hole you get sent to. The truth of the matter is......

You don't know where you are going until it comes up. It's not like you get a pass or something when your number comes up. You go where the military says you'll go. If it's Iraq, then it's Iraq.

Doesn't sound like you really want to fight for your country. If you don't, just SAY so. It's not like people that will haven't heard it before.

I just get sick of hearing people bash Kerry for what he did in Vietnam or when he got back, so my response is at least he went unlike pussy, I mean Bush. Oh, and btw I see nothing wrong with how Kerry spoke out against the war when he got back.

I notice no condemations against all the negative stuff about Bush. Hypocritical at best.

I think you mean you see nothing wrong with Kerry being traitorous and causing many men to stay in a POW camp longer than they should have had to. Why?
 
Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, not even close in any way whatsoever. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more righteous war then Afghanistan, but even there recruiters got very little "bump" after 9/11.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of American young people just don't want to sacrifice so much, risk death and/or injury, to defend their country. I suspect that many detractors of the Iraq war would have had their views changed if a Democrat was in office and he/she had decided to attack. Modern America has really become all about "me" hasn't it ? I don't believe there is any conceivable conflict in the future that will be perceived by young Americans as being so righteous that they will flock to the recruiters office. There will never be volunteers en-masse like there was after Pearl Harbor. This is no insult to anyone, but it is what it is.

The only thing that bothers me is the way many young people speak badly about those that choose military careers. You know, stuff like, "they became a soldier because they couldn't accomplish anything else in life and wanted an easy paycheck". Ive heard it on these pages as well as in real life.

Whats pathetic about it, with these spoiled children of privilege, is that every thing they own, every freedom they have, and all the privileges they receive, has been paid for in blood by the American fighting man/woman. I hope one day, after they grow up that is, they go to a quite military cemetery and spend a few hours reflecting on it as they stare at the graves of young men who gave everything they have so their children, and our children, could be free.................take care....................................Rich
 
Goodamit Rich. You're still my hero.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of American young people just don't want to sacrifice so much, risk death and/or injury, to defend their country.
That line is golden.
 
Rich46yo said:
Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, not even close in any way whatsoever. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more righteous war then Afghanistan, but even there recruiters got very little "bump" after 9/11.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of American young people just don't want to sacrifice so much, risk death and/or injury, to defend their country. I suspect that many detractors of the Iraq war would have had their views changed if a Democrat was in office and he/she had decided to attack. Modern America has really become all about "me" hasn't it ? I don't believe there is any conceivable conflict in the future that will be perceived by young Americans as being so righteous that they will flock to the recruiters office. There will never be volunteers en-masse like there was after Pearl Harbor. This is no insult to anyone, but it is what it is.

The only thing that bothers me is the way many young people speak badly about those that choose military careers. You know, stuff like, "they became a soldier because they couldn't accomplish anything else in life and wanted an easy paycheck". Ive heard it on these pages as well as in real life.

Whats pathetic about it, with these spoiled children of privilege, is that every thing they own, every freedom they have, and all the privileges they receive, has been paid for in blood by the American fighting man/woman. I hope one day, after they grow up that is, they go to a quite military cemetery and spend a few hours reflecting on it as they stare at the graves of young men who gave everything they have so their children, and our children, could be free.................take care....................................Rich

please tell me how us being in Iraq has anything to do with America and our freedom? (and please do not say we are in Iraq fighting terrorism, etc. cause we all know that is b.s.)
 
damn robert, I AGREE WITH YOU A 100%.... i don't want to say anything against bush online cuz u know the patriot act... i live in fear that they might come to my house and take me away if i say anything against bush or the war in iraq... that is because i am a pakistani muslim and they are just waiting till i say something to round me up and put me in jail (or where ever they put the people, don't know cuz of "homeland security").. That is why i don't even voice my opinion... whatever happened to the bill of rights...
 
The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either
By Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan



For more than a year, controversy about George W. Bush's Air National Guard record has bubbled through the press. Interest in the topic has spiked in recent days, as at least two websites have launched stories essentially calling Bush AWOL in 1972 and 1973. For example, in "Finally, the Truth about Bush's Military Record" on TomPaine.com, Marty Heldt writes, "Bush's long absence from the records comes to an end one week after he failed to comply with an order to attend 'Annual Active Duty Training' starting at the end of May 1973... Nothing indicates in the records that he ever made up the time he missed." And in Bush's Military Record Reveals Grounding and Absence for Two Full Years" on Democrats.com, Robert A. Rogers states: "Bush never actually reported in person for the last two years of his service - in direct violation of two separate written orders."

Neither is correct.

It's time to set the record straight. The following analysis, which relies on National Guard documents, extensive interviews with military officials and previously unpublished evidence of Bush's whereabouts in the summer and fall of 1972, is the first full chronology of Bush's military record. Its basic conclusions: Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.



At the Republican convention in Philadelphia, George W. Bush declared: "Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir.'" Bush says he is the candidate who can "rebuild our military and prepare our armed forces for the future." On what direct military experience does he make such claims?

George W. Bush applied to join the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, less than two weeks before he graduated from Yale University. The country was at war in Vietnam, and at that time, just months after the bloody Tet Offensive, an estimated 100,000 Americans were on waiting lists to join Guard units across the country. Bush was sworn in on the day he applied.

Ben Barnes, former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated in September 1999 that in late 1967 or early 1968, he asked a senior official in the Texas Air National Guard to help Bush get into the Guard as a pilot. Barnes said he did so at the behest of Sidney Adger, a Houston businessman and friend of former President George H. W. Bush, then a Texas congressman. Despite Barnes's admission, former President Bush has denied pulling strings for his son, and retired Colonel Walter Staudt, George W. Bush's first commander, insists: "There was no special treatment."

The younger Bush fulfilled two years of active duty and completed pilot training in June 1970. During that time and in the two years that followed, Bush flew the F-102, an interceptor jet equipped with heat-seeking missiles that could shoot down enemy planes. His commanding officers and peers regarded Bush as a competent pilot and enthusiastic Guard member. In March 1970, the Texas Air National Guard issued a press release trumpeting his performance: "Lt. Bush recently became the first Houston pilot to be trained by the 147th [Fighter Group] and to solo in the F-102... Lt. Bush said his father was just as excited and enthusiastic about his solo flight as he was." In Bush's evaluation for the period May 1, 1971 through April 30, 1972, then-Colonel Bobby Hodges, his commanding officer, stated, "I have personally observed his participation, and without exception, his performance has been noteworthy." In the spring of 1972, however, National Guard records show a sudden dropoff in Bush's military activity. Though trained as a pilot at considerable government expense, Bush stopped flying in April 1972 and never flew for the Guard again.

Around that time, Bush decided to go to work for Winton "Red" Blount, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate, in Alabama. Documents from Ellington Air Force Base in Houston state that Bush "cleared this base on 15 May." Shortly afterward, he applied for assignment to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala., a unit that required minimal duty and offered no pay. Although that unit's commander was willing to welcome him, on May 31 higher-ups at the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist [in this case, Bush] can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."

Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by Georegemag.com show that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.

On or around his 27th birthday, July 6, 1972, Bush did not take his required annual medical exam at his Texas unit. As a consequence, he was suspended from flying military jets. Bush spokesperson Dan Bartlett told Georgemag.com: "You take that exam because you are flying, and he was not flying. The paperwork uses the phrase 'suspended from flying,' but he had no intention of flying at that time."

Some media reports have speculated that Bush took and failed his physical, or that he was grounded as a result of substance abuse. Bush's vagueness on the subject of his past drug use has only abetted such rumors. Bush's commanding officer in Texas, however, denies the charges. "His flying status was suspended because he didn't take the exam,not because he couldn't pass," says Hodges. Asked whether Bush was ever disciplined for using alcohol or illicit drugs, Hodges replied: "No."

On September 5, Bush wrote to then-Colonel Jerry Killian at his original unit in Texas, requesting permission to serve with the 187th Tactical Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the months of September, October, and November," wrote Bush.

This time his request was approved: 10 days later, the Alabama Guard ordered Bush to report to then-Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed at Dannelly Air Force Base in Montgomery on October 7th and 8th. The memo noted that "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group," since the 187th did not fly F-102s.

The question of whether Bush ever actually served in Alabama has become an issue in the 2000 campaign-the Air Force Times recently reported that "the GOP is trying to locate people who served with Bush in late 1972 ... to see if they can confirm that Bush briefly served with the Alabama Air National Guard." Bush's records contain no evidence that he reported to Dannelly in October. And in telephone interviews with Georgemag.com, neither Turnipseed, Bush's commanding officer, nor Kenneth Lott, then chief personnel officer of the 187th, remembered Bush serving with their unit. "I don't think he showed up," Turnipseed said.

Bush maintains he did serve in Alabama. "Governor Bush specifically remembers pulling duty in Montgomery and respectfully disagrees with the Colonel," says Bartlett. "There's no question it wasn't memorable, because he wasn't flying." In July, the Decatur Daily reported that two former Blount campaign workers recall Bush serving in the Alabama Air National Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state," stated Emily Martin, a former Alabama resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state.

After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and subsequently began working at P.U.L.L., a community service center for disadvantaged youths. This period of time has also become a matter of controversy, because even though Bush's original unit had been placed on alert duty in October 1972, his superiors in Texas lost track of his whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, Bush's squadron leader in the 147th, Lieutenant Colonel William Harris, Jr. wrote: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. Harris incorrectly assumed that Bush had been reporting for duty in Alabama all along. He wrote that Bush "has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." Base commander Hodges says of Bush's return to Texas: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and made up his days."

Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first. Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a Guardsman. On May 1, Bush was ordered to report for further active duty training, and documents show that he proceeded to cram in another 10 sessions over the next two months. Ultimately, he racked up 19 active duty points of service and 16 inactive duty points by July 30-which, added to his 15 gratuitous points, achieved the requisite total of 50 for the year ending in May 1974. On October 1, 1973, First Lieutenant George W. Bush received an early honorable discharge so that he could attend Harvard Business School. He was credited with five years, four months and five days of service toward his six-year service obligation

 
I didn't read every word but did read most as I looked for sources. Anyone see any sources? Any way to validate this person's post? DO NOT QUOTE "A DOCUMENT" as a source ... but rather the place to go and see for myself that "A DOCUMENT" is not some wishful thinking and creative documentation.
 
How do you know the previous informations sources are valid? I've seen top sources provide false information. Sources can be deceiving sometimes. I'm not sure if the source is valid or not, I just ran across this article and thought I would post it to add a different spin.. Take it for what its worth. :shrug:
 
We all know that Kerry screwed up trying to use his war record, as it was not bulletproof. He should have known that he was going to be microscopically picked apart atom by atom. Anything that could be used against him was and still is ... true or not. Most real Americans don't actually care so much about the Kerry of 30-35 years ago. It is the fact that he is Democrat waffling back and forth that needs to be addressed. The issues are what I wanna get to, not his service records. Beat him down for being pro-choice. Kick him in the teeth for his stand on issues.

My son is not going to have to deal with his war records, but rather Kerry???s decisions about the economy. What are the results of his actions going be over the next four years and how will my son???s quality of life be affected? What about the four years after that?


It is about Bush right now that we need to worry. This tit-for-tat bullshit is a waste of time. Lets debate the real issues that we are confronting right now.
  1. A war that we do not belong in.
  2. An economy that is in ruin.
  3. A political force that is built upon greed and deception instead of serving the needs of the country.
  4. The rights of Americans to question and control its government.
  5. A morally bakrupt person that shields himslef with religion.
  6. Cronyism
This is the part where I get called an idiot because the economy is doing so great and any fool should know that. When you try to slam me over this do so with stat's not rhetoric ... fatcs and figures with sources not bullshit name calling. Show me where this country's economy is getting better. I do not know any working person that is earining as much as he or she did four years ago after all the adjustments are made. The higher costs of gas, milk, and beef are a pitance compared to the lower wages and outsourcing that are a standard now.

Those of us that took a chance and are creating our own incomes may or may not be doing well, but we are not the norm. It is trhe working class American that has been pounded on.
 
Randy said:
How do you know the previous informations sources are valid? I've seen top sources provide false information. Sources can be deceiving sometimes. I'm not sure if the source is valid or not, I just ran across this article and thought I would post it to add a different spin.. Take it for what its worth. :shrug:
Cool Randy. :)
 
Robert DiMaggio said:
please tell me how us being in Iraq has anything to do with America and our freedom? (and please do not say we are in Iraq fighting terrorism, etc. cause we all know that is b.s.)

Yes we are fighting terrorism. Saddam always supported ME terrorist groups. Remember when he was buying new houses for every Palestinian family, who's kid toddled into an Israeli barmitzvah, and blew up children with his/her body bomb?

Ive listed the reasons we attacked Saddam so many times Im just not going to do it again here. In many ways Islamic fundamentalism is much like fascism in WWll. While Saddam wasn't a fundamentalist he was, and always would be, a danger to American interests. I mean look at his history man! The fact alone that he flouted all those UN resolutions so many times, and got away with it, set a dangerous precedent for other tyrants to follow. And the only way were going to defeat these hostile regimes is to overthrow them and install democratic Govt.'s & values, like we did with the Nazi's and the Japs. And such overthrow is probably going to have to be done at the point of a gun, "at least with some of these monsters".

My only regret is we stopped at Iraq!

I get no pleasure out of saying this, I am not happy about these troops of ours being put at risk, but its a job that simply has to be done. Terrorism has always been supported by these regimes, none of this is secret. We cant trust them and never,ever will be able to live in peace with them. The mere fact that we've prevented another homeland attack with our policy of pre-emption in itself highlights the policys success. It aint gonna last, but its been known ever since we came down from the tree's that wars are won by attacking not defending.

And soldiers traveling to foreign lands, and dieing in battle with honor, should come as no great surprise. Thats what soldiers do! Soldiers and cops dieing in a war on terrorism are "acceptable losses" ; Civilians dieing isn't! We went into Iraq to destroy a tyrant and his regime who would have always been a threat to us, and we had the legal right to do so up the kazoo after all of Saddam's shit. And hopefully, hopefully, the flower of democracy will blossom in that tormented land Because more then anything "terrorism" is the offspring of tyranny..take care.....................Rich
 
Well Written Rich :thumb:
 
Back
Top