Discussion:
Obama says he might not bring the troops home right away.
(too old to reply)
Stan de SD
2008-07-05 20:15:27 UTC
Permalink
“I’m going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand. Despite their
appearance of agreement on this issue, the agenda of the Democratic
leadership diverges from the hard-core anti-American left one one
critical detail. While the Code Pink crowd is deliberately pushing for
the military defeat of America, the Democrat party hacks one and ONLY
reason for pushing for troop withdrawal in Iraq was to impose a
political defeat on Bush. Once it became clear that troops weren't
coming home during Bush's term, and that they would be the ones to
take the blame if we puleld out prematurely and Iraq descended into
chaos, their desire for troop withdrawal became a bit less
enthusiatic... :O|
Bill Z.
2008-07-05 22:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
'I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there,' Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/05/politics/p114355D44.DTL>:

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require
consultations with military commanders and, possibly,
flexibility.

"The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull
out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are
all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not
somebody --- unlike George Bush --- who is willing to ignore
facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."

At least try to criticize him on the basis of his actual position on
the issue instead of something someone made up.
Stan de SD
2008-07-06 07:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
'I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there,' Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand.
        Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require
        consultations with military commanders and, possibly,
        flexibility.
        "The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull
        out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are
        all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not
        somebody --- unlike George Bush --- who is willing to ignore
        facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."
At least try to criticize him on the basis of his actual position on
the issue instead of something someone made up.
How has Obama's statement conflicted with anything I have stated
above? Go ahead, show me.
Bill Z.
2008-07-06 14:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
'I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there,' Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand.
        Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require
        consultations with military commanders and, possibly,
        flexibility.
        "The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull
        out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are
        all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not
        somebody --- unlike George Bush --- who is willing to ignore
        facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."
At least try to criticize him on the basis of his actual position on
the issue instead of something someone made up.
How has Obama's statement conflicted with anything I have stated
above? Go ahead, show me.
You can start with "Any surprise there?", followed by your next
sentence. And had you read the article (the URL, which you truncated
for unkonwn reasons although the likely reason is obvious, was
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/05/politics/p114355D44.DTL>),
you'd have seen the following from it:

And Obama was perplexed that his statement on Iraq was
dissected as it was.

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I
thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am
absolutely committed to ending the war."

Obviously he is not doing what you or the other poster claim.
Stan de SD
2008-07-06 21:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
'I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there,' Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand.
        Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require
        consultations with military commanders and, possibly,
        flexibility.
        "The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull
        out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are
        all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not
        somebody --- unlike George Bush --- who is willing to ignore
        facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."
At least try to criticize him on the basis of his actual position on
the issue instead of something someone made up.
How has Obama's statement conflicted with anything I have stated
above? Go ahead, show me.
You can start with "Any surprise there?", followed by your next
sentence.  And had you read the article (the URL, which you truncated
for unkonwn reasons although the likely reason is obvious, was
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/05/politics/...>),
        And Obama was perplexed that his statement on Iraq was
        dissected as it was.
        "I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I
        thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am
        absolutely committed to ending the war."
Obviously he is not doing what you or the other poster claim.-
I don't give a rat's ass what Obama claims in public, as the fact that
he's a Chicagoland Democratic Party hack means he has zip-point-shit
credibilty anyway. I'm just pointing out that Obama will tell the
nutroots what they want to hear while looking for a way to weasel out
of any firm commitment either way. Nothing I have stated is refuted by
anything you have presented here...
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 03:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
How has Obama's statement conflicted with anything I have stated
above? Go ahead, show me.
You can start with "Any surprise there?", followed by your next
sentence.  And had you read the article (the URL, which you truncated
for unkonwn reasons although the likely reason is obvious, was
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/05/politics/...>),
Would you mind not truncating the URL, which was
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/05/politics/p114355D44.DTL>)?
Readers (if any) following this thread deserver to be given the actual
citation in full.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
        And Obama was perplexed that his statement on Iraq was
        dissected as it was.
        "I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I
        thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am
        absolutely committed to ending the war."
Obviously he is not doing what you or the other poster claim.-
I don't give a rat's ass what Obama claims in public, as the fact that
he's a Chicagoland Democratic Party hack means he has zip-point-shit
credibilty anyway. I'm just pointing out that Obama will tell the
nutroots what they want to hear while looking for a way to weasel out
of any firm commitment either way. Nothing I have stated is refuted by
anything you have presented here...
I.e., you have nothing serious to say, no evidence for what you say,
and are just mouthing off.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-07 11:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
'I'm going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there,' Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand.
Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require
consultations with military commanders and, possibly,
flexibility.
"The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull
out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are
all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not
somebody --- unlike George Bush --- who is willing to ignore
facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."
At least try to criticize him on the basis of his actual position on
the issue instead of something someone made up.
How has Obama's statement conflicted with anything I have stated
above? Go ahead, show me.
You can start with "Any surprise there?", followed by your next
sentence. And had you read the article (the URL, which you truncated
for unkonwn reasons although the likely reason is obvious, was
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/05/politics/...>),
And Obama was perplexed that his statement on Iraq was
dissected as it was.
"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I
thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am
absolutely committed to ending the war."
Obviously he is not doing what you or the other poster claim.-
I don't give a rat's ass what Obama claims in public, as the fact that
he's a Chicagoland Democratic Party hack means he has zip-point-shit
credibilty anyway. I'm just pointing out that Obama will tell the
nutroots what they want to hear while looking for a way to weasel out
of any firm commitment either way. Nothing I have stated is refuted by
anything you have presented here...
So your going to vote for that paragon of truthiness, McBush. Gee,
the repugs have never lied to you, not about Iraq, not about
terrorism, not about New Orleans, not about the VA not about keeping
our troops in the military with stop loss orders, not about our
economy, naaahhhh, their all honest, truthy people.

So tell us, how dumb are you?
Stan de SD
2008-07-08 03:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
I don't give a rat's ass what Obama claims in public, as the fact that
he's a Chicagoland Democratic Party hack means he has zip-point-shit
credibilty anyway. I'm just pointing out that Obama will tell the
nutroots what they want to hear while looking for a way to weasel out
of any firm commitment either way. Nothing I have stated is refuted by
anything you have presented here...
So your going to vote for that paragon of truthiness, McBush.  
I don't believe there is a candidate named McBush running for
president, nor do you have any idea who I am voting for, gievn that I
have not decided thay myself. Of course, Ronald, if you want to make
shit up like your idol Silly Billy, I gather nobody's about to stop
you...
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-06 13:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
“I’m going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand. Despite their
appearance of agreement on this issue, the agenda of the Democratic
leadership diverges from the hard-core anti-American left one one
critical detail. While the Code Pink crowd is deliberately pushing for
the military defeat of America, the Democrat party hacks one and ONLY
reason for pushing for troop withdrawal in Iraq was to impose a
political defeat on Bush. Once it became clear that troops weren't
coming home during Bush's term, and that they would be the ones to
take the blame if we puleld out prematurely and Iraq descended into
chaos, their desire for troop withdrawal became a bit less
enthusiatic... :O|
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards. When did the brave Cheney ever serve? Oh, thats
right, he had better things to do. When did Bush serve? Never,
ever. He's a smart boiu so he evaded the draft.

How many of you volunteer your time at your local VA? How many of you
would hire a vet?

Nice talk, but thats what it is, just talk. Coward.
Stan de SD
2008-07-06 21:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
“I’m going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand. Despite their
appearance of agreement on this issue, the agenda of the Democratic
leadership diverges from the hard-core anti-American left one one
critical detail. While the Code Pink crowd is deliberately pushing for
the military defeat of America, the Democrat party hacks one and ONLY
reason for pushing for troop withdrawal in Iraq was to impose a
political defeat on Bush. Once it became clear that troops weren't
coming home during Bush's term, and that they would be the ones to
take the blame if we puleld out prematurely and Iraq descended into
chaos, their desire for troop withdrawal became a bit less
enthusiatic... :O|
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic.  You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war.  Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.  
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
 When did Bush serve?  
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 03:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Stan de SD
2008-07-07 09:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?

Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services, nor have you ever worked in ANY capacity that even
required you how to know how to SPELL airplane, much less qualified to
wear any type of wings, rating, or crew ANY position on ANY type of
aircraft ANYWHERE. You read a bunch of crap that coincided with your
narrow little world view, and decided that it was Gospel Truth. Don't
EVEN fucking lecture me about whether Bush served his country, or what
you think, because it doesn't fucking MATTER. Those of us who served
are qualified to make our OWN decision as to whether Bush made the
grade or not - you haven't paid your dues. Have I made myself clear,
asshole?

Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-07 12:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services, nor have you ever worked in ANY capacity that even
required you how to know how to SPELL airplane, much less qualified to
wear any type of wings, rating, or crew ANY position on ANY type of
aircraft ANYWHERE. You read a bunch of crap that coincided with your
narrow little world view, and decided that it was Gospel Truth. Don't
EVEN fucking lecture me about whether Bush served his country, or what
you think, because it doesn't fucking MATTER. Those of us who served
are qualified to make our OWN decision as to whether Bush made the
grade or not - you haven't paid your dues. Have I made myself clear,
asshole?
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Bush evaded service and you think thats just fine. So tell us, what
patriotism do you have? Evading service is just fine with you, Bush
did it so it's OK.
Stan de SD
2008-07-07 16:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services, nor have you ever worked in ANY capacity that even
required you how to know how to SPELL airplane, much less qualified to
wear any type of wings, rating, or crew ANY position on ANY type of
aircraft ANYWHERE. You read a bunch of crap that coincided with your
narrow little world view, and decided that it was Gospel Truth. Don't
EVEN fucking lecture me about whether Bush served his country, or what
you think, because it doesn't fucking MATTER. Those of us who served
are qualified to make our OWN decision as to whether Bush made the
grade or not - you haven't paid your dues. Have I made myself clear,
asshole?
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Bush evaded service and you think thats just fine.  
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, asshole. I know how the guards
and reserves work, having been a member of an Air Force Reserve flying
squadron, and know a few things that the clowns in the media don't. I
have actually detailed these in several posts some years back (search
Google Groups and you should be able to find it), but being that we
have a bunch of doctrinaire idiots here who are more willing to
believe how the Air Force and ANG works from some reporter type with
an axe to grind, vs. someone who has actually been in such an
organization, I'm certainly not expecting you to get a clue now.
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-07 17:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services, nor have you ever worked in ANY capacity that even
required you how to know how to SPELL airplane, much less qualified to
wear any type of wings, rating, or crew ANY position on ANY type of
aircraft ANYWHERE. You read a bunch of crap that coincided with your
narrow little world view, and decided that it was Gospel Truth. Don't
EVEN fucking lecture me about whether Bush served his country, or what
you think, because it doesn't fucking MATTER. Those of us who served
are qualified to make our OWN decision as to whether Bush made the
grade or not - you haven't paid your dues. Have I made myself clear,
asshole?
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Bush evaded service and you think thats just fine.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, asshole. I know how the guards
and reserves work, [snip partisan handwaving]
Bush evaded service and you think thats just fine.
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-07 15:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
It's irrelevant, stain. Bush either did [ahem] "serve" in a cushy unit
for the sons of well-connected people, or he didn't. Mr. Zaumen's own
service, whatever it may have been, has nothing to do with Bush's. Bush
either did, or did not, desert his unit; again, Mr. Zaumen's service
doesn't change whatever the truth is regarding allegations of Bush's
desertion.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services,
Irrelevant, stain. See above.
Stan de SD
2008-07-07 16:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
It's irrelevant, stain.  Bush either did [ahem] "serve" in a cushy unit
for the sons of well-connected people, or he didn't.
He didn't.

 Mr. Zaumen's own
service, whatever it may have been, has nothing to do with Bush's.  Bush
either did, or did not, desert his unit; again, Mr. Zaumen's service
doesn't change whatever the truth is regarding allegations of Bush's
desertion.
I see no reason to believe that Bush "deserted" his unit, which would
not have been possible unless he was on active duty orders anyway. All
the squawking about him missing UTAs or traning dates has been done by
people who have no idea how the system works anyway.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services,
Irrelevant, stain.  
Quite relevant. BIll Zaumen knows not what he is babbling about, and
neither do 99% of the people in the media who got worked up over
this...
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-07 17:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
It's irrelevant, stain. Bush either did [ahem] "serve" in a cushy unit
for the sons of well-connected people, or he didn't.
He didn't.
I believe he did, and I know that you only say he didn't because you're
blinded by partisanship. You're the same lockstep right-wing little
fuck who defends all the morally *WRONG* and American interest-damaging
mishandling of detainees at Guantanamo, purely out of stupid, craven
partisanship.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Mr. Zaumen's own
service, whatever it may have been, has nothing to do with Bush's. Bush
either did, or did not, desert his unit; again, Mr. Zaumen's service
doesn't change whatever the truth is regarding allegations of Bush's
desertion.
I see no reason to believe that Bush "deserted" his unit, which would
not have been possible unless he was on active duty orders anyway.
He was *supposed* to be on active duty, and he didn't show.
Post by Stan de SD
All the squawking about him missing UTAs or traning dates has been done by
people who have no idea how the system works anyway.
*You* don't know how the system worked in 1962, stain. And *you* don't
know how much the critics of Bush's *OBVIOUSLY* irregular status at the
time really know. All *YOU* know, stain - that really fits you - is
that you're an unthinking Bush loyalist, and you'll say or do anything
to defend him. You are exactly what's wrong with so much of the
"conservative" (except you really aren't conservative) part of the
political spectrum.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services,
Irrelevant, stain.
Quite relevant.
Irrelevant, stain. Bush either deserted, or he didn't, and Mr. Zaumen's
own experience with the military - as well as yours, stain - is irrelevant.
Stan de SD
2008-07-08 05:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
It's irrelevant, stain.  Bush either did [ahem] "serve" in a cushy unit
for the sons of well-connected people, or he didn't.
He didn't.
I believe he did, and I know that you only say he didn't because you're
blinded by partisanship.  
How can I be blinded by "partisanship" given that I am not a
Republican, nor have I ever voted for Bush Jr for anything?
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're the same lockstep right-wing little fuck
I think we know who the lock-step little partisan is here, and it
isn't me...
Post by Rudy Canoza
who defends all the morally *WRONG* and American interest-damaging
mishandling of detainees at Guantanamo,
What's wrong about Gitmo? Can you be specific? Or is this part of your
usual tirade?
Post by Rudy Canoza
purely out of stupid, craven partisanship.
Mirror anyone?
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
  Mr. Zaumen's own
service, whatever it may have been, has nothing to do with Bush's.  Bush
either did, or did not, desert his unit; again, Mr. Zaumen's service
doesn't change whatever the truth is regarding allegations of Bush's
desertion.
I see no reason to believe that Bush "deserted" his unit, which would
not have been possible unless he was on active duty orders anyway.
He was *supposed* to be on active duty, and he didn't show.
Really? Which dates? Sources and cites? You personally have copies of
the active duty orders, or what? :Oo
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
All the squawking about him missing UTAs or traning dates has been done by
people who have no idea how the system works anyway.
*You* don't know how the system worked in 1962, stain.
I don't care about 1962. We are talking about early 1970s'. But since
you think you're such a fucking expert, numbnuts, kindly tell us how
you think it worked. I can use the laughs...
Post by Rudy Canoza
 And *you* don't
know how much the critics of Bush's *OBVIOUSLY* irregular status at the
time really know.
So tell me what they knew. They obviously knew that in the early
1970's Bush's unit (111th FIS, 147th FIG) the F-102 was being phased
out in favor of the F-101 Voodoo. They knew that the active duty Air
Force was RIFing pilots as our involvement in SEA was winding down at
the time, with many senior pilots transferring to the Guard to keep
accoumulating years towards retirement. They most likely knew that
Guard units, partially funded by their respective states, had limited
budgets or "slots" for training purposes, something I bet you have no
clue about.

News flash for you non-military types: If a guard/reserve type unit is
transitioning from one aircraft type to another, it's cheaper and
makes more sense to try to place pilots who are already qualified in
the "new" aircraft vs. retraining pilots. If training does take place,
you can bet that the unit in question is going to want it's money's
worth. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about military aviation knows that
Uncle Sam doesn't like re-training "short" pilots, i.e. pilots whose
current committment will not be long enough to justify the cost of
retraining, so they will tie in re-upping (extending a commitment) in
trade for a training slot. If you don't commit, as Bush did not (he
obviously was just interested in getting his ticket punched and moving
on, typical for 50% of the people in the military), you didn't get
retrained, and as you're not going to be a member on flying status
after a while, you become a low priority in the eyes of the unit. You
lose flying status and you "fly a desk" , get to play Duty Officer on
the graveyard shift, answer phones in Base Ops, or go supervise the
ramp tramps or maintenance types. Otherwise, you fill in and KEEP A
LOW PROFILE as not to be noticed. At one point, if they decided you're
excess baggage, you get RIFfed - honorably discharged, just cut loose
early because you're costing Uncle Sam $$$ and not doing anything
essential. Happens to thousands of military types in most years -
nothing new there.
Post by Rudy Canoza
 All *YOU* know, stain - that really fits you - is
that you're an unthinking Bush loyalist, and you'll say or do anything
to defend him.  You are exactly what's wrong with so much of the
"conservative" (except you really aren't conservative) part of the
political spectrum.
Sounds like you're suffering from a terminal case of Bush Derangement
Syndrome. Unlike you, however, I have some familiarity with how the
system works, and from the first time people began making a big fuss
about this, I saw that the argument being made was rather weak. No
new information has come my way since then to convince me otherwise.
If anything, incidents like the forged papers from Kinko's only
convinced me that this was a manufactured controversy anyway.
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services,
Irrelevant, stain.  
Quite relevant.
Irrelevant, stain.  Bush either deserted, or he didn't,
Not only is there no proof that he "deserted", I doubt that you could
define the legal military term of "desertion" anyway.
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-08 05:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
It's irrelevant, stain. Bush either did [ahem] "serve" in a cushy unit
for the sons of well-connected people, or he didn't.
He didn't.
I believe he did, and I know that you only say he didn't because you're
blinded by partisanship.
How can I be blinded by "partisanship" given that I am not a
Republican, nor have I ever voted for Bush Jr for anything?
Who cares what your party affiliation is, stain? That's not the only
meaning of the word "partisan", you idiot.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
You're the same lockstep right-wing little fuck
I think we know who the lock-step little partisan is here,
You.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
who defends all the morally *WRONG* and American interest-damaging
mishandling of detainees at Guantanamo,
What's wrong about Gitmo?
We've been through it before, stain. These people are *accused* of
being "terrorists" or having taken up arms against the U.S., but you,
you stupid berserk right-wing fuck, say they can legally be detained
indefinitely because they *are* "terrorists". They're being held
without charge, without representation, without recourse to any
competent court, and you consider this "just" because you accept, at
face value and without a shred of evidence, that they're "terrorists".
That makes a complete mockery of American ideals. Furthermore, they
have been tortured. This is no longer in serious dispute.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
purely out of stupid, craven partisanship.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Mr. Zaumen's own
service, whatever it may have been, has nothing to do with Bush's. Bush
either did, or did not, desert his unit; again, Mr. Zaumen's service
doesn't change whatever the truth is regarding allegations of Bush's
desertion.
I see no reason to believe that Bush "deserted" his unit, which would
not have been possible unless he was on active duty orders anyway.
He was *supposed* to be on active duty, and he didn't show.
Really? Which dates? Sources and cites?
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
All the squawking about him missing UTAs or traning dates has been done by
people who have no idea how the system works anyway.
*You* don't know how the system worked in 1962, stain.
I don't care about 1962. We are talking about early 1970s'.
Sorry; hit a '6' instead of a '7'. 1972.

And you don't know how the system worked then either, stain. Cut the
bullshit.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
And *you* don't
know how much the critics of Bush's *OBVIOUSLY* irregular status at the
time really know.
So tell me what they knew.
No, stain. You're the one claiming they don't know what they're talking
about, and I'm talking about what *you* know regarding the critics'
knowledge. You don't have any idea what they know, stain.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
All *YOU* know, stain - that really fits you - is
that you're an unthinking Bush loyalist, and you'll say or do anything
to defend him. You are exactly what's wrong with so much of the
"conservative" (except you really aren't conservative) part of the
political spectrum.
Sounds like you're suffering from a terminal case of Bush Derangement
Syndrome.
Not in the least.
Post by Stan de SD
Unlike you, however, I have some familiarity with how the
system works,
You have *ZERO* knowledge of how it worked in the early 1970s, stain.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
You know NOTHING. You never spent a DAY in boot camp in ANY branch of
the armed services,
Irrelevant, stain.
Quite relevant.
Irrelevant, stain. Bush either deserted, or he didn't,
Not only is there no proof that he "deserted",
There's evidence that he did. But that's not my point, stain. My point
is that Mr. Zaumen's own military experience has *NO* relevance to
whether or not Bush deserted.
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 16:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO. So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger. The term "flight time" generally refers
to the time in the air contributing to actually flying the airplane.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.

It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue. Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line, is a pretty good
indication that you were caught doing something you knew you should
not have done.

Your reaction is pretty comical - why on earth would you expect me to
waste time on a search to try to find information about you?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted. It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy>:

The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
that unit with Bush were the sons of three prominent men:
Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
would become a longtime friend of Bush's.

Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
Ron Hamilton
2008-07-07 17:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO. So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger. The term "flight time" generally refers
to the time in the air contributing to actually flying the airplane.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue. Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line, is a pretty good
indication that you were caught doing something you knew you should
not have done.
Your reaction is pretty comical - why on earth would you expect me to
waste time on a search to try to find information about you?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted. It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
would become a longtime friend of Bush's.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as others
were trying to rescue him. I always appreciated that insight.
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 19:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Hamilton
Post by Bill Z.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as
others were trying to rescue him. I always appreciated that insight.
The funny thing is that (following the same pattern as in the current
"discussion") "stain" (aka Stan de SD) was the one who revealed it!
I most certainly did not scour the bushes looking for dirt on him.

He had tried the "coward" ploy on me and I just laughed at him,
figuring the climbing I've done would disqualify me from that, at
least in the eyes of the average person. Stan got all outraged,
claimed expertise and berated me because he thought "free climbing"
means climbing unroped (it doesn't). As he tried to cover up his
ignorance, having shown that he didn't pass "Terminology 101", he
blurted out the story about him eating his lunch and snapping pictures
while some poor guy died.

Now, if Stan had been honest, he could have just said that the people
dragging him up the climb had him sit on a ledge while they helped
out, due to Stan not having enough experience to do anything
useful. But that would have required him to admit that he had tried to
fake his qualifications. So he got himself in a no-win situation, and
the rest is history. As he tried to bluff his way out of it, he just
got himself in more and more trouble with everyone finding out about
the incident.

Of course, nobody would fault a rank beginner from not being able to
do anything, but snapping photos does sound more than a bit crass, and
a beginner trying to pass himself off as an expert is rather
laughable.
Ron Hamilton
2008-07-07 20:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Ron Hamilton
Post by Bill Z.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as
others were trying to rescue him. I always appreciated that insight.
The funny thing is that (following the same pattern as in the current
"discussion") "stain" (aka Stan de SD) was the one who revealed it!
I most certainly did not scour the bushes looking for dirt on him.
He had tried the "coward" ploy on me and I just laughed at him,
figuring the climbing I've done would disqualify me from that, at
least in the eyes of the average person. Stan got all outraged,
claimed expertise and berated me because he thought "free climbing"
means climbing unroped (it doesn't). As he tried to cover up his
ignorance, having shown that he didn't pass "Terminology 101", he
blurted out the story about him eating his lunch and snapping pictures
while some poor guy died.
Now, if Stan had been honest, he could have just said that the people
dragging him up the climb had him sit on a ledge while they helped
out, due to Stan not having enough experience to do anything
useful. But that would have required him to admit that he had tried to
fake his qualifications. So he got himself in a no-win situation, and
the rest is history. As he tried to bluff his way out of it, he just
got himself in more and more trouble with everyone finding out about
the incident.
Yeah, I remember that part of it quite well, now that you've given a
little refresher. Thanks.
Post by Bill Z.
Of course, nobody would fault a rank beginner from not being able to
do anything, but snapping photos does sound more than a bit crass, and
a beginner trying to pass himself off as an expert is rather
laughable.
People feigning expertise they don't really have is worse than laughable
- it's disgraceful. They're almost always caught out rather easily, though.
Stan de SD
2008-07-08 03:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Ron Hamilton
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as
others were trying to rescue him.  I always appreciated that insight.
The funny thing is that (following the same pattern as in the current
"discussion") "stain" (aka Stan de SD) was the one who revealed it!
I most certainly did not scour the bushes looking for dirt on him.
Silly Billy plays his games as usual. You took an incident that you
knew NOTHING about save what I mentioned in Usenet, and having a hair
up your ass about me and anyone who refutes the drivel you post here
on a regular basis, morphed into some saga far removed from reality.
If you know so fucking much about it, tell us the date, location, name
of decedent, and particulars. Given that you don't know shit, I won't
be holding my breath for an answer. :O|
Bill Z.
2008-07-08 04:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Ron Hamilton
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as
others were trying to rescue him.  I always appreciated that insight.
The funny thing is that (following the same pattern as in the current
"discussion") "stain" (aka Stan de SD) was the one who revealed it!
I most certainly did not scour the bushes looking for dirt on him.
Silly Billy plays his games as usual. You took an incident that you
knew NOTHING about save what I mentioned in Usenet, and having a hair
up your ass about me and anyone who refutes the drivel you post here
on a regular basis, morphed into some saga far removed from reality.
What a liar! *Your* account was that you sat on a ledge, ate lunch,
and snapped photos as the people you were climbing with helped out
after another party had a serious accident.
Post by Stan de SD
If you know so fucking much about it, tell us the date, location, name
of decedent, and particulars. Given that you don't know shit, I won't
be holding my breath for an answer. :O|
ROTFLMAO. All I've ever claimed to know about it is what you yourself
posted. You claimed your partners wanted you to stay on the
ledge. Given that you didn't even know what free climbing means, it is
pretty obvious why - with your lack of experience, you'd have been
more trouble than you were worth, even though you typically need a lot
of people for such rescues.

I can certainly tell your lack of experience from your posts -
thinking that "free climbing" means climbing without a rope is on a
par (so to speak) with someone claiming to play golf who thinks that a
putting iron is something you iron your clothes with.

From there, the rest is obvious. In any case, sitting around and
taking pictures (by your admission) while someone is dying does sound
rather crass. It kind of reminds of the time some friends and I
canceled the climb we were about to start to help with a rescue in
Yosemite. When we got the victim off the face and down to the trail -
he was pretty banged up (messy facial injuries and a broken arm) - a
tourist stood around almost but not actually in the way, snapping
pictures, and asking questions like "was he experienced". It's legal,
but seemed in rather bad taste.
hc23hc
2008-07-08 06:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Ron Hamilton
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as
others were trying to rescue him.  I always appreciated that insight.
The funny thing is that (following the same pattern as in the current
"discussion") "stain" (aka Stan de SD) was the one who revealed it!
if Stan had been honest, he could have just said that the people
dragging him up the climb had him sit on a ledge while they helped
out, due to Stan not having enough experience to do anything
useful. But that would have required him to admit that he had tried to
fake his qualifications.  So he got himself in a no-win situation, and
the rest is history.  As he tried to bluff his way out of it, he just
got himself in more and more trouble with everyone finding out about
the incident.
Quite so, Bill.

Everyone knows about Stain de STD: the self-hating fatboy's brownshirt
politics, his anal-convulsive boot-camp mentality, his singularly
miserable inability to identify with the rest of the human species and
his legendary molehill-scaling prowess, while drunk. Not to mention
the historic demise of Stain's sister, who apparently was too ashamed
of their relationship to face another day among the living of this
planet.

But, in all fairness, that was then...

Now, with tyrannical 4'6'' fascist malware-merchant Rube Canoza
(currently posing as 'Ron Hamilton') having taken renewed interest in
Stain de STD, things are likely to go dutch - or, at the very least,
pear-shaped.

Speaking of pear-shaped, Stain is a totally shameless human flop,
whereas Rube (aka Jonathan D. Ball of Altadena, CA amidst a hundred or
so other aliases) auto-conflagrates his entire dwarf-like frame in the
shuddering fires of eternal retribution whenever he might be slighted,
en passant, in his lifelong quest for unearned intellectual
recognition... and normal male human stature.

They were both born under a bad sign. Neither of them can live and
let live.

Kicking a feckless buffoon like Stain while he's down is but one of
Rube's nasty neocon vices. Forgery and vile threats upon the welfare
of innocents would be among his others. Stain de STD is a FARC-ing
nitwit and a virulent blight upon our civilization but he at least
fucks off for a while every now and then, whereas Rube the master
troll out-stains Stain as a clear and outright danger to all, at all
times.

CPS ought to have taken Rube The Unstable's innocent bastard child
away into safe custody - or to the circus - long ago, but like so
many other government monopolies, such as those in charge of punishing
Enron and Exxon, they have yet to do the right thing. For the child's
sake, one can but hope that they eventually wise up to Rube, the way
most of usenet already has done.

"I'm also a great dad..." - Rube. Yeah, right... Like, "I don't use
nyms" - Rube Canoza aka Ron Hamilton aka Leif Ericson aka Jonathan
Ball aka S. Mäuslich etc etc etc...

On balance, Stain and Rube are a pair of almost equally foul balls who
deserve to croak in one another's limpid gullets, with Stain de STD
being the only slightly less revulsion-inducing of the two.

Their final departure will be greeted with resounding applause and
joyful songs of praise all over the usenet, and beyond.

So keep up the good work, Bill. One down, one to go!

ObStain: Rachel Corrie!


.
.
.
Stan de SD
2008-07-07 20:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Hamilton
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO.  So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger.  The term "flight time" generally refers
to the time in the air contributing to actually flying the airplane.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue.  Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line, is a pretty good
indication that you were caught doing something you knew you should
not have done.
Your reaction is pretty comical - why on earth would you expect me to
waste time on a search to try to find information about you?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted.  It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
        The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
        where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
        duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
        Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
        future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
        Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
        Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
        would become a longtime friend of Bush's.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as others
were trying to rescue him.  
I think you're the one who believes whatever Bill Zaumen tells you.
Just like Bill, whether we're referring to the Air National Guard or
the incident at Tahquitz, you weren't there either. :O|
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 20:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Ron Hamilton
Attempted diversion from the facts noted.  It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
        The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
        where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
        duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
        Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
        future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
        Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
        Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
        would become a longtime friend of Bush's.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as others
were trying to rescue him.  
I think you're the one who believes whatever Bill Zaumen tells you.
Just like Bill, whether we're referring to the Air National Guard or
the incident at Tahquitz, you weren't there either. :O|
ROTFLMAO - Stan provided the details about his climbing incident! We
merely "discussed" it with Stan creating enough noise that lots of
people found out about it.

And the description of Bush's Champagne unit isn't mine - it was a
Wikipedia article that fit what I remembered reading from a number of
sources.

I'd like to see Stan explain how likely it is that Bush (or anyone)
would be in the same unit with "the sons of three prominent men:
Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and future
Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican Senator John
Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional
football team". The probability of that occurring by chance is
vanishly small.
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-07 21:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Ron Hamilton
Post by Bill Z.
Attempted diversion from the facts noted. It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
would become a longtime friend of Bush's.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as others
were trying to rescue him.
I think you're the one who believes whatever Bill Zaumen tells you.
Just like Bill, whether we're referring to the Air National Guard or
the incident at Tahquitz, you weren't there either. :O|
ROTFLMAO - Stan provided the details about his climbing incident! We
merely "discussed" it with Stan creating enough noise that lots of
people found out about it.
And the description of Bush's Champagne unit isn't mine - it was a
Wikipedia article that fit what I remembered reading from a number of
sources.
Stain made reference to the fact that some ANG pilots were killed in
Vietnam. I know from encountering that crap earlier that *no* ANG
pilots were *sent* to Vietnam; they all volunteered. I was looking for
something to substantiate that, and I came across this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

It paints a good bit more nuanced picture of the young Bush, even though
it does pretty much confirm that was in a champagne unit (although it
doesn't use that term.) I'll never be a fan of Bush - I think he's been
a wretchedly bad president - but I'm nonetheless pleased to find that he
wasn't the entirely callow young jerk his detractors have made him out
to be. I wouldn't want to think that someone as worthless as his
detractors have portrayed could reach the presidency.
Post by Bill Z.
I'd like to see Stan explain how likely it is that Bush (or anyone)
Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and future
Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican Senator John
Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional
football team". The probability of that occurring by chance is
vanish[ing]ly small.
Absolutely have to agree.
Ron Hamilton
2008-07-07 21:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Ron Hamilton
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO. So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger. The term "flight time" generally refers
to the time in the air contributing to actually flying the airplane.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue. Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line, is a pretty good
indication that you were caught doing something you knew you should
not have done.
Your reaction is pretty comical - why on earth would you expect me to
waste time on a search to try to find information about you?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he? You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted. It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
would become a longtime friend of Bush's.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, BTW, did I tell you to fuck yourself? :O|
Come back when you can start acting like an adult.
I think you were the one who first revealed that stain sat calmly
munching on his lunch while watching another rock climber die as others
were trying to rescue him.
I think you're the one who believes whatever Bill Zaumen tells you.
Mr. Zaumen told me what *you* revealed.
Post by Stan de SD
Just like Bill, whether we're referring to the Air National Guard or
the incident at Tahquitz, you weren't there either.
I wasn't Plymouth Rock or Breed's Hill or Gettysburg or Pearl Harbor,
but that doesn't prevent me from knowing something about what happened
there.
Stan de SD
2008-07-07 20:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO.  So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Wrong, retard. I was an aircrew member in an aircrew AFSC performing
flight-related duties and logging flying time. If you knew anything in
how the military os USAF works, you would have understood what the
"11" as the first 2 digits stood for. But then again, you have the
mistaken idea that somehow your slavish adherence to PC liberalism can
make up for your lack of real knowledge on anything.
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger.
It only "seems" to have been as a passenger to clueless idiots like
you.
 The term "flight time" generally refers
to the time in the air contributing to actually flying the airplane.
It refers to performing aircrew duties while in flight. Again, your
ignorance shows.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
Never claimed to be a pilot, Bill. Once again, you can't base
everything on what you see on TV.
It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue.
And how am I "resume buffing"? What have I claimed that is not
correct, Silly Billy?
 Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line,
This from the smarmy little cocksucker who had been trying to peddle
some outrageous claim that I somehow contributed to the death of a
climber, when he wasn't there and had NO idea what really happened.
Once again, fuck you, Bill. You have no grounds to piss and moan about
anyone.
is a pretty good
indication that you were caught doing something you knew you should
not have done.
No, it's a pretty good idea that Silly Billy Zaumen, who will stretch
out a thread for 100-200 posts rather than concede he doesn't know WTF
he is talking about, desperately tries to concoct scandal where there
is nothing of the sort. You want to rehash your tired old spiel that
some guy died and it was all my fault, despite the fact you can't even
identify the date of said incident, don't know the name of the guy who
died, and wasn't even THERE, go ahead. You just prove what a pathetic
piece of shit you really are...
Your reaction is pretty comical - why on earth would you expect me to
waste time on a search to try to find information about you?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted.  It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft, although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
        The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
        where the scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat
        duty with relatively few demands on their time. Serving in
        Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
        future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican
        Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas
        Cowboys professional football team, and James R. Bath, who
        would become a longtime friend of Bush's.
Whining because you don't like the facts just makes you look like a
moron.
Oh, a reference to "Champagne Unit" in Wikipedia, a source that can be
edited by any fruit-loop with time on his hands. Now THAT's
authoritative (eyes rolling...).
Post by Stan de SD
You know NOTHING.
Projection.
Tell us about your experience flying in a reserve component of the
USAF before you suggest that you're the expert here, Billy.
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 22:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO.  So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Wrong, retard. I was an aircrew member in an aircrew AFSC performing
flight-related duties and logging flying time.
ROTFLMAO. A stewardess is part of an airline crew. Now, if someone
claimed 2600 hours of flight time on usenet, only for us to discover
later that the "flight time" was spent walking up and down the aisle
serving coke and warmed-over fat burgers, what do you think the
reaction would be?
Post by Stan de SD
It only "seems" to have been as a passenger to clueless idiots like
you.
You said "loadmaster", not "navigator" or "radio operator". Sounds
like a ground function to me. Now, what did you do that helped keep
the plane in the air? Be specific.
Post by Stan de SD
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
Never claimed to be a pilot, Bill. Once again, you can't base
everything on what you see on TV.
See on TV??? When people talk about "flight time", they generally
mean they were helping to fly the plane. Face it, you posted
statments that were obviously misleading given how a casual reader
would interpret them.
Post by Stan de SD
 Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line,
This from the smarmy little cocksucker who had been trying to peddle
some outrageous claim that I somehow contributed to the death of a
climber, when he wasn't there and had NO idea what really happened.
Once again, fuck you, Bill. You have no grounds to piss and moan about
anyone.
Liar - I never said you contributed to anyone's death, only that you
sat on your ass while others tried to help, something you yourself
claimed. You were in trouble over it for pretending to have expertise
that you clearly didn't have, and you refused to admit that.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, a reference to "Champagne Unit" in Wikipedia, a source that can be
edited by any fruit-loop with time on his hands. Now THAT's
authoritative (eyes rolling...).
A study in Nature showed that the Wikipedia is compabable on technical
topics to the Encyclopedia Britannica, and what was in the article
matched what I remember reading previously. Your "fruit-loop" argument
is simply bogus.
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-07 22:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO. So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Wrong, retard. I was an aircrew member in an aircrew AFSC performing
flight-related duties and logging flying time.
ROTFLMAO. A stewardess is part of an airline crew. Now, if someone
claimed 2600 hours of flight time on usenet, only for us to discover
later that the "flight time" was spent walking up and down the aisle
serving coke and warmed-over fat burgers, what do you think the
reaction would be?
Post by Stan de SD
It only "seems" to have been as a passenger to clueless idiots like
you.
You said "loadmaster", not "navigator" or "radio operator". Sounds
like a ground function to me. Now, what did you do that helped keep
the plane in the air? Be specific.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
Never claimed to be a pilot, Bill. Once again, you can't base
everything on what you see on TV.
See on TV??? When people talk about "flight time", they generally
mean they were helping to fly the plane. Face it, you posted
statments that were obviously misleading given how a casual reader
would interpret them.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
tactic of putting my name in the subject line,
This from the smarmy little cocksucker who had been trying to peddle
some outrageous claim that I somehow contributed to the death of a
climber, when he wasn't there and had NO idea what really happened.
Once again, fuck you, Bill. You have no grounds to piss and moan about
anyone.
Liar - I never said you contributed to anyone's death, only that you
sat on your ass while others tried to help, something you yourself
claimed. You were in trouble over it for pretending to have expertise
that you clearly didn't have, and you refused to admit that.
Post by Stan de SD
Oh, a reference to "Champagne Unit" in Wikipedia, a source that can be
edited by any fruit-loop with time on his hands. Now THAT's
authoritative (eyes rolling...).
A study in Nature showed that the Wikipedia is compabable on technical
topics to the Encyclopedia Britannica, and what was in the article
matched what I remember reading previously. Your "fruit-loop" argument
is simply bogus.
"A Champagne Unit is a pejorative term used to describe US Military
units that are staffed by people from wealthy or politically powerful
families, entertainment figures, or sports figures. Such units are often
part of the National Guard, and assigned to lower-risk duty inside the
United States.

"An example of such a unit was the Texas National Guard unit in which
George W. Bush served during the Vietnam War. Other members of this unit
included the sons of Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Treasury
Secretary John Connally, and several members of the Dallas Cowboys
football team. One of the duties of this unit was to patrol the coast
line of the Gulf of Mexico."

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Champagne:unit.html

The term seems to have quite a bit of currency.

Back to Wikipedia for a moment...I recall when that Nature article came
out, and I was struck by how well Wikipedia compared with Britannica.
However, the Nature study itself came in for some severe criticism; see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm.

My own experience is that the more arcane and technical the topic, the
better Wikipedia is. The semi-literate boneheads simply don't get
involved. An article on Bush's participation in a champagne unit, on
the other hand, is exactly where Wikipedia is lacking. Any opinionated
dope can get into the article and tamper with it, and they do. Even
worse than politics is pop culture, and the more current the topic, say
anything pertaining to a pop singer ("Fergie", e.g.), the more
wretchedly horrible the quality of the article, both as to point-of-view
and the semi-literate style in which it's written.
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 22:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
"A Champagne Unit is a pejorative term used to describe US Military
units that are staffed by people from wealthy or politically powerful
families, entertainment figures, or sports figures. Such units are
often part of the National Guard, and assigned to lower-risk duty
inside the United States.
"An example of such a unit was the Texas National Guard unit in which
George W. Bush served during the Vietnam War. Other members of this
unit included the sons of Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Treasury
Secretary John Connally, and several members of the Dallas Cowboys
football team. One of the duties of this unit was to patrol the coast
line of the Gulf of Mexico."
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Champagne:unit.html
The term seems to have quite a bit of currency.
Back to Wikipedia for a moment...I recall when that Nature article
came out, and I was struck by how well Wikipedia compared with
Britannica. However, the Nature study itself came in for some severe
criticism; see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm.
And from that URL:

Nature found that both were about as accurate as each other on
science.

Encyclopaedia Britannica has hit back at the findings, calling
for the paper to be retracted.

Given the amount of money involved, it is no surprise that a commercial
company might launch a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) campaign, even if
just a trivial one.
Post by Rudy Canoza
My own experience is that the more arcane and technical the topic, the
better Wikipedia is. The semi-literate boneheads simply don't get
involved. An article on Bush's participation in a champagne unit, on
the other hand, is exactly where Wikipedia is lacking. Any
opinionated dope can get into the article and tamper with it, and they
do. Even worse than politics is pop culture, and the more current the
topic, say anything pertaining to a pop singer ("Fergie", e.g.), the
more wretchedly horrible the quality of the article, both as to
point-of-view and the semi-literate style in which it's written.
Meanwhile the people running the Wikipedia have been tightening
controls in some areas. As a research project, they are trying to see
what the minimum amount of control you need to get good quality is.
It is easier to do that if you add control mechanisms as needed rather
than put every conceivable one in and then try to figure out what you
can drop.

Of course, I didn't quote it blindly - what I read had pretty much
matched what I had recalled reading at the time the issue as being
bantered around in the press, so I just cited it to save time
searching for something that would end up saying the same thing.
David Moffitt
2008-07-08 16:28:53 UTC
Permalink
zzzzzz
"Bill Z." <***@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:***@nospam.pacbell.net...
| Stan de SD <***@gmail.com> writes:
|
| > On Jul 7, 9:50 am, ***@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
| > > Stan de SD <***@gmail.com> writes:
| > >
| > > > On Jul 6, 8:55 pm, ***@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
| > > > > What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane,
navigate,
| > > > > run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
| > > > > place to another to serve some function on the ground?
| > >
| > > > AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz
you
| > > > pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
| > >
| > > ROTLFMAO. So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
| > > spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
| >
| > Wrong, retard. I was an aircrew member in an aircrew AFSC performing
| > flight-related duties and logging flying time.
|
| ROTFLMAO. A stewardess is part of an airline crew. Now, if someone
| claimed 2600 hours of flight time on usenet, only for us to discover
| later that the "flight time" was spent walking up and down the aisle
| serving coke and warmed-over fat burgers, what do you think the
| reaction would be?
|
| >
| > It only "seems" to have been as a passenger to clueless idiots like
| > you.
|
| You said "loadmaster", not "navigator" or "radio operator". Sounds
| like a ground function to me. Now, what did you do that helped keep
| the plane in the air? Be specific.

%%%% You are reveaqling you ingorance of the military.

|
| >
| > > I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
| > > in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
| >
| > Never claimed to be a pilot, Bill. Once again, you can't base
| > everything on what you see on TV.
|
| See on TV??? When people talk about "flight time", they generally
| mean they were helping to fly the plane. Face it, you posted
| statments that were obviously misleading given how a casual reader
| would interpret them.

%%%% Once more you reveal your ignorance. I earned flight time but never
flew the aircraft myself.

|
| > > Your reaction, obscenity-laden post, and your childish
| > > tactic of putting my name in the subject line,
| >
| > This from the smarmy little cocksucker who had been trying to peddle
| > some outrageous claim that I somehow contributed to the death of a
| > climber, when he wasn't there and had NO idea what really happened.
| > Once again, fuck you, Bill. You have no grounds to piss and moan about
| > anyone.
|
| Liar - I never said you contributed to anyone's death, only that you
| sat on your ass while others tried to help, something you yourself
| claimed. You were in trouble over it for pretending to have expertise
| that you clearly didn't have, and you refused to admit that.
|
| > Oh, a reference to "Champagne Unit" in Wikipedia, a source that can be
| > edited by any fruit-loop with time on his hands. Now THAT's
| > authoritative (eyes rolling...).
|
| A study in Nature showed that the Wikipedia is compabable on technical
| topics to the Encyclopedia Britannica, and what was in the article
| matched what I remember reading previously. Your "fruit-loop" argument
| is simply bogus.

A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is
not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects
include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.
John F. Kennedy
Bill Z.
2008-07-08 18:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Moffitt
zzzzzz
Then you shouldn't said anything else, should you?
Post by David Moffitt
|
| You said "loadmaster", not "navigator" or "radio operator". Sounds
| like a ground function to me. Now, what did you do that helped keep
| the plane in the air? Be specific.
%%%% You are reveaqling you ingorance of the military.
I asked a very simple question and Stan evaded it.
Post by David Moffitt
| See on TV??? When people talk about "flight time", they generally
| mean they were helping to fly the plane. Face it, you posted
| statments that were obviously misleading given how a casual reader
| would interpret them.
%%%% Once more you reveal your ignorance. I earned flight time but never
flew the aircraft myself.
Nope, the issue was Stan's habit of resume buffing (or are you the
same person, given your response)? When he talks about "flight time"
out of context, the normal assumption would be that he was actually
helping to fly the plane in some way.
Post by David Moffitt
| A study in Nature showed that the Wikipedia is compabable on technical
| topics to the Encyclopedia Britannica, and what was in the article
| matched what I remember reading previously. Your "fruit-loop" argument
| is simply bogus.
A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is
not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today's military rejects
include tomorrow's hard-core unemployed.
In case you don't know, Stan's term "fruit loop" refers to anyone to
the left of Genghis Kahn!
T***@mailcity.com
2008-07-24 04:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
What did you do on the airplane? Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO. So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Wrong, retard. I was an aircrew member in an aircrew AFSC performing
flight-related duties and logging flying time.
ROTFLMAO. A stewardess is part of an airline crew. Now, if someone
claimed 2600 hours of flight time on usenet, only for us to discover
later that the "flight time" was spent walking up and down the aisle
serving coke and warmed-over fat burgers, what do you think the
reaction would be?
Post by Stan de SD
It only "seems" to have been as a passenger to clueless idiots like
you.
You said "loadmaster", not "navigator" or "radio operator". Sounds
like a ground function to me. Now, what did you do that helped keep
the plane in the air? Be specific.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
Never claimed to be a pilot, Bill. Once again, you can't base
everything on what you see on TV.
See on TV??? When people talk about "flight time", they generally
mean they were helping to fly the plane. Face it, you posted
statments that were obviously misleading given how a casual reader
would interpret them.
Your stupidity is astounding matched only by the emptiness between you
ears.
Bill Z.
2008-07-24 06:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@mailcity.com
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
I don't know any pilot who claims flight time for hours spent sitting
in economy class on United, trying as that might be.
Never claimed to be a pilot, Bill. Once again, you can't base
everything on what you see on TV.
See on TV??? When people talk about "flight time", they generally
mean they were helping to fly the plane. Face it, you posted
statments that were obviously misleading given how a casual reader
would interpret them.
Your stupidity is astounding matched only by the emptiness between you
ears.
Do you have the emotional maturity of a child or are you just having
a bad hair day?
V for Vendicar
2008-07-24 09:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@mailcity.com
Your stupidity is astounding matched only by the emptiness between you
ears.
The only good RepubliKKKan is a DEAD RepubliKKKan
Stan de SD
2008-07-08 06:43:59 UTC
Permalink
(NOTE - Previous reply seems not to have posted)
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
What did you do on the airplane?  Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO.  So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Wrong. Aircraft loadmasters in the Air Force are aircrew members on
flight status, receive flight pay, log hours, and wear enlisted
aircrew wings.
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger.
Thanks for sharing your complete and total ignorance with us - but we
knew that about you already. C-141B loadmasters were aircrew members.
In fact, loadmasters rated for airdrop and special operations (SOLL)
were classified as combat aircrew types. Who do you think ran the back
of the airplane when paratroopers or cargo were dropped.
 The term "flight time" generally refers
to the time in the air contributing to actually flying the airplane.
Refers to crew member performing flight duties. Flight Engineers,
navigators, bombardiers, WSOs (weapons systems officers), boom
operators, gunners, and loadmasters all perform flight duties and are
aircrew members.
It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue.
Really...
Your reaction is pretty comical - why on earth would you expect me to
waste time on a search to try to find information about you?
Of course I wouln't expect you to. It's not like Billy Zaumen to try
to find out the FACTS before he spouts off like a fool, is it? ;O)>
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
Bush was in the champagne unit, wasn't he?  You know, the one for
people who are well-connected, either individually or due to their
parents.
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted.  It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft,
Avoiding the draft is far different than what you and the rest of the
fruit-loops have accused Bush of - going AWOL to avoid Vietnam. My
father avoided the draft by accepting a commission in the US Navy - he
decided that being an ensign in a white suit would be a better chick
magnet than being a private in the Army. Anyone with a college degree
could easily avoid the draft by applying for a commission in some
branch of the Armed Forces and being accepted first. As an aside,
there were actually draftees in WWII that were offered the option and
enlisted in the Regular Army on the day they were scheduled to be
drafted, as a point of honor (I'm wiling to bet you don't know the
difference between the "regular army" and a conscription army). Does
that make them "draft dodgers"?

Furthermore, it's quite well noted that during the time frame that the
nutroots accuse Bush of being AWOL (ca. 1972), our involvement in
Vietnam was winding down, the draft was quickly coming to an end, the
aircraft Bush was qualified in (F-102) was been withdrawn from Vietnam
a few years earlier and were in the process of being retired, and Bush
was in no danger of going anywhere near SEA, even if he wanted to. It
appears that Bush was in fact a lot more gung-ho in the ANG back in
the days when he would have had a far greater chance of Vietnam, than
in his later years when the odds were practically nonexistent.
although the vast majority of people in the
national guard did not get that sort of special treatment.
You seem not to recall that Bush Sr. was the youngest Naval Aviator to
earn his wings in WWII and was awarded a DFC. Whether you like it or
not, legacies have big pull when it comes to service academies and
guard slots.
Post by Stan de SD
Go fuck yourself, Bill Zaumen. You have NO idea what the unit was
called outside what some hack reporter in the media TOLD you it was.
        The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit,"
Again, known by who? Other units in the ANG or USAF, or some reporter
with an axe to grind?

========================================

"The 147th FIG earned its first Air Force Outstanding Unit Award in
1966 when it was proclaimed “the most combat ready of all Air Guard
units.” From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th FIG participated
in “Palace Alert,” which placed them in Southeast Asia in support of
the Vietnam conflict.

The 147th FIG was relieved of their Alert commitment on 1 January 1970
to start an important new mission; that of training all F-102 pilots
in the United States for the Air National Guard. On 6 May 1971 the
unit received F-101F “VooDoo” Fighter Interceptors and became the
training center for all Air Guard Interceptors."

http://www.txelli.ang.af.mil/111th_History.aspx

========================================

Champagne unit? Really...
Bill Z.
2008-07-08 07:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
(NOTE - Previous reply seems not to have posted)
Post by Stan de SD
What did you do on the airplane? ═Did you pilot the plane, navigate,
run the radio, or where you just a passenger being taken from one
place to another to serve some function on the ground?
AFSC 11450 - C141B Aircraft Loadmaster. If you were half the whiz you
pretend to be, you could probably find my pics archived somewhere.
ROTLFMAO. ═So your "flight time" was basically to move you from one
spot to another where you were basically part of the ground crew.
Wrong. Aircraft loadmasters in the Air Force are aircrew members on
flight status, receive flight pay, log hours, and wear enlisted
aircrew wings.
As you were asked, what did you do to actually help keep the plane in
the air while it was off the ground?
Post by Stan de SD
Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that, but maybe you shouldn't
brag about "2600 hours of flight time" when your time in the air seems
to have been as a passenger.
Thanks for sharing your complete and total ignorance with us - but we
knew that about you already. C-141B loadmasters were aircrew members.
So is the stewardess on an airline. Now, what did you do, if anything,
to help fly the friggin airplane?

When you talk about 2600 hours of flight time with no other context,
you give most readers the impression that you were involved in flying
the airplane. Now, it seems your function was purely on the ground
Post by Stan de SD
In fact, loadmasters rated for airdrop and special operations (SOLL)
were classified as combat aircrew types. Who do you think ran the back
of the airplane when paratroopers or cargo were dropped.
So, you didn't help fly the airplane, and your wording leaves open the
possibility that you didn't even throw anything out the door. :-)
Post by Stan de SD
It isn't what you did in the military but your "resume buffing" that
is the issue.
Really...
Yes, really!
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
Silly Billy, kindly tell us of YOUR extensive experience in ANY
component of the USAF or Air Reserve Forces (ANG or AFRES) before you
lecture us about what anyone who wore the blue suit did, why don't
you?
Attempted diversion from the facts noted. It was well known at the time
that the national guard was used to shield the offspring of prominent
individuals from the draft,
Avoiding the draft is far different than what you and the rest of the
fruit-loops have accused Bush of - going AWOL to avoid Vietnam.
Liar - I posted not one word about him "going AWOL to avoid Vietnam",
regardless of whether he went AWOL or avoided Vietnam. But pretending
that champagne divisions of the National Guard did not exist during
the 1960s is just plain silly on your part.

<rest of his attempt to get out of his "resume buffing" being noticed ignored.>
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-07 12:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Stan de SD
“I’m going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand. Despite their
appearance of agreement on this issue, the agenda of the Democratic
leadership diverges from the hard-core anti-American left one one
critical detail. While the Code Pink crowd is deliberately pushing for
the military defeat of America, the Democrat party hacks one and ONLY
reason for pushing for troop withdrawal in Iraq was to impose a
political defeat on Bush. Once it became clear that troops weren't
coming home during Bush's term, and that they would be the ones to
take the blame if we puleld out prematurely and Iraq descended into
chaos, their desire for troop withdrawal became a bit less
enthusiatic... :O|
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
Post by Kevin Cunningham
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard. There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas. Then he left
to go to Alabama were his last known act was to refuse to take a
physical. He never showed up for any Guard exercises, he never
resigned or quit, he just went AWOL.

To think that Bush "served" is insane. To ignore the lies, the phoney
posturing, just shows you that the repugs have you roped and tied.

And then their's Cheney. Wanna discuss his service? Or how about
Karl Rove? Now there's a warrior!
Stan de SD
2008-07-07 17:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
“I’m going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand. Despite their
appearance of agreement on this issue, the agenda of the Democratic
leadership diverges from the hard-core anti-American left one one
critical detail. While the Code Pink crowd is deliberately pushing for
the military defeat of America, the Democrat party hacks one and ONLY
reason for pushing for troop withdrawal in Iraq was to impose a
political defeat on Bush. Once it became clear that troops weren't
coming home during Bush's term, and that they would be the ones to
take the blame if we puleld out prematurely and Iraq descended into
chaos, their desire for troop withdrawal became a bit less
enthusiatic... :O|
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic.  You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war.  Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
 When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing.  Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.  
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas.  
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you. I NEVER had a "permanent duty station"
that was overseas yet managed to make it to Japan, Korean, the
Philippines, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Panama, Canada,
England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, and Egypt - as a
RESERVIST. Our reserve wing participated in Grenada, Panama, Desert
Storm, and the Balkans Conflict - and so did a bunch of other Guard
and Reserve units. Just like Bill, you're blathering because you don't
know WTF you were talking about.
Then he left
to go to Alabama were his last known act was to refuse to take a
physical.  
Your interpretation.
He never showed up for any Guard exercises,
He showed up enough to get qualified and log flying time.
he never
resigned or quit, he just went AWOL.
Sources and cites?
To think that Bush "served" is insane.
Once again, you don't know WTF you are talking about. That he served
and qualified in the F-102 is well documented. The question had been
whether Bush completed all this attendance/training requirements
during the last couple of years in the ANG. If you are honest enough
to discuss this in a reasonable manner, I will be honest enough to
tell you my assessment. However, if you're going to froth and foam
like an idiot, I'm simply going to point out that you don't have a
clue what you are babbling about.
Bill Z.
2008-07-07 19:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
... none of whom were in the champagne units - a tiny number of
national guard units set up to protect very important people or
their children. There's no need for such units now, of course,
since we don't have an active draft.
Post by Stan de SD
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas. ═
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard>. It
wasn't until 1987 that a "governor cannot withhold consent with regard
to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to
the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty." While the
National Guard participate in the Vietnam War, a governor at the time
could control which divisions were sent there. It wasn't the
champagne division that would go, and it was well known at the time
that the risk of ending up in that war was significantly lower, but
not zero, for members of the National Guard than for members of the
U.S. Army.
Stan de SD
2008-07-08 07:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
... none of whom were in the champagne units
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?

- a tiny number of
Post by Bill Z.
national guard units set up to protect very important people or
their children.  
You have any sources for this other than your extreme-left-wing foamer
friends who think that reading a NYT article and watching re-runs of
MASH make them experts on military policy?
Post by Bill Z.
There's no need for such units now, of course,
since we don't have an active draft.
The 111th FS still exists, dipstick. You realy ARE clueless, aren't
you?

===========================

111th Fighter Squadron [111th FS]

The 111th Fighter Squadron began as the 111th Aero Squadron on 14
August 1917 at Kelly Field, TX. The unit, composed of teamsters and
laborers, was on special duty at Kelly and was known as the "Post
Headquarters Squadron." The squadron deactivated 19 August 1919 but
was called to service again on 29 June 1923 in the old Houston Light
Guard Armory, as the 111th Observation Squadron, 36th Division, Texas
Air National Guard.

The squadron had no airplanes, so the hot summer of 1923 was devoted
to close-order drill and classroom sessions. That was remedied,
however, in September of that year when the 111th became airborne in
the Curtiss JN-6H.

In September 1927 the Curtiss JN-6Hs were retired and the squadron
gained PT-1s and several other trainers until June 1928 when new O-2
observation aircraft arrived. These planes were replaced with new O-38
Douglas operation planes in January 1931.

By 1938 the squadron was flying both O-43As and O-47s.

With the onset of World War II, the unit was called into federal
service 25 November 1940 and trained with the 36th Division until it
was sent to the Mexican border after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The
border patrol was short, and on 14 February 1942 the squadron left
Texas for Augusta, GA, and became part of the 68th Observation Group.

By November 1942 the squadron was in Europe. During 23 months of
continuous combat flying, from June 1943 through May 1945, the 111th
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron flew 3,840 reconnaissance missions.
While keeping Army Headquarters informed of enemy movements, the 111th
destroyed 44 enemy aircraft, damaged 29 others and claimed 12 probable
kills. The squadron received eight Battle Stars and the Presidential
Unit Citation for its World War II accomplishments. The squadron also
served during the Korean War, flying mostly close-air support and
interdiction missions and destroying two MiG-15 fighter jets.

Between 1952 and 1959 the squadron flew many aircraft, to include the
F-80, F-86D and F-86L. In August 1960 the unit became one of the first
to transition to the F-102A all-weather fighter interceptor and began
a 24-hour alert to guard the Texas Gulf coast. By January 1970 the
wing was starting a new mission: training all F-102 pilots in the
United States for the Air National Guard.

On 6 May 1971 the unit received F-101F fighter interceptors and became
the training center for all Air Guard interceptors. In August 1974,
after 14 years of service, the unit's F-102s were retired, but the
unit maintained a full fleet of F-101s.

The squadron converted to F-4Cs in 1982 and converted to F-4Ds
starting in November 1986.

In September 1989 the 111th converted to the F-16A, and by June 1992
the jets were being converted to F-16 air defense fighters, later
converting to F-16Cs beginning in September 1996; a transition
completed by February 1997.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/111fs.htm

========================================================
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas.  
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard>.  It
wasn't until 1987 that a "governor cannot withhold consent with regard
to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to
the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty."  While the
National Guard participate in the Vietnam War, a governor at the time
could control which divisions were sent there.  It wasn't the
champagne division that would go, and it was well known at the time
that the risk of ending up in that war was significantly lower, but
not zero, for members of the National Guard than for members of the
U.S. Army.
Blathering nonsense about which you know nothing about. The box refers
to PERMANENT DUTY stations for active duty types. In the active duty
Air Force, you don't join a particular unit: the powers that be assign/
transfer you for training/duty as needed. In the Guards and Reserves,
you join a specific UNIT that you are eventually returned to upon
completion of your IADT (Initial Active Duty Training).

Your PERMANENT DUTY station is the home base (location) of your unit.
As a member of the Guards and Reserves, you are told to check that
box, because your permanent duty station is stateside. However, that
doesn't mean you don't ever go overseas. If you are given active duty
orders, you can be sent on Temporary Duty (TDY) anywhere in the world,
at times on very short notice. The fact that I checked a very similar
box (because I was told to do so) as a Reservist didn't stop me from
flying all over the world. In 1985 ALONE, besides flying all over the
US, I made multipe trips across the Pacific AND Atlantic, and traveled
to Panama, The Azores, England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey,
Egypt, Diego Garcia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand,
Australia, New Zealand, and dozens of islands in the Pacific, some of
whose names I don't even remember. Once again, you really don't have a
clue WTF you are talking about, Billy.
Bill Z.
2008-07-08 15:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
... none of whom were in the champagne units
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?
Attemped evasion noted (followed by a "dazzle them with BS ploy"). We
are not talking about etymology. I might add, as a further exercise,
tell us what fraction of National Guard pilots were killed in the
Vietnam War versus similar numbers for Air Force and Navy pilots.
It was well-known in the 1960s that joining the National Guard was
a reasonable effective way of avoiding Vietnam, even if not 100%
effective (unless you had some pull with your governor and could land
in a champagne unit, in which case you were definitely safe).
Post by Stan de SD
- a tiny number of
Post by Bill Z.
national guard units set up to protect very important people or
their children.  
You have any sources for this other than your extreme-left-wing foamer
friends who think that reading a NYT article and watching re-runs of
MASH make them experts on military policy?
Oh, so the NYT is "left wing"? :-) It's a middle of the road newspaper
noted primarily for better than average reporting. Do you think any
military document is going to admit the existence of champagne units
when the whole point of them was to provide a privileged hideout for
people with some political clout or their children?
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
There's no need for such units now, of course,
since we don't have an active draft.
The 111th FS still exists, dipstick. You realy ARE clueless, aren't
you?
ROTFLMAO. See if it still contains offspring of prominent politicians
and enough members of a major football team to hold a team practice.
How that unit is used today has nothing to do with how it was used
in the 1960s.
Post by Stan de SD
The 111th Fighter Squadron began as the 111th Aero Squadron on 14
August 1917 at Kelly Field, TX. The unit, composed of teamsters and
laborers, was on special duty at Kelly and was known as the "Post
Headquarters Squadron." The squadron deactivated 19 August 1919 but
was called to service again on 29 June 1923 in the old Houston Light
Guard Armory, as the 111th Observation Squadron, 36th Division, Texas
Air National Guard.
<snip>
Post by Stan de SD
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/111fs.htm
Irrelevant historical information that says *nothing* about its
membership or use as a champagne unit during part of its history.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard>.  It
wasn't until 1987 that a "governor cannot withhold consent with regard
to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to
the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty."  While the
National Guard participate in the Vietnam War, a governor at the time
could control which divisions were sent there.  It wasn't the
champagne division that would go, and it was well known at the time
that the risk of ending up in that war was significantly lower, but
not zero, for members of the National Guard than for members of the
U.S. Army.
Blathering nonsense about which you know nothing about. The box refers
to PERMANENT DUTY stations for active duty types.
Not "blathering nonsense" but hard facts. And I wasn't the one bringing
up a checkbox, so why are you trying to argue with me about it? I
merely pointed out that Bush was in a champagne unit.
Post by Stan de SD
In the active duty Air Force, you don't join a particular unit: the
powers that be assign/ transfer you for training/duty as needed. In
the Guards and Reserves, you join a specific UNIT that you are
eventually returned to upon completion of your IADT (Initial Active
Duty Training).
Irrelvant Bush was in the champagne unit. Are you denying a historical
fact.
Post by Stan de SD
Your PERMANENT DUTY station is the home base (location) of your unit.
As a member of the Guards and Reserves, you are told to check that
box, because your permanent duty station is stateside. However, that
doesn't mean you don't ever go overseas. If you are given active duty
orders, you can be sent on Temporary Duty (TDY) anywhere in the world,
at times on very short notice. The fact that I checked a very similar
box (because I was told to do so) as a Reservist didn't stop me from
flying all over the world. In 1985 ALONE, <snip>
You were not in the National Guard, what was pointed out is that the
rules changed over time, and your personal experience is irrelevant to
a statement that the National Guard was used to give a few
well-connnected individuals special treatment during the 1960s. That
special treatment is not at all typical of the experience of anyone
else but those few individuals.

Try keeping to the topic, if you can.
Timothy Horrigan
2008-07-10 01:07:08 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 8, 11:08 am, ***@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
.. none of whom were in the champagne units
Post by Stan de SD
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?
Attemped evasion noted (followed by a "dazzle them with BS ploy").  We
are not talking about etymology.  I might add, as a further exercise,
tell us what fraction of National Guard pilots were killed in the
Vietnam War versus similar numbers for Air Force and Navy pilots.
It was well-known in the 1960s that joining the National Guard was
a reasonable effective way of avoiding Vietnam, even if not 100%
effective (unless you had some pull with your governor and could land
in a champagne unit, in which case you were definitely safe).
The whole fact that the Air Force exists at all is an example of big
government gone crazy. The original idea was that the new US Air
Force would eliminate the duplication between the Army's and Navy's
separate air forces. However, the Army continues to have its own air
force. The Navy also has its own air force--- and it also has its own
army, the Marine Corps, which itself has yet another air force! It is
unclear even after 60 years what the US Air Force's distinct mission
is.
SilentOtto
2008-07-09 03:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
... none of whom were in the champagne units
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?
While it isn't clear that "military types" coined the term, it's clear
that they shared the sentiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_unit

During the Vietnam war, service in the National Guard and Reserve
components were seen as a way to avoid combat. Although some number of
Guard and Reserve units were in fact "called-up" to combat duty in
every US war since they were founded,[1] the risk was especially low
in the 1970s. Only 8700 of these soldiers were sent to Vietnam, 0.3%
of the personnel who served. Furthermore, a greatly disproportionate
number of famous, wealthy, and/or politically connected young men
received slots in the Guard or Reserves during Vietnam, including 360
professional athletes such as Bill Bradley and Nolan Ryan.[2]

Commenting on this disparity, General Colin Powell wrote in his
autobiography, "I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well
placed and many professional athletes (who were probably healthier
than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard
units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination
strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are
created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."

Face it, rightard.

Bush is just another cowardly Republican who supports wars as long as
he's not the one who has to fight them.

He is on the record as supporting the Vietnam war, and he's also on
the record as wishing to avoid duty there.

That rightards, like you, are still clinging to Bush and dispute basic
facts about his "service" amply demonstrates just how far you've
shoved your rightard nose up Bush's rightard ass.

Had rightards, like you, recognized Bush and his administration for
what it is, a throughly corrupt and evil enterprise, and called them
to task, you wouldn't be facing the electoral drubbing that you're
going to get this fall.

Heh heh...

Rightards...
Post by Stan de SD
- a tiny number of
Post by Bill Z.
national guard units set up to protect very important people or
their children.
You have any sources for this other than your extreme-left-wing foamer
friends who think that reading a NYT article and watching re-runs of
MASH make them experts on military policy?
Post by Bill Z.
There's no need for such units now, of course,
since we don't have an active draft.
The 111th FS still exists, dipstick. You realy ARE clueless, aren't
you?
===========================
111th Fighter Squadron [111th FS]
The 111th Fighter Squadron began as the 111th Aero Squadron on 14
August 1917 at Kelly Field, TX. The unit, composed of teamsters and
laborers, was on special duty at Kelly and was known as the "Post
Headquarters Squadron." The squadron deactivated 19 August 1919 but
was called to service again on 29 June 1923 in the old Houston Light
Guard Armory, as the 111th Observation Squadron, 36th Division, Texas
Air National Guard.
The squadron had no airplanes, so the hot summer of 1923 was devoted
to close-order drill and classroom sessions. That was remedied,
however, in September of that year when the 111th became airborne in
the Curtiss JN-6H.
In September 1927 the Curtiss JN-6Hs were retired and the squadron
gained PT-1s and several other trainers until June 1928 when new O-2
observation aircraft arrived. These planes were replaced with new O-38
Douglas operation planes in January 1931.
By 1938 the squadron was flying both O-43As and O-47s.
With the onset of World War II, the unit was called into federal
service 25 November 1940 and trained with the 36th Division until it
was sent to the Mexican border after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The
border patrol was short, and on 14 February 1942 the squadron left
Texas for Augusta, GA, and became part of the 68th Observation Group.
By November 1942 the squadron was in Europe. During 23 months of
continuous combat flying, from June 1943 through May 1945, the 111th
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron flew 3,840 reconnaissance missions.
While keeping Army Headquarters informed of enemy movements, the 111th
destroyed 44 enemy aircraft, damaged 29 others and claimed 12 probable
kills. The squadron received eight Battle Stars and the Presidential
Unit Citation for its World War II accomplishments. The squadron also
served during the Korean War, flying mostly close-air support and
interdiction missions and destroying two MiG-15 fighter jets.
Between 1952 and 1959 the squadron flew many aircraft, to include the
F-80, F-86D and F-86L. In August 1960 the unit became one of the first
to transition to the F-102A all-weather fighter interceptor and began
a 24-hour alert to guard the Texas Gulf coast. By January 1970 the
wing was starting a new mission: training all F-102 pilots in the
United States for the Air National Guard.
On 6 May 1971 the unit received F-101F fighter interceptors and became
the training center for all Air Guard interceptors. In August 1974,
after 14 years of service, the unit's F-102s were retired, but the
unit maintained a full fleet of F-101s.
The squadron converted to F-4Cs in 1982 and converted to F-4Ds
starting in November 1986.
In September 1989 the 111th converted to the F-16A, and by June 1992
the jets were being converted to F-16 air defense fighters, later
converting to F-16Cs beginning in September 1996; a transition
completed by February 1997.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/111fs.htm
========================================================
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas.
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard>. It
wasn't until 1987 that a "governor cannot withhold consent with regard
to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to
the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty." While the
National Guard participate in the Vietnam War, a governor at the time
could control which divisions were sent there. It wasn't the
champagne division that would go, and it was well known at the time
that the risk of ending up in that war was significantly lower, but
not zero, for members of the National Guard than for members of the
U.S. Army.
Blathering nonsense about which you know nothing about. The box refers
to PERMANENT DUTY stations for active duty types. In the active duty
Air Force, you don't join a particular unit: the powers that be assign/
transfer you for training/duty as needed. In the Guards and Reserves,
you join a specific UNIT that you are eventually returned to upon
completion of your IADT (Initial Active Duty Training).
Your PERMANENT DUTY station is the home base (location) of your unit.
As a member of the Guards and Reserves, you are told to check that
box, because your permanent duty station is stateside. However, that
doesn't mean you don't ever go overseas. If you are given active duty
orders, you can be sent on Temporary Duty (TDY) anywhere in the world,
at times on very short notice. The fact that I checked a very similar
box (because I was told to do so) as a Reservist didn't stop me from
flying all over the world. In 1985 ALONE, besides flying all over the
US, I made multipe trips across the Pacific AND Atlantic, and traveled
to Panama, The Azores, England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey,
Egypt, Diego Garcia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand,
Australia, New Zealand, and dozens of islands in the Pacific, some of
whose names I don't even remember. Once again, you really don't have a
clue WTF you are talking about, Billy.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-09 11:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
... none of whom were in the champagne units
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?
While it isn't clear that "military types" coined the term, it's clear
that they shared the sentiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_unit
During the Vietnam war, service in the National Guard and Reserve
components were seen as a way to avoid combat. Although some number of
Guard and Reserve units were in fact "called-up" to combat duty in
every US war since they were founded,[1] the risk was especially low
in the 1970s. Only 8700 of these soldiers were sent to Vietnam, 0.3%
of the personnel who served. Furthermore, a greatly disproportionate
number of famous, wealthy, and/or politically connected young men
received slots in the Guard or Reserves during Vietnam, including 360
professional athletes such as Bill Bradley and Nolan Ryan.[2]
Also from wikipedia: "
The unit in which Bush served was known as a "Champagne unit," where the
scions of the Texas aristocracy could avoid combat duty with relatively few
demands on their time. Serving in that unit with Bush were the sons of three
prominent men: Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and
future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican Senator John
Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football
team, and James R. Bath, who would become a longtime friend of Bush's.

Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the
Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to
Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to
three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was
advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary experience
(500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 was outdated.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
"Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal
of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were
junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience
didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their squadron
leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace Alert."
"There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly
close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said
Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether
he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both
Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by SilentOtto
Commenting on this disparity, General Colin Powell wrote in his
autobiography, "I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well
placed and many professional athletes (who were probably healthier
than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard
units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination
strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are
created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."
Face it, rightard.
Bush is just another cowardly Republican who supports wars as long as
he's not the one who has to fight them.
He is on the record as supporting the Vietnam war, and he's also on
the record as wishing to avoid duty there.
That rightards, like you, are still clinging to Bush and dispute basic
facts about his "service" amply demonstrates just how far you've
shoved your rightard nose up Bush's rightard ass.
Had rightards, like you, recognized Bush and his administration for
what it is, a throughly corrupt and evil enterprise, and called them
to task, you wouldn't be facing the electoral drubbing that you're
going to get this fall.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Post by Stan de SD
- a tiny number of
Post by Bill Z.
national guard units set up to protect very important people or
their children.
You have any sources for this other than your extreme-left-wing foamer
friends who think that reading a NYT article and watching re-runs of
MASH make them experts on military policy?
Post by Bill Z.
There's no need for such units now, of course,
since we don't have an active draft.
The 111th FS still exists, dipstick. You realy ARE clueless, aren't
you?
===========================
111th Fighter Squadron [111th FS]
The 111th Fighter Squadron began as the 111th Aero Squadron on 14
August 1917 at Kelly Field, TX. The unit, composed of teamsters and
laborers, was on special duty at Kelly and was known as the "Post
Headquarters Squadron." The squadron deactivated 19 August 1919 but
was called to service again on 29 June 1923 in the old Houston Light
Guard Armory, as the 111th Observation Squadron, 36th Division, Texas
Air National Guard.
The squadron had no airplanes, so the hot summer of 1923 was devoted
to close-order drill and classroom sessions. That was remedied,
however, in September of that year when the 111th became airborne in
the Curtiss JN-6H.
In September 1927 the Curtiss JN-6Hs were retired and the squadron
gained PT-1s and several other trainers until June 1928 when new O-2
observation aircraft arrived. These planes were replaced with new O-38
Douglas operation planes in January 1931.
By 1938 the squadron was flying both O-43As and O-47s.
With the onset of World War II, the unit was called into federal
service 25 November 1940 and trained with the 36th Division until it
was sent to the Mexican border after Pearl Harbor was bombed. The
border patrol was short, and on 14 February 1942 the squadron left
Texas for Augusta, GA, and became part of the 68th Observation Group.
By November 1942 the squadron was in Europe. During 23 months of
continuous combat flying, from June 1943 through May 1945, the 111th
Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron flew 3,840 reconnaissance missions.
While keeping Army Headquarters informed of enemy movements, the 111th
destroyed 44 enemy aircraft, damaged 29 others and claimed 12 probable
kills. The squadron received eight Battle Stars and the Presidential
Unit Citation for its World War II accomplishments. The squadron also
served during the Korean War, flying mostly close-air support and
interdiction missions and destroying two MiG-15 fighter jets.
Between 1952 and 1959 the squadron flew many aircraft, to include the
F-80, F-86D and F-86L. In August 1960 the unit became one of the first
to transition to the F-102A all-weather fighter interceptor and began
a 24-hour alert to guard the Texas Gulf coast. By January 1970 the
wing was starting a new mission: training all F-102 pilots in the
United States for the Air National Guard.
On 6 May 1971 the unit received F-101F fighter interceptors and became
the training center for all Air Guard interceptors. In August 1974,
after 14 years of service, the unit's F-102s were retired, but the
unit maintained a full fleet of F-101s.
The squadron converted to F-4Cs in 1982 and converted to F-4Ds
starting in November 1986.
In September 1989 the 111th converted to the F-16A, and by June 1992
the jets were being converted to F-16 air defense fighters, later
converting to F-16Cs beginning in September 1996; a transition
completed by February 1997.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/111fs.htm
========================================================
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas.
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard>. It
wasn't until 1987 that a "governor cannot withhold consent with regard
to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to
the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty." While the
National Guard participate in the Vietnam War, a governor at the time
could control which divisions were sent there. It wasn't the
champagne division that would go, and it was well known at the time
that the risk of ending up in that war was significantly lower, but
not zero, for members of the National Guard than for members of the
U.S. Army.
Blathering nonsense about which you know nothing about. The box refers
to PERMANENT DUTY stations for active duty types. In the active duty
Air Force, you don't join a particular unit: the powers that be assign/
transfer you for training/duty as needed. In the Guards and Reserves,
you join a specific UNIT that you are eventually returned to upon
completion of your IADT (Initial Active Duty Training).
Your PERMANENT DUTY station is the home base (location) of your unit.
As a member of the Guards and Reserves, you are told to check that
box, because your permanent duty station is stateside. However, that
doesn't mean you don't ever go overseas. If you are given active duty
orders, you can be sent on Temporary Duty (TDY) anywhere in the world,
at times on very short notice. The fact that I checked a very similar
box (because I was told to do so) as a Reservist didn't stop me from
flying all over the world. In 1985 ALONE, besides flying all over the
US, I made multipe trips across the Pacific AND Atlantic, and traveled
to Panama, The Azores, England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey,
Egypt, Diego Garcia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand,
Australia, New Zealand, and dozens of islands in the Pacific, some of
whose names I don't even remember. Once again, you really don't have a
clue WTF you are talking about, Billy.
Bill Z.
2008-07-09 14:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
"Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal
of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were
junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience
didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their squadron
leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace Alert."
"There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly
close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said
Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether
he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both
Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."
The article actually reports what some guy named Fred Bradley, who was
apparently a friend of Bush, said. So, the question is whether or not
one believes Mr. Bradley and whether there was any quid pro quo
involved given how useful his statement might be in a presidential
campaign.

Meanwhile a cynic would note the possibility of volunteering for a
program where you'd know you'd be rejected, or of politically
connected parents pulling strings to keep brash young adults from
getting into trouble.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-09 14:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Bill Z.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
"Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal
of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were
junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience
didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their squadron
leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace Alert."
"There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly
close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said
Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether
he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both
Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."
The article actually reports what some guy named Fred Bradley, who was
apparently a friend of Bush, said. So, the question is whether or not
one believes Mr. Bradley and whether there was any quid pro quo
involved given how useful his statement might be in a presidential
campaign.
All you say above could be true. You remember the unit that Bush got into
was for well to do people who had pull/juice to get in and avoid the draft.
Maybe and maybe not their needs to be so quid pro quo. The above could be
said about anyone who ever got a favor.
Post by Bill Z.
Meanwhile a cynic would note the possibility of volunteering for a
program where you'd know you'd be rejected, or of politically
connected parents pulling strings to keep brash young adults from
getting into trouble.
Again this could be true we can all be cynical. The other fellows that
look into the program (Vietnam/overseas) were they also doing the same
thing? How did they all know that they would be rejected? How did they all
know that their parents would bail them out? Were some of them sincere and
other not sincere about volunteering for Vietnam? I'm not willing to make
that/those assumptions, but I understand how someone may make those
assumptions of people who got 'special treatment because they got onto the
Texas Air National Guard.
Bill Z.
2008-07-09 15:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Bill Z.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
The article actually reports what some guy named Fred Bradley, who was
apparently a friend of Bush, said. So, the question is whether or not
one believes Mr. Bradley and whether there was any quid pro quo
involved given how useful his statement might be in a presidential
campaign.
All you say above could be true. You remember the unit that Bush got into
was for well to do people who had pull/juice to get in and avoid the draft.
Maybe and maybe not their needs to be so quid pro quo. The above could be
said about anyone who ever got a favor.
Most people who ever got a favor were not running for president, which is
why you have to apply a bit more scepticism - I didn't claim what Bradley
did, but merely pointed out things you have to cross check before believing
his statement (really, believing anyone in the same position).
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Meanwhile a cynic would note the possibility of volunteering for a
program where you'd know you'd be rejected, or of politically
connected parents pulling strings to keep brash young adults from
getting into trouble.
Again this could be true we can all be cynical. The other fellows that
look into the program (Vietnam/overseas) were they also doing the same
thing? How did they all know that they would be rejected? How did they all
know that their parents would bail them out? Were some of them sincere and
other not sincere about volunteering for Vietnam? I'm not willing to make
that/those assumptions, but I understand how someone may make those
assumptions of people who got 'special treatment because they got onto the
Texas Air National Guard.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.

Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.

While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Joe Irvin
2008-07-09 18:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Bill Z.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy
The article actually reports what some guy named Fred Bradley, who was
apparently a friend of Bush, said. So, the question is whether or not
one believes Mr. Bradley and whether there was any quid pro quo
involved given how useful his statement might be in a presidential
campaign.
All you say above could be true. You remember the unit that Bush got into
was for well to do people who had pull/juice to get in and avoid the draft.
Maybe and maybe not their needs to be so quid pro quo. The above could be
said about anyone who ever got a favor.
Most people who ever got a favor were not running for president, which is
why you have to apply a bit more scepticism - I didn't claim what Bradley
did, but merely pointed out things you have to cross check before believing
his statement (really, believing anyone in the same position).
I think our political system operates on favors/political power. Take our
Prez and Edward Kennedy both with wild early adult years and now both
powerful politicians. In both cases it was parental political power that
helped get them where they both are today. This is not to say that both
were not good politicians and were able to move through the political system
on their own abilities/merit. Moving legislation thru Congress many times
means calling in favors. Bush came up in politics in Texas while Kennedy
came up in Mass. We use their indiscretions to try and deny them political
power. People, by electing them have decided that what they did in their
early adulthood isn't important enough to deny them political power. Power
has its own dynamics ... to have it is to use it, we can just hope it isn't
abused. Each one of us also has his own sense of what is the abuse of
power.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Meanwhile a cynic would note the possibility of volunteering for a
program where you'd know you'd be rejected, or of politically
connected parents pulling strings to keep brash young adults from
getting into trouble.
Again this could be true we can all be cynical. The other fellows that
look into the program (Vietnam/overseas) were they also doing the same
thing? How did they all know that they would be rejected? How did they all
know that their parents would bail them out? Were some of them sincere and
other not sincere about volunteering for Vietnam? I'm not willing to make
that/those assumptions, but I understand how someone may make those
assumptions of people who got 'special treatment because they got onto the
Texas Air National Guard.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or the Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile people it
was shielding from the draft.
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think it was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
Bill Z.
2008-07-09 21:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or the Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile people it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think it was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-09 23:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or the Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the
well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile people it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
I agree.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think it was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush. Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Bill Z.
2008-07-10 00:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or the Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think it was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush. Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-10 14:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward. It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.

Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country. What
worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of Def McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to advise the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
Bill Z.
2008-07-10 15:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward. It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Whether you thoguth it was a non-event or not, there were certainly enough
lies in the cover up.
Post by Joe Irvin
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Nixon ended up nearly being impeached (he resigned to avoid the inevitable)
and both Democrats and Republicans held him accountable. That's not what
would happen today. There's genetic evidence regarding Sally Hemming
(comparing her descendents to Jefferson's) but it can't distinguish between
her having sexual relations with Jefferson or his brother (or was it some
other male relative).
Post by Joe Irvin
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people.
Oh please. A reference to Genghis Khan is not an excuse for swift boating,
least of all decades later.
Post by Joe Irvin
To make a statement like that I think that Kerry should have had a
little longer tour in country.
Why? A comparisio to Genghis Khan would be understood as rhetoric. It
was his factual statements about what he actually saw, or accounts he
relayed about what others told him, that would be taken seriously.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-10 16:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward.
It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Whether you thoguth it was a non-event or not, there were certainly enough
lies in the cover up.
Cover up what??? ... Fitzpatrick knew who the leaker was ... why wasn't a
leaker/leakers made accountable ... thats what they were trying to find out.
Scooter was held accountable for lying, not leaking.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Nixon ended up nearly being impeached (he resigned to avoid the inevitable)
and both Democrats and Republicans held him accountable. That's not what
would happen today. There's genetic evidence regarding Sally Hemming
(comparing her descendents to Jefferson's) but it can't distinguish between
her having sexual relations with Jefferson or his brother (or was it some
other male relative).
I was making the point that what went on with Kerry/Swift boaters was
business as usual in politics ... what you say above is true. Bush got
slammed for draft dodging by going in the Texas Air Guard. Opponents use
whatever is available and slant it to their advantage.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people.
Oh please. A reference to Genghis Khan is not an excuse for swift boating,
least of all decades later.
The reference to G Khan was in reference to US troops. US troops and G Khan
were basically the same. I don't agree with that and understand why they
held/hold it against him. If he would have been more discriptive and maybe
used Lt W Callie being like G Khan I think they would have understood.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
To make a statement like that I think that Kerry should have had a
little longer tour in country.
Why? A comparisio to Genghis Khan would be understood as rhetoric.
I didn't understand it like that ... I understood it as a slam against US
forces in Vietnam. Its like calling US troops murders ... that is a serious
accusation going all the way up the chain of command to the Prez.

It
Post by Bill Z.
was his factual statements about what he actually saw, or accounts he
relayed about what others told him, that would be taken seriously.
If he saw it he should been specific rather than painting the whole US
forces in Vietnam as being like G Khan. He would have had most vets on his
side then IMO. Repeating is hearsay. Also he should have deferred to
soldiers and let them tell their stories ... many people spoke at that
hearing, they could have told their stories and I'm sure they did.
Bill Z.
2008-07-10 23:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Whether you thoguth it was a non-event or not, there were certainly enough
lies in the cover up.
Cover up what??? ... Fitzpatrick knew who the leaker was ... why wasn't a
leaker/leakers made accountable ... thats what they were trying to find out.
Scooter was held accountable for lying, not leaking.
They covered up who was responsible - who authorized the leak.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Nixon ended up nearly being impeached (he resigned to avoid the inevitable)
and both Democrats and Republicans held him accountable. That's not what
would happen today. There's genetic evidence regarding Sally Hemming
(comparing her descendents to Jefferson's) but it can't distinguish between
her having sexual relations with Jefferson or his brother (or was it some
other male relative).
I was making the point that what went on with Kerry/Swift boaters was
business as usual in politics ... what you say above is true. Bush got
slammed for draft dodging by going in the Texas Air Guard. Opponents use
whatever is available and slant it to their advantage.
Bush got slammed more for putting in a minimal effort while in the Texas
Air Guard, and the make up of his unit was so statistically improbable
(multiple members from a professional football team, people with
politically connected families, etc.) that there is no way it was
business as usual.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Oh please. A reference to Genghis Khan is not an excuse for swift boating,
least of all decades later.
The reference to G Khan was in reference to US troops. US troops and G Khan
were basically the same. I don't agree with that and understand why they
held/hold it against him. If he would have been more discriptive and maybe
used Lt W Callie being like G Khan I think they would have understood.
Oh, Callie wasn't like Genghis Khan - Callie didn't command an army
nor did he take over a large amount of territory. Comparing the
U.S. to Genghis Kahn as Kerry did was not unreasonable: look at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan>:

"Negative views of Genghis Khan are very persistent within
histories written by many different cultures, from various
different geographical regions. They often cite the cruelties
and destructions brought upon by Mongol armies. However, other
authors cite positive aspects of Genghis Khan's
conquests. Genghis Khan is credited with bringing the Silk
Road under one cohesive political environment. This allowed
increased communication and trade between the West, Middle
East and Asia, thus expanding the horizons of all three
cultural areas. Some historians have noted that Genghis Khan
instituted certain levels of meritocracy in his rule, and was
tolerant of different religions.[citations needed] In much of
modern-day Turkey, Genghis Khan is looked on as a great
military leader, and it is popular for male children to carry
his title as name."

And to put Kerry's remarks in context, Lyndon Johnson would sit in
the White House hearing demonstrators outside shouting, "Hey, hey,
LBJ, how many kids did you kill today." Compared to that, Kerry's
remarks were almost cerebral.
Post by Joe Irvin
I didn't understand it like that ... I understood it as a slam against US
forces in Vietnam. Its like calling US troops murders ... that is a serious
accusation going all the way up the chain of command to the Prez.
I'd call it a slam on U.S. policy at the time, placing the blame at the
top - blaiming a few people for making very bad decisions and ignoring
all evidence that those decisions were bad ones.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
It was his factual statements about what he actually saw, or
accounts he relayed about what others told him, that would be
taken seriously.
If he saw it he should been specific rather than painting the whole
US forces in Vietnam as being like G Khan. He would have had most
vets on his side then IMO. Repeating is hearsay. Also he should
have deferred to soldiers and let them tell their stories ... many
people spoke at that hearing, they could have told their stories and
I'm sure they did.
People who are about to launch political careers are not the ones who
tend to defer to anyone when a microphone is in front of their
faces. :-) But seriously, a congressional hearing is not a court of
law. Hearsay is OK as long as its status as hearsay is clear - it
tells elected officials what to grill others about or to investigate
independently.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-11 17:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward. It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country. What
worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of Def McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to advise the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.

There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less popular
with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only had to do
one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How does 4
terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how to run
away.

Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-11 18:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest
of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in
organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward.
It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most
in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country. What
worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of Def
McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to advise the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.
I'm wondering if you are operating in the real world. Sure Kerry served and
should be respected for that. Bush served in the Tex Air Nat Guard.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less popular
with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only had to do
one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How does 4
terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how to run
away.
Vietnam servicemen were drafted ... Today we have a professional military.
One can get out as soon as there enlistment is up.

Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long
ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both
were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the
inexperience didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their
squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace
Alert." "There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all
fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me,
said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember
whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers
both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.)
Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-12 14:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest
of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward.
It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the
people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most
in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country. What
worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of Def
McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to advise the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.
I'm wondering if you are operating in the real world. Sure Kerry served and
should be respected for that. Bush served in the Tex Air Nat Guard.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less popular
with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only had to do
one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How does 4
terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how to run
away.
Vietnam servicemen were drafted ... Today we have a professional military.
One can get out as soon as there enlistment is up.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long
ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both
were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the
inexperience didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their
squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace
Alert." "There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all
fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me,
said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember
whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers
both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.)
Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Bush never served in the real air force. He never served after he got
to Alabama. He was in the FunTime Guard, the Rich Person Guard. They
kept all the riff-raff out of their guard and sent them to Vietnam.
Bush sure wasn't going, to many people shooting at him. Oh, odd isn't
it, Bush never showed up for service in Alabama were he was supposed
to serve. He never took a drug test. He deserted but your good buddy
says that Bush was ravenous to serve and kill those commies but
there's no paper work. Yeah, thats how that works. I've heard tons
of ass holes in bars say their going to beat some one up and it always
happened.

Bush was and is a gutless coward.

Oh, and then their the drugs. Your hero had an affection for coke,
dope and booze.
Mitchell Holman
2008-07-12 14:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd
get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the
interest of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to
a few individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in
organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string
pulling ...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but
its unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez
fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez
lied. Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed
as a CIA agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went
forward. It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the
Intell Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held
responsible for revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by
the law or not, IMO intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat
operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least
by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the
most in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you
had people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over
backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up
immediately after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out.
I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the
Swift Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress
or the Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether
popular or not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying.
The Swift Boaters would have been lost in the noise if someone
hadn't provided them with the resources necessary to make a big
media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on,
and probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops
in Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My
Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans
against Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To
make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country.
What worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of
Def McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to advise the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.
I'm wondering if you are operating in the real world. Sure Kerry
served and should be respected for that. Bush served in the Tex Air
Nat Guard.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less
popular with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only
had to do one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How
does 4 terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how
to run away.
Vietnam servicemen were drafted ... Today we have a professional
military. One can get out as soon as there enlistment is up.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days,
Fred Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the
year-long ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the
same time. Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying
experience. But the inexperience didn't prevent Bush - along with
Bradley - from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get
into a program called "Palace Alert." "There were four of us
lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had
more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley." All four
volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush
actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and
himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Bush never served in the real air force. He never served after he got
to Alabama. He was in the FunTime Guard, the Rich Person Guard. They
kept all the riff-raff out of their guard and sent them to Vietnam.
Bush sure wasn't going, to many people shooting at him. Oh, odd isn't
it, Bush never showed up for service in Alabama were he was supposed
to serve. He never took a drug test. He deserted but your good buddy
says that Bush was ravenous to serve and kill those commies but
there's no paper work. Yeah, thats how that works. I've heard tons
of ass holes in bars say their going to beat some one up and it always
happened.
Bush was and is a gutless coward.
"Although Bush said he wanted to follow in his dad's
footsteps as a wartime combat pilot, his application
shows he checked the "does not wish to serve overseas"
box."
www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-03.htm


"One of the questions on his application asked if
he wanted to go overseas, and he checked the box,
"do not volunteer."
www.geocities.com/goldeneagle19532003/Bush.html


"Mr. Bush's application for the Guard included a
box to be checked specifying whether he did or did
not volunteer for overseas duty. His includes a
check mark in the box not wanting to volunteer for
such an assignment."
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070876/posts


"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html


"When the president filled out his enlistment papers,
those forms included a checkbox asking whether he wanted
to serve overseas or not. The president checked off the
box labeled “I Do Not” volunteer to serve overseas."
www.hillnews.com/marshall/022604.aspx
Joe Irvin
2008-07-12 16:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd
get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the
interest of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to
a few individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in
organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string
pulling ...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but
its unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez
fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez
lied. Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed
as a CIA agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went
forward. It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the
Intell Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held
responsible for revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by
the law or not, IMO intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat
operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least
by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the
most in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you
had people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over
backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up
immediately after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out.
I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the
Swift Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress
or the Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether
popular or not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying.
The Swift Boaters would have been lost in the noise if someone
hadn't provided them with the resources necessary to make a big
media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there has been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on,
and probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops
in Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My
Lai) but that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans
against Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To
make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country.
What worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of
Def McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to advise the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.
I'm wondering if you are operating in the real world. Sure Kerry
served and should be respected for that. Bush served in the Tex Air
Nat Guard.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less
popular with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only
had to do one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How
does 4 terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how
to run away.
Vietnam servicemen were drafted ... Today we have a professional
military. One can get out as soon as there enlistment is up.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days,
Fred Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the
year-long ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the
same time. Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying
experience. But the inexperience didn't prevent Bush - along with
Bradley - from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get
into a program called "Palace Alert." "There were four of us
lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had
more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley." All four
volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush
actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and
himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Bush never served in the real air force. He never served after he got
to Alabama. He was in the FunTime Guard, the Rich Person Guard. They
kept all the riff-raff out of their guard and sent them to Vietnam.
Bush sure wasn't going, to many people shooting at him. Oh, odd isn't
it, Bush never showed up for service in Alabama were he was supposed
to serve. He never took a drug test. He deserted but your good buddy
says that Bush was ravenous to serve and kill those commies but
there's no paper work. Yeah, thats how that works. I've heard tons
of ass holes in bars say their going to beat some one up and it always
happened.
Bush was and is a gutless coward.
"Although Bush said he wanted to follow in his dad's
footsteps as a wartime combat pilot, his application
shows he checked the "does not wish to serve overseas"
box."
www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-03.htm
This means nothing ... you serve where they put you at a particular job they
need you at. One serves at the pleasure of the particular service you are
in. If one got to chose where they wanted to serve do you think say, Thule
Greenland would have a problem competing with Hickam Air force base Hawaii
... no matter what one checks they serve where they are posted or at least
they use to.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"One of the questions on his application asked if
he wanted to go overseas, and he checked the box,
"do not volunteer."
www.geocities.com/goldeneagle19532003/Bush.html
As I said above the particular branch of service put you where they need you
... at least that was the way they did it for enlisted men.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"Mr. Bush's application for the Guard included a
box to be checked specifying whether he did or did
not volunteer for overseas duty. His includes a
check mark in the box not wanting to volunteer for
such an assignment."
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070876/posts
Well that is at odds with what I have read ... keep in mind he could have
changed his mind.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"When the president filled out his enlistment papers,
those forms included a checkbox asking whether he wanted
to serve overseas or not. The president checked off the
box labeled "I Do Not" volunteer to serve overseas."
www.hillnews.com/marshall/022604.aspx
Got it. See above.
Mitchell Holman
2008-07-12 19:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........



Mitchell Holman

"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Joe Irvin
2008-07-12 20:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........
I've already said Bush got favorable treatment like others who were in the
same Texas Air Guard unit.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there is
some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the same
squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times, "Our Texas Air
National Guard lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's
tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
was risking one's life.
"These critics point to an apparent gap near the end of Bush's fighter-pilot
duty, after he had moved from Texas to Alabama and served in the Alabama
National Guard. Was he a "deserter," as Moore claims? No, Bush was honorably
discharged. Did he go AWOL, as McAuliffe alleges? While McAuliffe and other
critics offered no evidence, the White House and Republican Party left this
chestnut from the 2000 campaign unresolved until now, finally scrambling to
dig out 30-year-old military documents and releasing pay and accreditation
records from Bush's "missing" times of service."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363774/pg_2
Mitchell Holman
2008-07-12 21:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........
I've already said Bush got favorable treatment like others who were in
the same Texas Air Guard unit.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there is
some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the
same squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times, "Our
Texas Air National Guard lost several planes right there in Houston
during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of
those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
"Compared to all its fighter squadron peers,
the F-102 was not only not the "widowmaker"
but in fact a very safe aircraft for its time.
Even when you only count pilot fatalities, per
hour flown the F-102 was far safer than any of
the other major USAF combat aircraft in this
period, and comparable to the C-130, a four-
engined transport plane."
www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2004_02_24.html



"The F-102A's overall safety record (including all SEA losses)
was also impressive. In more than 14 years of operation, only
16 percent of the F-102A total force, or less than 140 aircraft
were lost in flying accidents. A minimal number of ground
accidents occurred, bringing total F-102A operational losses to
141 as of 30 June 1971."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.htm
Joe Irvin
2008-07-12 22:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........
I've already said Bush got favorable treatment like others who were in
the same Texas Air Guard unit.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there is
some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the
same squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times, "Our
Texas Air National Guard lost several planes right there in Houston
during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of
those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
"Compared to all its fighter squadron peers,
the F-102 was not only not the "widowmaker"
but in fact a very safe aircraft for its time.
Even when you only count pilot fatalities, per
hour flown the F-102 was far safer than any of
the other major USAF combat aircraft in this
period, and comparable to the C-130, a four-
engined transport plane."
www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2004_02_24.html
What is your point that Bush was a coward. Serving in the military as a
pilot is a relatively dangerous job ... no its not as dangerous as flying
combat missions, but a dangerous job. This was point that was trying to be
made. Bush didn't get to chose his air craft ... he flew what the Texas
Air Guard had. You want to call him a coward because he didn't fly whatever
you think is the most dangerous aircraft ... ok.
Post by Mitchell Holman
"The F-102A's overall safety record (including all SEA losses)
was also impressive. In more than 14 years of operation, only
16 percent of the F-102A total force, or less than 140 aircraft
were lost in flying accidents. A minimal number of ground
accidents occurred, bringing total F-102A operational losses to
141 as of 30 June 1971."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.htm
To bad Bush didn't chose to fly an aircraft with a higher loss record ...
I'm sure the Texas Air Guard or his father would have seen to it that he
could. By the way what is your point ... flying military aircraft is a day
at the beach.
Mitchell Holman
2008-07-12 23:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........
I've already said Bush got favorable treatment like others who were in
the same Texas Air Guard unit.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there
is some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in
the same squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times,
"Our Texas Air National Guard lost several planes right there in
Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on
one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
"Compared to all its fighter squadron peers,
the F-102 was not only not the "widowmaker"
but in fact a very safe aircraft for its time.
Even when you only count pilot fatalities, per
hour flown the F-102 was far safer than any of
the other major USAF combat aircraft in this
period, and comparable to the C-130, a four-
engined transport plane."
www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2004_02_24.html
What is your point that Bush was a coward.
Bush claimed to support the Vietnam War, but
when HE was eligible for the draft he ducked out
in a cushy stateside Guard unit that already had
more applicants than it needed. Fact.
Post by Joe Irvin
Serving in the military as a
pilot is a relatively dangerous job ... no its not as dangerous as
flying combat missions, but a dangerous job. This was point that was
trying to be made. Bush didn't get to chose his air craft ... he flew
what the Texas Air Guard had. You want to call him a coward because he
didn't fly whatever you think is the most dangerous aircraft ... ok.
Bush evaded serving in the war he supported. Fact.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"The F-102A's overall safety record (including all SEA losses)
was also impressive. In more than 14 years of operation, only
16 percent of the F-102A total force, or less than 140 aircraft
were lost in flying accidents. A minimal number of ground
accidents occurred, bringing total F-102A operational losses to
141 as of 30 June 1971."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.htm
To bad Bush didn't chose to fly an aircraft with a higher loss record
... I'm sure the Texas Air Guard or his father would have seen to it
that he could. By the way what is your point ... flying military
aircraft is a day at the beach.
Wonder who got sent to Vietnam because Bush took his
place in line at the TANG. Did he make it back, do you think?



"According to the exhaustively researched investigation
published on July 4 by the Los Angeles Times, young Bush
was jumped over a long waiting list of applicants to the
Texas Air National Guard in 1968.
"Bush, on the other hand, received a score of 25 percent
on a pilot aptitude test, yet passed over a waiting list
of more than 500 in gaining a coveted Air National Guard
commission. Ben Barnes, speaker of the Texas House in 1968,
admitted in a sworn deposition in 1999 that he had made
calls to Guard officials on Bush's behalf at the behest of
a Bush family friend."
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v105/fa/n030/
opinion/opn.welch.html
Joe Irvin
2008-07-13 00:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........
I've already said Bush got favorable treatment like others who were in
the same Texas Air Guard unit.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there
is some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in
the same squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times,
"Our Texas Air National Guard lost several planes right there in
Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on
one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.
"Compared to all its fighter squadron peers,
the F-102 was not only not the "widowmaker"
but in fact a very safe aircraft for its time.
Even when you only count pilot fatalities, per
hour flown the F-102 was far safer than any of
the other major USAF combat aircraft in this
period, and comparable to the C-130, a four-
engined transport plane."
www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2004_02_24.html
What is your point that Bush was a coward.
Bush claimed to support the Vietnam War, but
when HE was eligible for the draft he ducked out
in a cushy stateside Guard unit that already had
more applicants than it needed. Fact.
So what. He could support the war and not serve in the war. He put himself
in a 'cushy stateside Guard unit that was available for service if called.
I've post where three of his friends said that they volunteered for a
program to get them to Vietnam: "But the inexperience didn't prevent Bush -
along with Bradley - from going to their squadron leaders to see if they
could get into a program called "Palace Alert." "There were four of us
lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more
flight time than the president and me, said Bradley." All four volunteered
for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush actually signed
paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get
into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away,
and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam."
http://www.nationalreview.com:80/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Serving in the military as a
pilot is a relatively dangerous job ... no its not as dangerous as
flying combat missions, but a dangerous job. This was point that was
trying to be made. Bush didn't get to chose his air craft ... he flew
what the Texas Air Guard had. You want to call him a coward because he
didn't fly whatever you think is the most dangerous aircraft ... ok.
Bush evaded serving in the war he supported. Fact.
So did other people. That doesn't mean he didn't support the war. He
served in the Texas Air National Guard. If what his three friends said
above is true he did volunteer for Vietnam. Whether he served in Vietnam or
not he still served in the military or don't you count the National Guard as
military. What is your point? Do you think Bush was a coward? If you
think he was a coward why not just call him a coward ... quit implying it
and call him a coward if that is what you believe. Since we have a all
volunteer military now in the future they will probably be presidents who
supported wars and didn't serve in them ... will they also be by implication
cowards? Nothing in the Constitution says military service is required for
the office of Prez.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"The F-102A's overall safety record (including all SEA losses)
was also impressive. In more than 14 years of operation, only
16 percent of the F-102A total force, or less than 140 aircraft
were lost in flying accidents. A minimal number of ground
accidents occurred, bringing total F-102A operational losses to
141 as of 30 June 1971."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-102a-ops.htm
To bad Bush didn't chose to fly an aircraft with a higher loss record
... I'm sure the Texas Air Guard or his father would have seen to it
that he could. By the way what is your point ... flying military
aircraft is a day at the beach.
Wonder who got sent to Vietnam because Bush took his
place in line at the TANG. Did he make it back, do you think?
What if Bush place in line meant being sent to Korea or serving in Europe
... we did have troops there and all over the world. Sorry you assuption
doesn't work ... its something we can't know, but nice implication. Say
what you mean why don't you?
Post by Mitchell Holman
"According to the exhaustively researched investigation
published on July 4 by the Los Angeles Times, young Bush
was jumped over a long waiting list of applicants to the
Texas Air National Guard in 1968.
"Bush, on the other hand, received a score of 25 percent
on a pilot aptitude test, yet passed over a waiting list
of more than 500 in gaining a coveted Air National Guard
commission. Ben Barnes, speaker of the Texas House in 1968,
admitted in a sworn deposition in 1999 that he had made
calls to Guard officials on Bush's behalf at the behest of
a Bush family friend."
Been over that Bro, I've agreed that Bush got favorable treatment. The
whole Texas Air Guard was full of people who got favorable treatment. That
is undisputable.
Post by Mitchell Holman
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v105/fa/n030/
opinion/opn.welch.html
Gary DeWaay
2008-07-24 18:01:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@216.196.97.131>, ***@comcast.com
Mitchell Holman says...
Post by Mitchell Holman
Wonder who got sent to Vietnam because Bush took his
place in line at the TANG. Did he make it back, do you think?
Knowing righties... this is a stupid question. Why would they care?
Post by Mitchell Holman
"According to the exhaustively researched investigation
published on July 4 by the Los Angeles Times, young Bush
was jumped over a long waiting list of applicants to the
Texas Air National Guard in 1968.
"Bush, on the other hand, received a score of 25 percent
on a pilot aptitude test, yet passed over a waiting list
of more than 500 in gaining a coveted Air National Guard
commission. Ben Barnes, speaker of the Texas House in 1968,
admitted in a sworn deposition in 1999 that he had made
calls to Guard officials on Bush's behalf at the behest of
a Bush family friend."
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/issues/v105/fa/n030/
opinion/opn.welch.html
Knowing righties... this is perfectly acceptable, and just the way
things work in life.

There are "steppers" and "steppies"... as long as they are the steppers,
the steppies are irrelevant.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-13 18:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Mitchell Holman
"On his Guard application, the future president checked
a box saying he did "not" want to be considered for
overseas deployment."
www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/05_moore.html
A person who enlishs in the service goes where they want to put you.
Unless you are the son of a sitting Republican
Congressman named Bush, who is free to disappear
from duty assignments at will..........
I've already said Bush got favorable treatment like others who were in the
same Texas Air Guard unit.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Mitchell Holman
"And after releasing the records, the White House press
secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush
appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's
superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at
his Houston air base for the previous 12 months."
Boston Globe 2/11/2004
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there is
some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the same
squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times, "Our Texas Air
National Guard lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's
tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
was risking one's life.
"These critics point to an apparent gap near the end of Bush's fighter-pilot
duty, after he had moved from Texas to Alabama and served in the Alabama
National Guard. Was he a "deserter," as Moore claims? No, Bush was honorably
discharged. Did he go AWOL, as McAuliffe alleges? While McAuliffe and other
critics offered no evidence, the White House and Republican Party left this
chestnut from the 2000 campaign unresolved until now, finally scrambling to
dig out 30-year-old military documents and releasing pay and accreditation
records from Bush's "missing" times of service."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363...
Poor pathetic fool. You think there is a one to one correlation
between the way most people were treated during the Vietnam war and
the way the rich got treated. Sorry, no cigar. Bush was treated with
the dignity that wealth brings. He was a drunk, stoned little creep
but his daddy had tons and tons of money and he was willing to spread
it around to the undeserving.

Do you really think (I use the term loosely) that Bush was treated
like Pfc. (any name)? Do you think Bush was treated the same as an
African-American soldier?
T***@mailcity.com
2008-07-24 05:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there is
some good reason. "Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the same
squadron, wrote in a Feb. 11 letter to the Washington Times, "Our Texas Air
National Guard lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's
tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s
was risking one's life.
"These critics point to an apparent gap near the end of Bush's fighter-pilot
duty, after he had moved from Texas to Alabama and served in the Alabama
National Guard. Was he a "deserter," as Moore claims? No, Bush was honorably
discharged. Did he go AWOL, as McAuliffe alleges? While McAuliffe and other
critics offered no evidence, the White House and Republican Party left this
chestnut from the 2000 campaign unresolved until now, finally scrambling to
dig out 30-year-old military documents and releasing pay and accreditation
records from Bush's "missing" times of service."
But, but Dan Blather had documents to prove it all. LOL!!!
Post by Joe Irvin
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2004_March_1/ai_113363...
Justin Case
2008-07-24 18:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@mailcity.com
But, but Dan Blather had documents to prove it all. LOL!!!
Sure but we know that he's an honest, non-biased, upright reporter.
Not.
--
Gary DeWaay
2008-07-24 18:10:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@comporium.net>, ***@sccoast.net
Joe Irvin says...
Post by Joe Irvin
Bro, you don't get an honorable discharge for going AWOL unless there is
some good reason.
Uhh.. his daddy being a Senator isn't a "good" reason?

Joe Irvin
2008-07-12 16:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get
advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest
of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their
power
or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a
reasonably
safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez
fairly
well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward.
It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat
operations
were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the
people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most
in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over
backwards
to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not
have
any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have
tried
to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before
this
is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there
has
been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai)
but
that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country.
What
worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of Def
McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to
advise
the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.
I'm wondering if you are operating in the real world. Sure Kerry served and
should be respected for that. Bush served in the Tex Air Nat Guard.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less popular
with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only had to do
one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How does 4
terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how to run
away.
Vietnam servicemen were drafted ... Today we have a professional military.
One can get out as soon as there enlistment is up.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long
ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both
were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the
inexperience didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their
squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace
Alert." "There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all
fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me,
said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember
whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers
both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.)
Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Bush never served in the real air force.
Bush served in the Texas Air Guard. If Air Nat Guard units are activated
into regular service they become part of the USAF.

He never served after he got
Post by Kevin Cunningham
to Alabama. He was in the FunTime Guard, the Rich Person Guard. They
kept all the riff-raff out of their guard and sent them to Vietnam.
Bush sure wasn't going, to many people shooting at him. Oh, odd isn't
it, Bush never showed up for service in Alabama were he was supposed
to serve. He never took a drug test. He deserted but your good buddy
says that Bush was ravenous to serve and kill those commies but
there's no paper work. Yeah, thats how that works. I've heard tons
of ass holes in bars say their going to beat some one up and it always
happened.
Bush was and is a gutless coward.
I'm not going to change your mind ... I recognized the fact that Bush got
favorable treatment by joining a unit for people with pull/juice who wanted
to avoid the draft. He has been vetted when he served as Gov of Texas and
Prez of the US. He's had friends in the his unit speak favorably of him. I
don't claim to know everything about his early adulthood, but am satisfied
that he has been vetted to hold the offices he has and does hold.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Oh, and then their the drugs. Your hero had an affection for coke,
dope and booze.
I denied none of this ... from what I've read he did have these problems in
his early adulthood.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-13 18:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get
advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest
of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their
power
or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a
reasonably
safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez
fairly
well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Oh, I'm willing to believe that three people who knew this Prez lied.
Ask Joe Wilson (the former ambassador whose wife was outed as a CIA
agent) :-).
This was a non event to me ... it should have never happened ... Mr
Fitzgerald knew before hand who the leaker was and still went forward.
It
was also questionable of whether his wife was protected under the Intell
Identities Protection Act ... no one was every held responsible for
revealing her identity. Whether she was covered by the law or not, IMO
intell people shouldn't be revealed.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat
operations
were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the
people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I
think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most
in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over
backwards
to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not
have
any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have
tried
to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before
this
is
politics.
Not really - we didn't do that in the past. It's a more recent
development in how our political campaigns are run. Some of the Swift
Boaters had a grudge because Kerry testified before Congress or the
Senate and told the truth about what was going on. Whether popular or
not, Kerry did the responsible thing by testifying. The Swift Boaters
would have been lost in the noise if someone hadn't provided them with
the resources necessary to make a big media splash.
Dirty tricks and the such have been going on about as long as there
has
been
political parties ... Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming early on, and
probably the biggest Nixon and Watergate.
Don't you think Kerry was a little over the top comparing US troops in
Vietnam with G. Khan. I know there are atrocities in war, (My Lai)
but
that
is true in all wars. This statement I think turned most veterans against
Kerry and it continues to this day to alienate people. To make a statement
like that I think that Kerry should have had a little longer tour in
country. Over all the hearing were probably good for the country.
What
worried me most is the handling of the war by LBJ and Sec of Def
McNamara.
McNamara had lost confidence in winning the war and continued to
advise
the
Prez ... he should have resigned. This war was micromanaged from the DOD.
All thats is water under the bridge now.
What your to gutless to say is that Kerry served and your
administration was gutless draft dodgers.
I'm wondering if you are operating in the real world. Sure Kerry served and
should be respected for that. Bush served in the Tex Air Nat Guard.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There are darn few vets who have any admiration for the Vietnam War.
The war was wildly unpopular with the American people and less popular
with the vets. In Vietnam the only good thing was you only had to do
one tour before coming home and shedding the uniform. How does 4
terms in Iraq sound. Serving a coward president who knew how to run
away.
Vietnam servicemen were drafted ... Today we have a professional military.
One can get out as soon as there enlistment is up.
Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred
Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long
ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both
were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the
inexperience didn't prevent Bush - along with Bradley - from going to their
squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called "Palace
Alert." "There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all
fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me,
said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember
whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers
both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.)
Bush
and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to
Vietnam."http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200402190855.asp
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Kerry served. The Swiftboaters were filth, bought and paid for.
Bush never served in the real air force.
Bush served in the Texas Air Guard. If Air Nat Guard units are activated
into regular service they become part of the USAF.
He never served after he got
Post by Kevin Cunningham
to Alabama. He was in the FunTime Guard, the Rich Person Guard. They
kept all the riff-raff out of their guard and sent them to Vietnam.
Bush sure wasn't going, to many people shooting at him. Oh, odd isn't
it, Bush never showed up for service in Alabama were he was supposed
to serve. He never took a drug test. He deserted but your good buddy
says that Bush was ravenous to serve and kill those commies but
there's no paper work. Yeah, thats how that works. I've heard tons
of ass holes in bars say their going to beat some one up and it always
happened.
Bush was and is a gutless coward.
I'm not going to change your mind ... I recognized the fact that Bush got
favorable treatment by joining a unit for people with pull/juice who wanted
to avoid the draft. He has been vetted when he served as Gov of Texas and
Prez of the US. He's had friends in the his unit speak favorably of him. I
don't claim to know everything about his early adulthood, but am satisfied
that he has been vetted to hold the offices he has and does hold.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Oh, and then their the drugs. Your hero had an affection for coke,
dope and booze.
I denied none of this ... from what I've read he did have these problems in
his early adulthood.
Yeah, Bush joined the FunTime Guard. He ran rapidly from the war.
There was no chance that he'd get sent to Vietnam as Kerry did. He's
a profound coward. He signed up but he didn't have to do any of the
soldier stuff. And when he wanted to he left the FunTime Guard.

He's a coward as is Cheney and Rove. And he's your little hero.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-11 17:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or the Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile people it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
I agree.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think it was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush. Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-11 18:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile
people
it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
I agree.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
Bill Z.
2008-07-11 19:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
The rules for how the National Guard is controlled changed since the 1960s
to prevent things like champagne units from functioning as such, but even
then, champagne units were hardly representative of the National Guard.

When you have a unit that consists of a number of future prominent
politicians, and seven or so members of a major football team, it is
pretty obvious that a few people are getting a special deal.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-11 20:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
The rules for how the National Guard is controlled changed since the 1960s
to prevent things like champagne units from functioning as such, but even
then, champagne units were hardly representative of the National Guard.
When you have a unit that consists of a number of future prominent
politicians, and seven or so members of a major football team, it is
pretty obvious that a few people are getting a special deal.
I've never argued that Bush didn't get special treatment by getting into the
Texas Air National Guard ... of course he did along with the others you
point out. I took issue with what Mr Cunningham implied about the Nationa
Guard ... "Bush never served in the real armed forces" Just because Bush
may have gotten favorable treatment in this particular unit does not mean
that all National Guard units are not part of the 'real armed forces.'
National Guard units are/have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say they
are not the 'real armed forces' is a slam on every member of the National
Guard that has ever served. I have no problem with people being against the
war ... there are arguments for/agaist getting involved in Iraq. But Mr
Cunningham's lack of knowledge about our involvement against the Islamic
jihadist would fill libraries.
Bill Z.
2008-07-11 20:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
I've never argued that Bush didn't get special treatment by getting into the
Texas Air National Guard ... of course he did along with the others you
point out. I took issue with what Mr Cunningham implied about the Nationa
Guard ... "Bush never served in the real armed forces"
I interpreted his comment as meaning that a champagne unit is not the
real armed forces, but maybe he can clarify it if he thinks that is
ncessary.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-11 21:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
I've never argued that Bush didn't get special treatment by getting into the
Texas Air National Guard ... of course he did along with the others you
point out. I took issue with what Mr Cunningham implied about the Nationa
Guard ... "Bush never served in the real armed forces"
I interpreted his comment as meaning that a champagne unit is not the
real armed forces, but maybe he can clarify it if he thinks that is
ncessary.
Maybe he will clarify ... if I took it the wrong way I will apologize.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-12 14:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
The rules for how the National Guard is controlled changed since the 1960s
to prevent things like champagne units from functioning as such, but even
then, champagne units were hardly representative of the National Guard.
When you have a unit that consists of a number of future prominent
politicians, and seven or so members of a major football team, it is
pretty obvious that a few people are getting a special deal.
I've never argued that Bush didn't get special treatment by getting into the
Texas Air National Guard ... of course he did along with the others you
point out. I took issue with what Mr Cunningham implied about the Nationa
Guard ... "Bush never served in the real armed forces" Just because Bush
may have gotten favorable treatment in this particular unit does not mean
that all National Guard units are not part of the 'real armed forces.'
National Guard units are/have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say they
are not the 'real armed forces' is a slam on every member of the National
Guard that has ever served. I have no problem with people being against the
war ... there are arguments for/agaist getting involved in Iraq. But Mr
Cunningham's lack of knowledge about our involvement against the Islamic
jihadist would fill libraries.
And you don't know what I said. I said that Bush joined the FunTime
Guard, I stand by that statement and I mean it. Bush was coddled and
protected by the FunTime Guard. Now were did I say a thing about
service in the National Guard? Come on, coward, lets see some cites.
Of course like any conservative you won't answer when your called on
your lies.

A typical right wing trick. Use the thing next to the thing I said to
attack me. That one's been used since the good ole Nazi days. How
you must miss those happy times.

Oh, and once again, you use the term "jihadi" when you have no idea of
what your talking about. You just like pretty, good sounding words.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-12 17:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are
not
in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can
vote
and
know so little about you country.
The rules for how the National Guard is controlled changed since the 1960s
to prevent things like champagne units from functioning as such, but even
then, champagne units were hardly representative of the National Guard.
When you have a unit that consists of a number of future prominent
politicians, and seven or so members of a major football team, it is
pretty obvious that a few people are getting a special deal.
I've never argued that Bush didn't get special treatment by getting into the
Texas Air National Guard ... of course he did along with the others you
point out. I took issue with what Mr Cunningham implied about the Nationa
Guard ... "Bush never served in the real armed forces" Just because Bush
may have gotten favorable treatment in this particular unit does not mean
that all National Guard units are not part of the 'real armed forces.'
National Guard units are/have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say they
are not the 'real armed forces' is a slam on every member of the National
Guard that has ever served. I have no problem with people being against the
war ... there are arguments for/agaist getting involved in Iraq. But Mr
Cunningham's lack of knowledge about our involvement against the Islamic
jihadist would fill libraries.
And you don't know what I said. I said that Bush joined the FunTime
Guard, I stand by that statement and I mean it.
There is no branch of the service named "Fun Time Guard" ... that was a
nickname of the unit he was in, in the Texas Air National Guard. So you are
incorrect. As I said he was in the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush was coddled and
Post by Kevin Cunningham
protected by the FunTime Guard. Now were did I say a thing about
service in the National Guard? Come on, coward, lets see some cites.
You don't even know the basics to be arguing anything. There is no FunTime
Guard ... its a nickname of his unit in among other nick names, I think
Champaign, it was the Texas National Guard. A cite is the paragraph I'm
responding to "... protected by the FunTime Guard" ... a Texas National
Guard Unit.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Of course like any conservative you won't answer when your called on
your lies.
I answered right above please reread.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
A typical right wing trick. Use the thing next to the thing I said to
attack me. That one's been used since the good ole Nazi days. How
you must miss those happy times.
Correcting your errors is not attacking you, its correcting you. You seem
to think there is a branch of the armed forces named "funtime guard" Why
don't you google Bush's Texas National Guard Unit.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Oh, and once again, you use the term "jihadi" when you have no idea of
what your talking about. You just like pretty, good sounding words.
Sure I do. Jihadi to the peaceful Muslim means a a personal struggle or
striving in an attempt to follow God. The four of five pillars of Islam,
praying regularly, fasting during Ramadan, being charitble, making a
pilgramage to Mecca. That of course is for the peaceful Muslim. Then there
is the violent struggle jihad that I talk about ... expanding Islam
throughout the world by force and bringing the world under Muslim law
(Sharia law) ... I call them what they call themselves, Islamic Jihadists.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-13 18:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are
not
in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can
vote
and
know so little about you country.
The rules for how the National Guard is controlled changed since the 1960s
to prevent things like champagne units from functioning as such, but even
then, champagne units were hardly representative of the National Guard.
When you have a unit that consists of a number of future prominent
politicians, and seven or so members of a major football team, it is
pretty obvious that a few people are getting a special deal.
I've never argued that Bush didn't get special treatment by getting into the
Texas Air National Guard ... of course he did along with the others you
point out. I took issue with what Mr Cunningham implied about the Nationa
Guard ... "Bush never served in the real armed forces" Just because Bush
may have gotten favorable treatment in this particular unit does not mean
that all National Guard units are not part of the 'real armed forces.'
National Guard units are/have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. To say they
are not the 'real armed forces' is a slam on every member of the National
Guard that has ever served. I have no problem with people being against the
war ... there are arguments for/agaist getting involved in Iraq. But Mr
Cunningham's lack of knowledge about our involvement against the Islamic
jihadist would fill libraries.
And you don't know what I said. I said that Bush joined the FunTime
Guard, I stand by that statement and I mean it.
There is no branch of the service named "Fun Time Guard" ... that was a
nickname of the unit he was in, in the Texas Air National Guard. So you are
incorrect. As I said he was in the Texas Air National Guard.
Bush was coddled and
Post by Kevin Cunningham
protected by the FunTime Guard. Now were did I say a thing about
service in the National Guard? Come on, coward, lets see some cites.
You don't even know the basics to be arguing anything. There is no FunTime
Guard ... its a nickname of his unit in among other nick names, I think
Champaign, it was the Texas National Guard. A cite is the paragraph I'm
responding to "... protected by the FunTime Guard" ... a Texas National
Guard Unit.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Of course like any conservative you won't answer when your called on
your lies.
I answered right above please reread.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
A typical right wing trick. Use the thing next to the thing I said to
attack me. That one's been used since the good ole Nazi days. How
you must miss those happy times.
Correcting your errors is not attacking you, its correcting you. You seem
to think there is a branch of the armed forces named "funtime guard" Why
don't you google Bush's Texas National Guard Unit.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Oh, and once again, you use the term "jihadi" when you have no idea of
what your talking about. You just like pretty, good sounding words.
Sure I do. Jihadi to the peaceful Muslim means a a personal struggle or
striving in an attempt to follow God. The four of five pillars of Islam,
praying regularly, fasting during Ramadan, being charitble, making a
pilgramage to Mecca. That of course is for the peaceful Muslim. Then there
is the violent struggle jihad that I talk about ... expanding Islam
throughout the world by force and bringing the world under Muslim law
(Sharia law) ... I call them what they call themselves, Islamic Jihadists.
Sharai law is the same in use as the Hebrew or Rabinate courts are to
the Jews. They have no existence in either the Koran or the Torah.
If you are an orthodox jew doing business with other orthodox it is
common to include a codicile in each contract so that the religious
court will be used. If you are a devote member of the al-Islam in
Turkey it is required that you take any contractual complaint to the
civil courts, in other countries they use the Sharia courts. Jihadi
is a made up word.

By the way, I made up FunTime Guard all on my own. I'm not smart
enough to have actually looked it up.

Let me make it plain. Bush evaded the draft using rich kids tools.
Back in those days the rich used some guard units to shield precious
little Bobbie or George so they wouldn't get their brains blown out
all over Vietnam. The next level of rich kids got deferments. Then
there was the rest of us.

Bush is a lying coward. He served in the FunTime Guard and you know
it.
Gary DeWaay
2008-07-24 18:08:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <a18f2ed3-71b0-43c0-950e-
***@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, ***@mindspring.com Kevin
Cunningham says...
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Let me make it plain. Bush evaded the draft using rich kids tools.
Back in those days the rich used some guard units to shield precious
little Bobbie or George so they wouldn't get their brains blown out
all over Vietnam. The next level of rich kids got deferments. Then
there was the rest of us.
Plus it looks better on your resume than a deferment... why a person can
even become President with a little help from his friends losing some
embarrassing papers.

Did anyone ever collect on that million dollar prize if they could
document that Bush was actually in the ANG during a specific period of
time? Or maybe I am thinking of something else.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-12 14:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings without them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest of the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling ... we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile
people
it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
I agree.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was pointing out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of more or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be surprising if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most in his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
Poor gutless coward. Times have changed. Why don't you talk to some
of our soldiers who have served in Iraq and had stop loss orders
written on them? They are slaves. They can't get out. The stop loss
order means they are in for the duration. Your not. You never signed
up.

Gutless coward.

So tell us, coward, how many people in the administration served? How
about Cheney? Wanna talk some Cheney?

Why don't you ask the troops who served in Iraq what they think of the
war? They hate this war worse than the average citizen.
Joe Irvin
2008-07-12 17:31:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest
of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in
organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily
well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the
well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile
people
it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
I agree.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was
pointing
out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of
more
or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be
surprising
if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most
in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
Poor gutless coward. Times have changed. Why don't you talk to some
of our soldiers who have served in Iraq and had stop loss orders
written on them? They are slaves. They can't get out. The stop loss
order means they are in for the duration. Your not. You never signed
up.
Times haven't changed. The military has always been able to extend people
during wartime. They've always been able to extend an enlistment when the
military occupational speciality/skill is in need. At least they use to.
Sorry bro, I've been in and out of the military. I have a brother that
served for over 20 years.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Gutless coward.
So tell us, coward, how many people in the administration served? How
about Cheney? Wanna talk some Cheney?
Cheney didn't serve. Its not a requirement of VP or Prez to serve in the
military. IMO, its an asset to and priviledge to serve. Why do I have to
talk about Cheney ... he got a deferrment like many people did. He probably
had some pull/juice but to my knowledge he broke no laws. I don't hold it
against anyone who didn't serve.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Why don't you ask the troops who served in Iraq what they think of the
war? They hate this war worse than the average citizen.
I've talked to a few ... I've not talked to one who has said they hated it.
If they hate the war why join up? War is not a popular event.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-13 18:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
If they were being brash, their parents could pull strings
without
them
knowing about it. If they were being manipulative, they'd get advice
from someone.
But their parents power isn't unlimited ... Its not to the interest
of
the
Texas Air Guard and the people continually exercising their power or
the
Air
Guard loses all credibility as a military unit.
The people exercising the power will be seen as bullies.
Except, of course, strings would be pulled only with regard to a few
individuals, not for the vast majority of the people in organization.
This could be, but that doesn't mean we are in on the string pulling
...
we
have to speculate unless there is some direct evidence. The only direct
evidence I know of is the Texas Air Guard shielded politically connected
people because there were so many in this unit. That is a reasonably safe
conclusion. As for his friends we can take it or leave it, but its
unlikely, at least for me that three people who knew the Prez fairly well
all lied. That's a leap I'm not willing to take.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
Also, not everyone in a champagne unit is necessarily well-connected
politically - one way of setting such a unit up is to take some small
podunk town, with a necessarily short waiting list, get the
well-connected
guys to get on that waiting list, and then drain the queue. You get
all the well-connected guys into your champagne unit plus a few
nobodies,
but there is no paper trail indicating that anyone pulled strings.
But this Texas Air Guard unit was notorious for the high profile
people
it
was shielding from the draft.
Yep - the chances of having such a collection of people in one unit is
vanishingly small.
I agree.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Joe Irvin
Post by Bill Z.
While I predicated the remarks on being cynical (so I was
pointing
out
what one might say, not making a statement of fact regarding any
individual's motives), one might note the charges the Republicans
made
about John Kerry's military service where they accused him of
more
or
less signing up to puff up his resume while avoiding anything really
risky. And he was in the navy, not a champagne unit. It tells you
how some of the Republicans think, so it would hardly be
surprising
if
they came up with it by asking what they would have done. :-)
Kerry's Vietnam service should be respected. Swift boat operations were
dangerous. IMO, his military service was respected, at least by the
people
of Mass. or he couldn't have gotten elected and re-elected. I think
it
was
his testimony against US troops in Vietnam that hurt him the most
in
his
Prez bid.
That may have been the stated reason, but keep in mind that you had
people like Karl Rove, and one of them probably bent over backwards to
encourage the Swift Boaters, who unsuprisingly shut up immediately
after the election.
Isn't this politics as usual ... have surrogates attack and not have any
culpability ... both sides do this. Karl Rove was loyal to Bush.
Loyalty
is an asset for a politician to help get his agenda carried out. I don't
know if Rove was responsible for the Swift Boaters, they seemed to have a
previous history with Mr Kerry. I'm sure Mr Rove wouldn't have tried to
call them off, or even if it was his job to call them off ... he probably
enjoyed it if he thought it gave Bush a leg up. As I said before this is
politics.
Rove ran Bush. Bush never served in the real armed forces. He was in
a champagne unit, a term used since WWI.
Tell servicemen who are in National Guard units today that they are not in
the 'real armed forces.' Its a shame that people like yourself can vote and
know so little about you country.
Poor gutless coward. Times have changed. Why don't you talk to some
of our soldiers who have served in Iraq and had stop loss orders
written on them? They are slaves. They can't get out. The stop loss
order means they are in for the duration. Your not. You never signed
up.
Times haven't changed. The military has always been able to extend people
during wartime. They've always been able to extend an enlistment when the
military occupational speciality/skill is in need. At least they use to.
Sorry bro, I've been in and out of the military. I have a brother that
served for over 20 years.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Gutless coward.
So tell us, coward, how many people in the administration served? How
about Cheney? Wanna talk some Cheney?
Cheney didn't serve. Its not a requirement of VP or Prez to serve in the
military. IMO, its an asset to and priviledge to serve. Why do I have to
talk about Cheney ... he got a deferrment like many people did. He probably
had some pull/juice but to my knowledge he broke no laws. I don't hold it
against anyone who didn't serve.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Why don't you ask the troops who served in Iraq what they think of the
war? They hate this war worse than the average citizen.
I've talked to a few ... I've not talked to one who has said they hated it.
If they hate the war why join up? War is not a popular event.
What a fool! Your to gutless to point out that Cheney and Rove got
deferments that they never were supposed to get. In the first draft
class every one in American in the right age group was in the draft.
Supposedly no if, ands or buts. However clever guys like Rove and
Cheney got deferments.

Get used to dealing with the facts.

Your leaders are cowards.
Justin Case
2008-07-13 19:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
What a fool! Your to gutless to point out that Cheney and Rove
got deferments that they never were supposed to get. In the first
draft class every one in American in the right age group was in
the draft. Supposedly no if, ands or buts. However clever guys
like Rove and Cheney got deferments.
Get used to dealing with the facts.
Your leaders are cowards.
Interesting that you never mentioned that B. Hussein Obama II never
served in the military. Do you consider him as a coward?

--
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-14 11:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin Case
Post by Kevin Cunningham
What a fool! Your to gutless to point out that Cheney and Rove
got deferments that they never were supposed to get. In the first
draft class every one in American in the right age group was in
the draft. Supposedly no if, ands or buts. However clever guys
like Rove and Cheney got deferments.
Get used to dealing with the facts.
Your leaders are cowards.
Interesting that you never mentioned that B. Hussein Obama II never
served in the military. Do you consider him as a coward?
--
Nope, but your president is a coward and your vice president sure is a
coward. The draft hasn't been used in decades but during Vietnam it
sure did. Your gutless creeps used any way they could to evade the
draft but not look like it.

So tell us all why you support gutless cowards?
Justin Case
2008-07-14 18:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
So tell us all why you support gutless cowards?
Your total ignorance of he military clearly demonstrates that you have
not served either.

You must be a coward.

--
Bill Z.
2008-07-14 14:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin Case
Post by Kevin Cunningham
What a fool! Your to gutless to point out that Cheney and Rove
got deferments that they never were supposed to get. In the first
draft class every one in American in the right age group was in
the draft. Supposedly no if, ands or buts. However clever guys
like Rove and Cheney got deferments.
Get used to dealing with the facts.
Your leaders are cowards.
Interesting that you never mentioned that B. Hussein Obama II never
served in the military. Do you consider him as a coward?
Barak Obama was born in 1961, so he would have been elegible for a
draft between 1979 and 1987. Maybe I forgot something about our
history, but the closest thing to war we had during that time was the
U.S. invasion of Grenada where the fighting ended after a few days:
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2003/10grenada.htm>.
According to
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-20-cover-usat_x.htm>,
there wer 19 U.S. combat deaths in Grenada, versus 58,203 for the
Vietnam war, whch went from 1964 to 1973.

Meanwhile <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#Vietnam_War_draft>
points out that

When Cheney became eligible for the draft, he was a supporter
of the Vietnam War but did not serve in the military. Instead,
he applied for and received five draft deferments. In 1989,
The Washington Post writer, George C. Wilson, interviewed
Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his
deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in
the '60s than military service."[15] Cheney testified during
his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments
to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than
four, owing to sub par academic performance and the need to
work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up
because the Selective Service System was only taking older
men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for
four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth
exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10
weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship"
exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent
parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer
eligible for the draft.[16]

Note that Cheney supported the war at the time. It's not like he was
protesting it.
T***@mailcity.com
2008-07-24 05:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Why don't you ask the troops who served in Iraq what they think of the
war? They hate this war worse than the average citizen.
Prove it.

Why don't you gutless coward kevieboy, walk up to an Iraq Vet and tell
him he is just wasting his time in Iraq.
T***@mailcity.com
2008-07-24 05:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
... none of whom were in the champagne units
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?
While it isn't clear that "military types" coined the term, it's clear
that they shared the sentiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_unit
And anyone can write anything in wikipedia whether it is true of
false, and wikipedia gives no source that proves this unit was called
the "champagne unit", just a link to describe what a "champagne unit"
is.
Rudy Canoza
2008-07-12 20:42:34 UTC
Permalink
I think you meant to write "explaining TO a liberal...", but in your
usual haste and slovenliness, you fucked it up.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Stan de SD
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
... none of whom were in the champagne units
Once again, show me where this term "champagne unit" came from. It
wasn't from a military type, was it, Billy?
I wouldn't be surprised if it *was* from a military type, stain. I
think genuine military types - those who weren't desperately trying to
avoid hazardous duty at all costs - had a real and bitter disdain for
those privileged sons of well-connected types who finagled slots in the
National Guard and, to a lesser extent, the Army Reserve. For example,
stain, this is what Gen. Colin Powell had to say about that kind of
soldier in his autobiography: "I am angry that so many sons of the
powerful and well placed and many professional athletes (who were
probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve
and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw
class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that
all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."

Who cares where the term originated, stain? That isn't important, and
you know it. The term accurately describes the non-hazardous,
undemanding assignment. You're quibbling over nothing.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
- a tiny number of
national guard units set up to protect very important people or
their children.
The 111th FS still exists, dipstick
That's nice, stain.
Post by Stan de SD
[snip tediously evasive crapola]
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Stan de SD
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas.
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you.
No Air National Guard pilot was *sent* overseas for combat duty. All
ANG pilots who saw combat in Vietnam volunteered.
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Bill Z.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard>. It
wasn't until 1987 that a "governor cannot withhold consent with regard
to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to
the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty." While the
National Guard participate in the Vietnam War, a governor at the time
could control which divisions were sent there. It wasn't the
champagne division that would go, and it was well known at the time
that the risk of ending up in that war was significantly lower, but
not zero, for members of the National Guard than for members of the
U.S. Army.
Blathering nonsense about which you know nothing about.
We all know enough about Bush's avoidance of combat. We also know
enough about his dereliction of duty.
Kevin Cunningham
2008-07-07 20:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Stan de SD
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Stan de SD
“I’m going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there,” Obama said."
Translation: "I will wait until I get back from Iraq, see which
direction the political wind on Iraq is blowing and then shift my
position for political expediency as many times as necessary."
Any surprise there? All the lefty politicans are happy to blather
about "bringing the troops home" when they are speaking in front of
their pink-pajama moonbat constituents, but not a single one of them
wants to be known as the one who "lost" in Iraq if they pull out
prematurely and the bad guys gain the upper hand. Despite their
appearance of agreement on this issue, the agenda of the Democratic
leadership diverges from the hard-core anti-American left one one
critical detail. While the Code Pink crowd is deliberately pushing for
the military defeat of America, the Democrat party hacks one and ONLY
reason for pushing for troop withdrawal in Iraq was to impose a
political defeat on Bush. Once it became clear that troops weren't
coming home during Bush's term, and that they would be the ones to
take the blame if we puleld out prematurely and Iraq descended into
chaos, their desire for troop withdrawal became a bit less
enthusiatic... :O|
Yeah, you repugs are sooooo patriotic. You gladly line up and cheer
as our troops march of to what ever war. Of course you won't go, your
gutless cowards.
I served as an aircrew member in the Air Force for six years, with
about 2600 hours of flight time and over one million miles over 6
continents. What did you ever do, Kevin?
Post by Kevin Cunningham
When did Bush serve?
If you're not aware that Bush was in the Texas ANG, you're more
clueless than I thought, Kevin.
No, your truthiness is showing. Bush never served, he ran from the
draft and jumped over 97 other cowards to get into the Funtime
National Guard.
Did you know that 9 of the names on the Vietnam Wall are from Air
National Guard pilots killed in combat? Yod do know that ANG
Post by Kevin Cunningham
There is still paper work that Bush filled out were
he checked the box that said he wasn't going over seas.
The choice refers to PREFEENCE of a permanent duty station, not a
promise that he would never go overseas. If the military needs you,
you go where they tell you. I NEVER had a "permanent duty station"
that was overseas yet managed to make it to Japan, Korean, the
Philippines, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Panama, Canada,
England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, and Egypt - as a
RESERVIST. Our reserve wing participated in Grenada, Panama, Desert
Storm, and the Balkans Conflict - and so did a bunch of other Guard
and Reserve units. Just like Bill, you're blathering because you don't
know WTF you were talking about.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Then he left
to go to Alabama were his last known act was to refuse to take a
physical.
Your interpretation.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
He never showed up for any Guard exercises,
He showed up enough to get qualified and log flying time.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
he never
resigned or quit, he just went AWOL.
Sources and cites?
Post by Kevin Cunningham
To think that Bush "served" is insane.
Once again, you don't know WTF you are talking about. That he served
and qualified in the F-102 is well documented. The question had been
whether Bush completed all this attendance/training requirements
during the last couple of years in the ANG. If you are honest enough
to discuss this in a reasonable manner, I will be honest enough to
tell you my assessment. However, if you're going to froth and foam
like an idiot, I'm simply going to point out that you don't have a
clue what you are babbling about.
Hey, get it straight, he never showed up after transferring to
Alabama. Never showed up. Thats fact. Then he deserted. He was a
rich kid in the FunTime National Guard. The fact that many National
Guard troops died in Vietnam should mean something to you. It should
mean that Bush evaded the draft. But he did it with the class that
the rich have, he looked like he was almost serving. He never, ever
got close to the VC, man, those guys would kill you!

You know why he didn't take that physical? Wanna take a guess?
'Cause he smoke and snorted. A lot. And those party poopers wouldn't
let him fly coked up. Have you gotten the facts yet, that Bush was a
druggie? He plain liked coke, thats why he became a christian, to get
of coke.

If you served, I'm happy you did. But that doesn't make you the
historian of the minute. You just plain don't get it. Your being led
around by the nose by a group of cowards. None of them ever served.
The only combat soldier, Colin Powell, got thrown out. Plus he was
sent to do a punch and judy show by Bush's profoundly cynical aids.
See, Bush isn't cynical, Bush is stupid.
Loading...