Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Bush's Service in the ANG (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Bush's Service in the ANG
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Let me ask you this - it is estimated 10,000 or more Iraqis have died from our invasion - are American lives more imporatant than Iraqi lives? That many casulaties in a civilian population - does that not disturb you?
And of course - I can hear you state now that Saddam killed many more - but that was saddam - not us. What gave us the right to be the killers in this instance when we were not directly threatened?

murdok--such arguments are dangerously circular and always invert themselves. One could by the same logic justify never entering the WW2 european theater. Sure, go get Japan, they attacked us. but leave hitler alone, he's done nothing to us and he's just butchering europeans, not americans. Why risk killing innocent civilians before they can get to the gas chambers?

Our foreign policy has essentially reached the point where it's not ok for foreign countries to butcher their own people unless they're african. Lately there have even been some indications that we might put the foot down for them too--though perhaps a bit lightly.

[ February 16, 2004, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]

Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What Kerry said is correct - the war brought out the worst in all of us. I, as a vet, thank him for that. --- Murdock
What Kerry said in the congressional investigation was a gross distortion of the facts and the frequency of whatever atrocities occured. Giap himself talks about how acts such as these gave him and his people the will to continue the fight when they were ready to surrender. Kerry and others pushing the same agends lengthened the war and thus increased the number of casualties.
quote:
... it is estimated 10,000 or more Iraqis have died from our invasion - are American lives more imporatant than Iraqi lives? That many casulaties in a civilian population - does that not disturb you? --- Murdock

Civilian casualties during war is disturbing regardless of number. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Where are these estimates coming from? Are these reliable?
quote:
... I can hear you state now that Saddam killed many more - but that was saddam - not us. What gave us the right to be the killers in this instance when we were not directly threatened? --- Murdock
You make a moral argument here. Another moral argument is by what moral rationale do we stand by and watch the murder, rape and torture of tens of thousands of Iraqis and do nothing?

[ February 16, 2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Seronton - not if you use common sense. Afghanistan was justified. We knew Osama was there and being supported by the taliban. We had to act in that instance and it was justifiable.

In WWII - Germany was on an adventure never seen in the world before - spreading out like a virus of hatred and death - Hitler had to be stopped - I would call that an imminent threat.

Saddam on the other hand was contained in a tight box. We had him where we wanted him. He was weakened to near collapse. Bush the elder made a fatal mistake back in 1991 when he refused to take Bagdad - and then again by not supportiing the Shites in the south - we abandonned them and they were slaughtered after we encouraged them to revolt. We are partially to blame for the slaughter that ensued. We backed down on our word If we had acted back then - we might have avoided hundreds of American casualties not to mention the thousands of Iraqi dead.

But funny - when we annoited Bush like some puppet king - the hawks saw a gulible man they could control into acting, playing on his emotions and his lack of curiosity and when 9/11 happened, it gave these hawks just the excuse to finish the job they started back in 91'. Remember - many of these hawks were in Bush the Elders administration and left pissed they did not invade.

So - no circular argument here. But of course - you can continue to say it is and confuse issue in the minds of those who suck at the conservative teat.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
so if you kill your own civilians it's ok? it's only if you start killing people from other countries that you have to be stopped?
Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What you are saying Lambert is that to speak out in a time of war is treasonous. -- Murdock
Speaking out against a war is not treasonous. However, Kerry, Fonda, et al did a little more than simply speak out. They created and popularized incredible stories that had only limited basis in fact. They were essentially created and distributed propaganda that encouraged the communist Vietnamese to continue the war when they would have surrendered.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, Kerry made it sound like the rule rather than the exception that atrocities occurred. There are always a few people in any population who will commit any crime. But to suggest that this was the norm, for average American young people drafted out of high school, college, and neighborhood jobs, and raised with the moral values of a predominantly Christian society, was an outrageous slander against an entire generation.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Gary,

quote:
Kerry and others pushing the same agends lengthened the war and thus increased the number of casualties.
No - Politicians prolonged the war. Not the protesters.

quote:
Civilian casualties during war is disturbing regardless of number. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Where are these estimates coming from? Are these reliable?
Yes - here is a site that keeps track of this figure - complied from dozens of other sites
Iraqi Body Count

quote:
You make a moral argument here. Another moral argument is by what moral rationale do we stand by and watch the murder, rape and torture of tens of thousands of Iraqis and do nothing?
Two points - If Bush had said at the beginning this was why were were taking Iraq - then I and millions of people might have been more comfortable with the decision to go warring. But they lied about the reasons. And they sexed up the intelligence to fire up the supporters for this war of choice.

I supported the decision - with our Nato Allies - to go into Bosnia - the slaughter there was just as bad and it had the potential to bleed into other parts of the world if left unchecked. But lucky for us - we lost no Americans in battle there. And we captured and are trying a dictator who was much worse than Saddam.

And second point - we have to ask ourselves one question - if we went into Iraq and did it for humanitarian reasons - or as a policing action, where do we stop? Would we go after Cuba next? Burma? The Congo? Isreal? So your question is indeed a moral one and thus needs to be thought out for the many downstream implications.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'll say again - we lost the war in Vietnam because we weren't fighting to win in the first place, not because war protesters weakened our morale or something. We could have easily won by bombing the **** out of North Vietnam or fighting to keep territory, but our leadership were not willing to do those things to the extent that would have won the war. Our half-assed policies towards Vietnam were being used way before the war protesting started.

The Time magazine story was pretty bad. Did it make the cover? I haven't gotten the new issue yet.

[ February 16, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Anonymous24 ]

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Speaking out against a war is not treasonous. However, Kerry, Fonda, et al did a little more than simply speak out. They created and popularized incredible stories that had only limited basis in fact. They were essentially created and distributed propaganda that encouraged the communist Vietnamese to continue the war when they would have surrendered.

This flies in the face of reality. We lost this war. If they were so ready to surrender - why continue fighting until 1974 and victory? You think they really cared about what protestors said when they were being bombed into the stone age day after day? To even entertain this thought is pretty niave. Both sides were using propaganda - you think it was limited to just us? Hardly.

Protesting the war was and is the right of all Americans - in fact if it is an unjust war it is a duty. I applaud Kerry for doing his duty. And no matter how many times you try to associate Kerry and Fonda - it does not make it any more real. Kerry was speaking out long before Fonda made her infamous trip to Hanoi.

And don't even think about opening this can of worms about guilt by association - the Bush team has oodles and oodles of photos and records of associations by them and Saddam before, during and after the Gulf War. Cheney alone would be fun to point out his ties to Iraq through Halliburton and their subsidies. So let's not go there.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
According to Ev I may be the only saving grace of this entire thread. I personally think protesting against a war we are actively fighting is wrong, and inventing propoganda that gives comfort and aid to the enemy, is definitely an act that would sway my opinion of a candidate.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Murdock wrote If Bush had said at the beginning this was why were were taking Iraq - then I and millions of people might have been more comfortable with the decision to go warring. But they lied about the reasons.
What proof do you have, other than the absence of WMDs do you have that they lied?

quote:
I supported the decision - with our Nato Allies - to go into Bosnia - the slaughter there was just as bad and it had the potential to bleed into other parts of the world if left unchecked. But lucky for us - we lost no Americans in battle there. And we captured and are trying a dictator who was much worse than Saddam.
Now there was a fight we should have stayed out of. We are not the world's policemen, and I can't think of any national interest served by our intervention in Kosovo. We should have left it to the Europeans to deal with or not, as they chose.

And I wouldn't place Milosevic in the same league as Saddam, though probably only for lack of time and resources.

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
According to General Giap's book, the North Vietnamese were ready to surrender after the ill-fated Tet Offensive destroyed most of their men, all of their arms and ammunitions (it was a last-gasp desperation attempt.) He said we had lost, we were ready to surrender
Ok, I'll bite: which book? I just finished Karnow's Vietnam history, and he certainly discusses Tet being a failure, but never refers to an imminent surrender, or a book by Giap. I have found references to a 1967 article called "Great Victory, Big Task," but that was before Tet and obviously could not have intimated that the NVA was going to surrender after Tet.

What was the name of the book? Where is it available? I ahve found plenty of anecdotal references to Giap saying they would have surrendered except for the antiwar crowd in the States, but no sourcing for the claim. Care to help out?

According to Karnow, and to Stephen Ambrose (who tought my class on the war), the NVA wasn't nearly as involved in Tet as the VC was. The bulk of the troops lost were VC. How would Tet have caused an NVA surrender? They certainly had the ability to raise more troops, and they were still getting supplies from China and Russia.

I'm interested to know about this book of Giap's.

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
JediLaw - probably a book written by the same guy who PhotoShoped Jane Fonda into a picture of Kerry speaking on a stage. In this world of easy to alter photos - who can say what is real and what is not. The fact that conservative operatives would put a picture of Fonda into one with Kerry, get it onto CNN and many conservative websites - (Kerry has the original btw - sans fonda) - makes me suspicious of most of their arguments.

I could create a picture that could fool 99% of everyone on this board showing Bush shaking hands with Saddam. Not a problem. But the difference is I would not do anything of the kind. Thats a technique that republicans can use as they continue their dirty proapganda war while fighting the opposition.

Where are my boots.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This article ought to be the final nail in the coffin of the ANG kerfuffle: Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
Golly! A right-wing site declaring the case closed? Who'da thunk?

The case is being investigated after the document drop; it is not closed. Several questions remain open.

***

First, his entry into the Guard and privilege:

1. Ben Barnes, then Speaker of the House in Texas, swore under oath that he used his political influence to get Bush into the Guard. He was contacted by a Bush family friend, and then contacted the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, to get Bush in.

2. Bush had two arrests, two car accidents, and two speeding tickets on his record, but was never required to acquire a waiver, which was warranted even only for a single speeding ticket.

3. Bush was assigned a choice flying assignment with the lowest possible pilot aptitude score.

4. Bush was immediately made an officer without any of the necessary prerequisites.

***

And second, there are the service problems:

1. He left in mid-May, 1972 for Alabama after putting in for a transfer to a Guard post nearby, so he could work at the Blount campaign. The request was soon denied, however, and Bush was not approved for duty in Alabama. Bush stayed anyway. He only got approval to stay in Alabama in September. For those four months, Bush was absent from Guard duty without approval. That's AWOL right there. (AWOL is being absent for a period of 30 days or less.)

2. Bush missed his physical exam in August 1972. Pilots are required to take physicals in the month of their birth. Pilots put a very high value on getting their physicals, and the military does not easily let expensively trained pilots slough off either. Bush has claimed that he was away from his family doctor in Texas, which is bogus--only trained flight pilots may administer the exam, and there were plenty in Alabama. Therer should also have been a Flight Inquiry Board report after he missed his physical; the record is missing or was never filed.

3. Bush was approved for duty in Alabama from September, 1972. While we know he was paid for some drills during that time, and he got a free dental exam, there is no solid evidence that he actually performed his duties. Only one man, John Calhoun, claims to have seen him there, and his story has since proven to be full of errors (he claimed he saw Bush from June, but Bush did not get there until September; he claims Bush came to more drills than Bush records show he was paid for). Calhoun, unsurprisingly, is a staunch Republican and a Bush supporter--as have been all of those who have stepped forward to testify on his behalf. In contrast, several others on the base at that time have stated that Bush was not there; that of about 30 pilots, and as a Texan, he would have stood out like a sore thumb; that two of the men actively sought out Bush, but could never find him; one claimed that for Bush to have served with Calhoun as Calhoun claimed would have been virtually impossible.

4. Bush did not fulfill his duties in 1972. Even if you take his pay records as proof of service, he only earned 41 of the required 50 points. He got over the 50 points because he was inexplicably rewarded 15 "gratuitous" service points, which are only awarded to those who clear the 50-point mark. the points are not awarded "just for being in the Guard," unless by that you mean that they clear the 50-point mark.

5. After having left Alabama and returned to Houston, no one observed Bush serving again in Texas. His Alabama stint was only for Sept.-Nov. '72 (which begs the question as to why he got the dental exam in Alabama in Jan. '73 when he had returned to Texas in Nov. '72). His records show another 4-month gap between January and May. Although his recently released records show drill attendance in April and May 1973, a yearly evaluation by his immediate superiors reports clearly that Bush was not seen on base for that time. Again, no one recalls seeing him. The form of his records also changed greatly from '72 onward, and the question remains open as to whether his points from that time were all "gratuitous" and Bush never served at all in that time.

6. A credible source has stepped forward to claim that Bush's files were 'scrubbed' when he was governor of Texas, at the request of Bush's staff. This would explain certain discrepancies and omissions in his records.

7. Bush's discharge in October 1973 refers to a TANG disciplinary reg that was blacked out on prior releases of Bush's records. The reg concerns "Officers who are substandard in performance of duty or conduct, deficient in character, lacking in professional qualifications or status, or otherwise unsuited for continued military service are not to be retained in the Texas National Guard." The reasons for Bush's discharge under this reg has not been explained, and documents concerning this are missing.

***

In short, there are a multitude of unanswered questions. As it stands now, Bush was clearly AWOL, shirked his duty, and was given more special treatment than a prize show dog. Far from closed, the case is jarred open even further than before. The lapse in media attention is due to the fact that all this has been reported, not resolved.

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As it stands now, Bush was clearly AWOL, shirked his duty, and was given more special treatment than a prize show dog. Far from closed, the case is jarred open even further than before. The lapse in media attention is due to the fact that all this has been reported, not resolved. -Tokyo
Boy you must be slipping TKO. You clearly forgot words such as: liar, cheat, fascist, baby killer, dictator. That's just a few that I come up with. I'm sure that you have used many others freely, and often.

Perhaps you will grace us with more hurled ad honimum attacks. After all, your side of the isle is without sin, so it all must be only present with those hated enemies to Democratic justice for all(all of us)

I am so impressed with your even handedness. [Wink]

BTY, do you teach the Japanese, or the clildren of military personnel? All seriousness here. [Smile]

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tokyo, when you say Bush supported the Vietnam War and told classmates they should go to Vietnam, you are misrepresenting the facts. What Bush told his classmates was that they should not duck out and flee to Canada. For himself, Bush chose to serve his country in a totally acceptable way in the Air National Guard. He did not flee to Canada.—Ron Lambert
No, he did not flee to Canada. He fled to Texas. And then Ron gives several ways of getting out of active combat if your dad was not a rich congressman:

quote:
There were alternatives, even if you could not get into the National Guard. You could claim to be a conscientious objector, as many people did, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, and the like, and serve four or five years doing community service work.—Ron Lambert
Let’s see, the guy getting to learn to fly jets because of his dad’s money, position, and connections, has audacity to suggest that others “do their duty” and “do four or five years of community service work.” Most of which I bet they would of have had to ”actually” show up for and do.

quote:
(Desmond T. Doss was an SDA medical corpman who served while refusing to bear arms during World War II, and won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism in braving enemy fire to save wounded soldiers, at one point saving 75 wounded soldiers on Okinawa by lowering them down a steep escarpment by rope under fire. On another occasion when he was wounded and being carried on a litter, one of the men carrying the litter was hit, and he got off the litter and insisted that the more critically injured man be carried.)

(Deleted two sentence paragraph)…See, you did not need to support the war in order to be patriotic.—Ron Lambert

How can you in good conscious write about a real hero like Desmond Doss, and George Bush Jr. in the same post. Much less even in the broadest sense of the word "equate" what he did; going to Vietnam and saving lives, exhibiting heroism and bravery, and winning the Congressional Medal of Honor, with what Bush did; used his dad’s connections to get him appointed to the Texas National Guard far out of harms way?

And this is in defense of Bush’s actions? Attention all liberals and democrats! Quit writing! Ron is doing an excellent job of pointing out Bush’s flaws, and anything we say will just be overkill.

KE

[ February 20, 2004, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bush also said that his father did not pull strings to get him into the ANG when there was a long waiting list. He got in, he said, because not many others were willing to commit to two years of active duty in order to train to be a fighter pilot. Service in the National Guard typically consisted of six years of weekends, which did not interfere too much with regular jobs.
If you believe Bush Sr. "did not pull strings to get him into the ANG when there was a long waiting list", then Murdock has some land to sell you in Nevada.

It is much easier to "commit to two years of active duty" instead of "six years of weekends", which is the normal time of duty in the guard because it does not interfere too much with regular jobs. Fortunately for George Bush Jr. his family is rich and he didn't need/have a real job to worry about, so he could sign up to learn to fly jets in Texas. Besides, who cares how much time you commit too when you don't plan on showing up for all of it anyway.

KE

[ February 20, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For those four months, Bush was absent from Guard duty without approval. That's AWOL right there. (AWOL is being absent for a period of 30 days or less.) --- Tokyo
From the article at National Review (linked by mv):
quote:

In 1973, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days.

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

You can try to paint the picture of AWOL all you want but based on all available evidence that's simply not true. The left's constant accusation of AWOL is simply an attmept to link Bush's name to the term AWOL in the hopes that voters will associate the two terms.

What's most telling about this whole event is that is started out with the idea that Bush never showed up for duty and now it's down to a specific 4 month period. As the facts continue to be told, that 4 month period becomes smaller and less relevant.

What is probably the final nail in the coffin for all this is the recent polling data that shows 79% of Americans could care less about the National Guard issue. Given that statistic, I hope the Dems continue to make this an issue so they can waste time and money on things most people will not use as an issue to decide who they vote for.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
The National Review--a right-wing rag--is blowing smoke. They are not the first conservative publication to try to cover for Bush, nor are they a definitive or reliable source.

The fact that Bush violated orders and went missing for four months was AWOL, however you slice it. You don't just leave for four months against orders. Whether or not the time was made up later (it was not) is irrelevant to that fact.

The fifteen "gratuitous" points were not, as the NR suggests, granted just for being in the guard (as I noted in my post). Wayne Rambo, a former member of the TANG, pointed out quite forcefully that those 15 points were never handed out unless the prerequisite 50 hours were completed first. From The Memphis Flyer:
quote:
Yet another veteran of the 187th is Wayne Rambo of Montgomery, who as a lieutenant served as the unit’s chief administrative until April of 1972. That was a few months prior to Bush’s alleged service, which Rambo, who continued to drill with the 187th, also cannot remember.

Rambo was, however, able to shed some light on the Guard practice, then and now, of assigning annual service “points” to members, based on their record of attendance and participation. The bare minimum number is 50, and reservists meeting standard are said to have had “a good year,” Rambo said. Less than that amount to an “unsatisfactory” year – one calling for penalties assessed against the reservist’ retirement fund and, more immediately, for disciplinary or other corrective action. Such deficits can be written off only on the basis of a “commander’s call,” Rambo said – and only then because of certifiable illness or some other clearly plausible reason.

“The 50-point minimum has always been taken very seriously, especially for pilots,” says Rambo. “The reason is that it takes a lot of taxpayer money to train a pilot, and you don’t want to see it wasted.”

For whatever reason, the elusive Lt. George W. Bush was awarded 41 actual points for his service in both Texas and Alabama during 1972 – though he apparently was given 15 “gratuitous” points -- presumably by his original Texas command -- enough to bring him up from substandard. That would have been a decided violation of the norm, according to Rambo, who stresses that the awarding of gratuitous points was clearly meant only as a reward to reservists for meeting their bottom line

“You had to get to 50 to get the gratuitous points, which applied toward your retirement benefits,” the former chief administrative officer recalls. “If you were 49, you stayed at 49; if you were 50, you got up to 65.”

The NR either "stretched the truth," outright lied, just plain got it wrong--or most likely, all three. Wayne Rambo was a chief admin officer, and is a solid source on the issue.

Bush was AWOL--at least twice. For both 1972 and 1973 he was awarded gratuitous points he did not deserve and afiled in fact to serve the prerequisite 50 hours.

Edit: I would also point out that there is still no proof that Bush made up anything except the story. He got paid for his hours, it seems, but still to this day there is no evidence that he actually performed them. The only person to step forward and say he was making up hours in Alabama is both biased and in error--claimed he saw Bush from 3 months before Bush appeared, and that Bush did twice as many drills as he is credited for. And at least three others from that same base state that Bush was never there.

In Texas, the hours he did in 1973 appear to have been bogus as well. His direct superiors stated in an official document that he was not on base during the time his pay records say he was. And despite various awards of up to $10,000 for anyone bringing forth any proof that Bush was there for that whole time, no one has stepped forward to claim the loot.

[ February 22, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Tokyo ]

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Here are a couple of articles that are designed to make certain folks forget that it is not necessary for them to have to squat in order to take a leak.

The first here is another article, this time by the Washington Post. This will probably not sway our rabid brotheren, but this one by Mark Steyn , will either rub a little more salt in the bite marks, or spur the need for medical assistance. [Wink]

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The NR either "stretched the truth," outright lied, just plain got it wrong--or most likely, all three. --- Tokyo
I dropped out of this thread for a while and forgot about this -- anyone offering contradicting evidence is a liar (or incompetent at the very least). [Roll Eyes]

If this is a valid debate tactic, then I'm going to claim it applies to Wayne Rambo as well. He's biased and stretching the truth. [Razz]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
Gary, you know that I had cause to claim bias on the part of the NR--they are biased, and heavily so. Your claiming that I am using dishonest tactics is the kind of insult you just said, a short while ago, you were trying to avoid.

There is no indication at all that Wayne Rambo is or ever was biased. He was in the ANG, he knew the regs intimately, he held a position which required him to do so.

The NR provided no source for the gratuitous points--they simply stated it as if it were fact. No source, clear bias--hardly convincing. Especially when put up against a veteran whose job it was to know.

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
BTW Tokyo whoever says that points are only issued after 50 hours - even if pilots are considered special is asserting knowledge he doesn't have. There are many personal testimonials from that time that report otherwise. One national commentator printed three weeks ago his own history, of how he got "lost" by the guard and after more than a year of completing his enlistment after receiving verbal orders, he received an AWOL notice. After communicating very raggedly back and forth with the Admin folks who seemed to have no paperwork nor any clue as to what was going on, he finally received an honorable discharge, A year after he was discharged he received a promotion to a higher rank.
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Your claiming that I am using dishonest tactics is the kind of insult you just said, a short while ago, you were trying to avoid. --- Tokyo

I'm not saying your tactics are dishonest. You're looking for insult where none exists or was intended. I'm just trying to point out that your primary tactic in this matter is to claim anyone with a different viewpoint or offering evidence contradictory to your position is dismissed as a biased and dishonest source. By applying this tactic to Wayne Rambo, I highlight how absurd this is.

Your incessant accusations of dishonesty from everything right is a legitimate tactic of debate as you try to deflect the topic of discussion onto the legitimacy of any contradictory source thus avoiding the substance of the evidence. The problem you now have is that you've overplayed the tactic to the point that it's all anyone can recall you ever saying (at least that's all I ever seem to hear you say). I think you had a point around here somewhere but the substance of your point is lost to the tactic itself.

The National Review is a well respected news source with reliable reporting. Just because it supports conservative views does not invalidate it or open it up to accusations of dishonesty. Simple dismissals of their reporting as lies, John Calhoun, pay stubs, retirement points, etc. is just as absurd as my simple dismissal of Wayne Rambo that you objected to.

[ February 22, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post 
Gary, just out of curiosity, would you be willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt you give to NRO's bias to, say, The Nation's?
Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
... just out of curiosity, would you be willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt you give to NRO's bias to, say, The Nation's? --- musket
I have never heard of The Nation. I have no idea as their quality or reliability - I assume it's the NR's counterpart on the left. I'll check it out ... [Wink]

I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt right now since I've never heard of it and I will not simply dismiss anything from there simply because it is from there. It's not like they have Jayson Blair working there or anything like that is there?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
Gary:

Ah, I see. When I mention that you might put spin on some numbers, that's an undeserved insult (though you did just that in the same post you claimed to be insulted in). But when you say that my debate tactics are essentially to say that "anyone offering contradicting evidence is a liar (or incompetent at the very least)," that's just God's honest truth and I should not be offended. Gotcha.

"I'm just trying to point out that your primary tactic in this matter is to claim anyone with a different viewpoint or offering evidence contradictory to your position is dismissed as a biased and dishonest source. By applying this tactic to Wayne Rambo, I highlight how absurd this is."

"Anyone"? That implies every source I am shown. Demonstrate how I have claimed every source I am shown is biased and dishonest. It is an untrue allegation--though the plethora of Drudge posts may have given you that impression, because Drudge is biased and dishonest, and he is brought up as a conservative source so often here.

But the NR is biased; one look at their home page proves that. When I said "the NR either 'stretched the truth,' outright lied, just plain got it wrong--or most likely, all three," it was plainly clear I was referring to the specific article in question, not everything the NR ever printed, nor their standard policy. As for the writer, there is clear dishonesty, when he describes Bush's move to Alabama:
quote:
The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."
So where here is the mention that Bush's request to transfer to Alabama was denied? That Bush went against orders? That he stayed in Alabama for four months against orders? In the next paragraph, the writer claims Bush was not AWOL because he was paid for drills four months later--when the official definition of AWOL absolutely applies to disappearing for four months against written orders to stay. If that is not outright lying, both by omission and directly, then it is, at the very least, stretching the truth, and by quite a bit.

Why is it that you assume that I made the charge without any evidence? That I would simply brand "any" source as biased and lying simply because it is contrarian is, IMHO, quite an insult indeed.

"Your incessant accusations of dishonesty from everything right..."

Again, hyperbole and insult. Give examples, show proof. When I claim dishonesty, I am always able to back it up. Show me otherwise.

WmLambert:

"BTW Tokyo whoever says that points are only issued after 50 hours - even if pilots are considered special is asserting knowledge he doesn't have. There are many personal testimonials from that time that report otherwise. One national commentator printed three weeks ago his own history, of how he got "lost" by the guard..."

That has no relation to points, nor to Bush's story. Saying that there was a screwup not in favor of a guardsman that he had to fight to get corrected is not the same as explaining why Bush got points he didn't deserve.

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Give examples, show proof. When I claim dishonesty, I am always able to back it up. Show me otherwise. --- Tokyo

Okay, I'm pullilng from this thread only. All quotes are yours.
Here you claim Turnipseed is a liar:
quote:
It should be noted that Turnipseed is a big Bush supporter, and recanted only after it hurt Bush publicly; his unguarded statements have more clout.
Here you claim the documentation is fraudulent and the people creating it lying:
quote:
It's pretty naive for anyone to think that just because someone got paid for Guard duty, then that personal always fulfilled those duties. In many cases, people got away with dodging duty and yet still got paid.
Here you claim those that knew Bush during the time in question are lying:
quote:
Two Bush friends, obviously biased? One of whom was an old girlfriend?
I'm not sure who the writer is or from what publication but here you claim he's lying:
quote:
I am not too impressed by this account, considering that it is very clear that the writer is biased in favor of Bush.
Here's where you claim Calhoun is a liar:
quote:
The source is less than fully credible. Not only is he described as a "staunch Republican," …
Here's where you discredit the NR as dishonest:
quote:
The National Review--a right-wing rag--is blowing smoke.
Here you claim the writer of the NR article is lying:
quote:
As for the writer, there is clear dishonesty, when he describes Bush's move to Alabama ...
That's seven times in one thread where your rebuttal is "fraud and lies". I realize you will claim this is somehow an insult but that simply is not true. My only aim is to point out that this is a primary tactic. Your claim of bias on some of these may be accurate but when you claim it so often it tends to make it sound like crying wolf.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tokyo: Saying that there was a screwup not in favor of a guardsman that he had to fight to get corrected is not the same as explaining why Bush got points he didn't deserve.
Of course it is. It shows that screw-ups happen. I told you from the beginning that there were more screw-ups than properly processed paperwork at the time. That is the way it was. That same example I just gave you had unexplained gratuitous good things attributed to him also. Didn't you read that he was promoted to a higher rank a year after he was no longer in the Guard?

[ February 23, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: WmLambert ]

Posts: 1370 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post 
IMO it's important, when citing NRO or its leftie counterparts, to cite the author.

NRO is obviously biased towards the right, as The Nation is to the left. But not all NRO or Nation contributors are created equal.

I'm quite leery of certain contributors at both sites.

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
Gary:

Your post is ludicrous, for several reasons. First of all, you claimed that I call "any" source biased and dishonest, not just selected ones--in this, you failed to prove your point; I do not claim all, simply those who DO have bias or who ARE dishonest, and in each case you quoted I was exactly correct in what I claimed. What, am I not allowed to called biased sources biased? Am I not allowed to point out dishonesty when I see it?

Second, you said that every source I claimed was biased AND dishonest. That is clearly not true. Some were biased and I called them that, and it was true. Some were dishonest, and I called them that, and proved it (which you conveniently ignored), and I was right. You did not disprove a single case of that.

Third, many times you claim that I said someone was "lying" when I said nothing of the sort--"biased" does not mean lying, it means they FAVOR that person, and their recollections, inferences and statements are distorted, with or without intent, in favor of that person. Look it up in a dictionary.

Most amazing of all, are you actually trying to say that it is not viable that if someone is a friend or girlfriend that they might be biased? That if they are a staunch partisan, if they are strongly politically motivated toward one side--then a claim of bias is unreasonable? That is an extraordinarily untenuous claim.

Furthermore, in the case of

1. Turnipseed: he contradicted himself; he spoke unguardedly and said one thing, then he saw the political effect and contradicted himself;
2. "people got away with dodging duty and yet still got paid"--that's a fact, and not even referring to a biased source!
3. Calhoun, whose account had at least two obvious untruths (which I pointed out), perhaps more; and
4. you count the NR twice even though it is one case, and you completely ignore the fact that I proved the dishonesty I claimed!

So your proof that I claim that everybody lies is that in some cases I claim people with bias had bias, and that when I saw that people lied I said they lied and proved it?

I am sorry that you get upset when I point out reasonable cases of bias and prove when people are lying when it is not what you want to hear. That was horrible of me.

This is all why I stopped arguing with you earlier, Gary, and steered clear of your posts.

[ February 23, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Tokyo ]

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
WmLambert:

Okay, I'm fine with that. So, you are claiming that when Bush was gratuitously awarded 15 points when he did not deserve it, that was a screwup--but it also means that Bush did not finish his duty. Which is the whole point.

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Second, you said that every source I claimed was biased AND dishonest. That is clearly not true. Some were biased and I called them that, and it was true.
I didn't realize you were from the "depends on the meaning of 'is'" school. You know what I'm saying but you're clearly fishing for an insult that does not exist.
quote:
Most amazing of all, are you actually trying to say that it is not viable that if someone is a friend or girlfriend that they might be biased? That if they are a staunch partisan, if they are strongly politically motivated toward one side--then a claim of bias is unreasonable?
The problem is you insist they must be when there is no evidence to suggest they are. What evidence do you have they are staunchly partisan or strongly politically motivated toward one side?

quote:
1. Turnipseed: he contradicted himself; he spoke unguardedly and said one thing, then he saw the political effect and contradicted himself;
2. "people got away with dodging duty and yet still got paid"--that's a fact, and not even referring to a biased source!
3. Calhoun, whose account had at least two obvious untruths (which I pointed out), perhaps more; and
4. you count the NR twice even though it is one case, and you completely ignore the fact that I proved the dishonesty I claimed!

1. That's your opinion, you have no way of determining his intent.
2. What is your source? If you're going to claim this as evidence that record keeping is lacking, doesn't that also support the idea that Guard record keeping may have been lacking to the point of attendance (or accusations of lack of)?
3. Calhoun is working from a memory of over 30 years ago about weekend drills. You like the memory of others, why must his be perfect to be meaningful?
4. No I count the NR once and then the author once. I have yet to see the proof of dishonesty. Your claim is not proof.

quote:
I am sorry that you get upset when I point out reasonable cases of bias and prove when people are lying when it is not what you want to hear.

I'm not upset so no need to rush to apologies. You occasionally have a case for bias but have not yet proven outright dishonesty.

So that we can have a meaningful discussion, can you give me a list of a few sources you would consider honest?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm surprised no one has jumped all over this yet... too light-hearted, maybe.

Doonesbury offers $10,000

Posts: 10623 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Tokyo: So, you are claiming that when Bush was gratuitously awarded 15 points when he did not deserve it, that was a screwup--but it also means that Bush did not finish his duty. Which is the whole point.
Of course not - but you know that. The example was of a journalist who dealt twith the paper shufflers back then. You seem to place all your hatred of Bush on paper shufflers not having all their papers in order - then after someone finds them, its too late for you to take back your venom. Bush was there. He did his time - more than needed - more time than Monsieur Kerry put in perhaps - and you're still angry. Why? Didn't you hear what Kerry charged the American soldier with during his Congressional testimony? Why would you want anyone to have done their proper service back then - if protesting was the right thing to do?
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Donald - This is too funny! $10,000 to show you actually served with Bush in the ANG..LOL!

Kinda a light hearted version of Larry Flynts $1,000,000 for proving that some republicans were unfaithful - and unfortunately that worked all too well for the comfort of many republicans!

I honeslty hope he finds someone - just to hear the republicans say I told you so!

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
WmL: It's not a matter of paper-shuffling. Bush knew the regs at the time. He didn't finish his duties, if indeed he even performed the drills he was apparently paid for. If you know that you're supposed to pay $10,000 in taxes, but you cheat and pay $5,000, does the fact that the IRS accidentally drops a decmial point and doesn't catch you mean that you didn't cheat?

Bush failed to perform his duty--and points are just one of about a dozen things that Bush did that were improper. He got in with influence; he didn't get a waiver for his criminal record; he got put into pilot training though his test scores didn't merit it; and he got promoted to lieutenant though he didn't do what was required to get that--all influence. In 72, he went to Alabama against orders, staying there for four months in violation of a direct order to return to Texas; he failed to take his physical, and lied about the reasons for it; the records of the Flight Inquiry Board are missing, meaning the records were hidden or destroyed, or Bush wasn't investigated, again a sign of influence; there is no proof that he actually served any time in Alabama in 1972 or in Texas in 1973, just that he got paid and got a free dental exam; he failed to serve the required time in both '72 and '73; there is the claim that Bush's records were scrubbed, which is consistent with the records released and those that are missing; and Bush was discharged under a disciplinary reg that is so far unexplained--again with the still-missing documents.

So not only did Bush fail to complete his duties the last two years of his service (even giving him the greatest reasonable benefit of the doubt), but he also still has all those other things hanging over him.

The case is on hold, not closed.

People are also talking about Cheney, apparently because he took lots of deferments, and later said that he had 'other priorities' at the time. Frankly, if the DNC wanted to nail Cheney, more attention to his two (count 'em, two) DUI arrests would probably be more damaging. If one did not want to focus on Halliburton, that is. And the Valerie Plame arrests will likely be coming in due time as well, and that promises to be somewhat of a wellspring of scandal for his office...

"You seem to place all your hatred of Bush on paper shufflers not having all their papers in order - then after someone finds them, its too late for you to take back your venom."

You're concerned for my well-being! How sweet. Even though it's condescending. But misplaced. If they find the papers, I'll give him whatever they say, as I have so far, and withdraw whatever criticism is not earned by Bush. Hey--do you think they'll suddenly appear in the White House somewhere a year later? Then you could pour some venom into it!

"Bush was there. He did his time - more than needed - more time than Monsieur Kerry put in perhaps - and you're still angry. Why?"

Bush did time in a champagne unit in Texas, Kerry did time in Vietnam in combat. Bush was not "there," unless by "there" you mean "Texas." Only you could see Bush's time in Texas actually trumping Kerry's time in Vietnam. Of course, if it were the other way around, you would be infuriated. Say, if I compared Al Gore's service favorably to Bob Dole's. So I'll take your words in the larger context.

"Didn't you hear what Kerry charged the American soldier with during his Congressional testimony? Why would you want anyone to have done their proper service back then - if protesting was the right thing to do?"

He did what he believed was right, and as a matter of fact, yes, the Vietnam War was wrong--even your hero, Herr Bush, admits to that. And Kerry earned the right to protest; Bush earned little when he squirmed out of service that he held others should do in his stead.

[ February 26, 2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Tokyo ]

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Bush did time in a champagne unit in Texas, Kerry did time in Vietnam in combat. Bush was not "there," unless by "there" you mean "Texas." Only you could see Bush's time in Texas actually trumping Kerry's time in Vietnam. Of course, if it were the other way around, you would be infuriated. Say, if I compared Al Gore's service favorably to Bob Dole's. So I'll take your words in the larger context.

Bravo! Tokyo!

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Only you could see Bush's time in Texas actually trumping Kerry's time in Vietnam. Of course, if it were the other way around, you would be infuriated. Say, if I compared Al Gore's service favorably to Bob Dole's. So I'll take your words in the larger context.
--- Tokyo

You're trying to read someone's mind here and present that as evidence. What about it WMLambert, he get you right - would this be your reaction?

We do know the left's reaction when it the other way around. When it's a draft dodger, it's ok. Even Kerry says so. If we're going to get a larger context, then let's throw the net as wide as possible.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1