Can you say disingenuous?
Posted on 09/08/2004 9:36:36 PM PDT by mckreck
President Bush has had a rough 10 days, beginning with the Tim Russert "Meet the Press" interview on Feb. 1 of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who charged Bush was "AWOL" and "never served in the military." Only a week later, Bush asked to appear on Russert's show in a clear attempt to stem the damage from these charges. For over a week they were endlessly repeated and never analyzed by the news media.
But the only basis for these charges was summarized by London's Sunday Telegraph on Feb. 8: "If the Vietnam veteran John Kerry becomes the next president, there will be one man to thank above all others: retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed."
It all started with a report by the Boston Globe during the 2000 presidential election questioning Bush's National Guard service. Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.
But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson's reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush's service. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.
Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.
Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.
Sen. John Kerry got in on the act on Sunday, asking, "was he [Bush] present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question." But as Turnipseed points out, Bush was never "supposed to be" anything in Alabama. And Kerry doesn't have "the answer" because he is taking advantage of a partisan political fantasy that has stayed aloft this long because of the lousy job done by the press in reporting on it.
Now, Robinson is beginning to have second thoughts. His latest column states: "President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe." How could Robinson have gotten it so wrong?
The most charitable explanation for this distortion is the almost total ignorance the press of the realities of military service and its record-keeping. Yet Turnipseed has been repeatedly called by news organizations since the Globe reporting four years ago, and no one has chosen to correct the errors he has tried to point out or cover his denials.
The most startling aspect of this story is that the press has continually treated this affair as a political debate rather than a matter of fact.
An Air National Guard officer such as George Bush left an extensive paper trail of service. The vital summary sheet of a military record is a simple form called the DD214 or NGB 22. It covers all the basic questions being asked about Bush today. Every military veteran has one.
Kerry has one. On it are listed his dates of service, the nature of his discharge and the medals and service ribbons he has every reason to be proud of. It was filed away at the time of discharge and is almost impossible to alter.
Did a single member of the thousands in the press take the trouble to look up just one DD214 or NGB22 -- President Bush's?
Apparently not. And that is the saddest part of the story.
There was already an exhaustive look at Bush's National Guard records published and available on the Internet to any reporter who has written on this in the last week. None of whom bothered to look it up. It's title? "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, But Not AWOL, Either." It was "the first full chronology" and concludes "he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge."
The article included the pasteup pay records just released by the White House. It also included the "two new documents obtained by the Globe" by Robinson.
It was published four years ago in George Magazine. Its publisher was that well-known GOP supporter -- the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Thomas H. Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York
CNN has already spiked the story and the CBS bit was a joke. This country has heard about this thing for 4 years and it has no impact.
Good thread!
This is amazing. The entire matter is irrelevent to 90% of America. Of the remaining 10%, half are on Free Republic and half are on DU. Let's assume everything the dems say about Bush's time in the Guard is true. So what? Exactly what does that change? Does anyone know someone who voted for Bush because of his Guard record? Is anyone who is going to vote this year not familiar with Bush's last four years as President? Is his Guard service going to change their vote??? Nope.
Never have so many strained so hard at something so flimsy.
(But hey, what else is skerry gonna do, run on his record? ;'}
My next door neighbor just put up his John/John yard sign up, and I'm thinking of emailing this article to him. He's been friendly to me up till now, but neither of us have stated what our political leanings are until yesterday when he put up that disgusting sign. I thought it was against the regulation to do this, but the sign is still up so I'm going to compliment his yard sign with my own G.W. Bush/Cheney yard sign, maybe two on in front and one in back.
OOOOOOOPS!! compliment should be complement. Sorry
Now this Barnes fellow is running around claiming he helped George Bush get into the National Guard when he was Lt. Gov. of Texas. The only problem is that Bush went into the Guard in May69 and Barnes did not take office until early 69. Somehow Dan Rather missed this important fact in his interview today.
Can you say disingenuous?
Well, put up your "flush the johns" sign.
  |
   John "V" Kerry now admits he was at the VVAW Executive Steering Committee Meeting in Kansas City, Missouri from November 12-15, 1971 This was John "V" Kerry's first US Senate vote. Kerry claims he voted "Nay". Isn't that special! |
    |
Pretty soon you can put a pumpkin in that picture!!
Many thanks to Colonel Lockhart USAF for the following REPORT:
Lt. George W. Bush's Instructor Pilot Speaks Out -- Sets the Record Straight Subject: A Personal Letter of Observation of Lt. George W. Bush by his former Instructor Pilot Colonel Thomas G. Lockhart, USAF (Ret) Fellow Veterans:
I have heard about all I can stand of the military careers of the two presidential candidates. It's like two combatants arguing about who's Purple Heart carries the most weight. I have seen e-mails "splitting hairs" and making unsubstantiated claims against both candidates. I will not engage in this type of childish name-calling. The official records indicate that both individuals completed their military service obligations and received honorable discharges.
I can, however, give you some personal observations upon which I base my opinion of Governor Bush. George W. Bush arrived at Moody AFB, Georgia, for undergraduate pilot training (UPT) in 1968 as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. I was assigned as one of his Instructor Pilots. The atmosphere at this training base was somber and dead serious, as the student pilots were all either going to Vietnam or subject to being called up for combat duty as members of a Guard or Reserve unit.
George W. Bush put himself totally into the task of becoming the best aviator in the class. His unit flew Century Series jet fighters, which required the best pilots. There was no room for error, as these airplanes were unforgiving, and the price for a mistake was often the pilot's life. George W. Bush appeared to have that "fighter pilot attitude" from our first meeting. This attitude can best be described as: "I can handle the situation--regardless of the odds." He was extremely competitive and eager to learn every thing about his machine and the enemy's tactics. He was quick to pick up the flying skills necessary to maneuver an aircraft into a position to shoot down an enemy aircraft.
Being a fighter pilot is truly like being a modern day gladiator. When two jet fighters meet in combat, there is usually only one survivor. It is the ultimate test of your skills, and you must hone these skills until you have complete confidence that you will be victorious--that in the air you are invincible. Cocky? You bet!!! That was the attitude that saved England during the Battle of Britain, when a small cadre of British fighter pilots turned back the German onslaught. "Never have so many owed so much to so few," were Winston Churchill's words describing the RAF victory. This standard is part of the heritage of every fighter pilot.
The traits which, I believe, made George W. Bush a good fighter pilot and would also make him a good president are: a.. Leadership -- a "take charge" attitude. b.. Stamina -- when the going gets tough, the tough get going. c.. Sincerity -- a love of country and care for your fellowman. d.. Integrity -- knowledge of and willingness to act upon honest principles.
My personal bottom line used to be, "Would you follow this person into combat?" Well, I'm a bit old now for combat, but I respect George W. Bush's leadership abilities, and I would follow him anywhere!
Respectfully submitted, Colonel Thomas G. Lockhart, USAF (Ret)
80 Posted on 11/01/2000 09:46:25 PST by stocksthatgoup
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
"Never have so many strained so hard at something so flimsy"
I think Jesus said it best when he said.
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
Dang!When will the media "investigate" Kerry's claims about "cutting off heads, raping and pillaging" the countryside of Viet Nam and call for him to be tried as a war criminal or to be charged with lying under oath? Huh ??? .....
And what about those others that "testified" before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that have been shown to be frauds - having NEVER SERVED in Viet Nam but claimed similar atrocities???
I'm NOT holding my breath!
09-05-2004
Ben Barnes: John Kerry’s Unbelievable Last-Ditch Weapon08-26-2004
Bush Guard Service, The True Story08-26-2004
The Facts about Bush and the National Guard
- The Democratic charges fall apart07-18-2004
Q and A- F-102, Vietnam & George W. Bush01-24-2004
Bush 'Desertion' Charge Debunked11-17-2002
What did Dubya do in the war, daddy?10-15-2000
The Real Military Record of George W. Bush:
Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, EitherJuly 28, 1999
At Height of Vietnam, Bush Picks Guard
(Washington Post article)
Bump for another good post!!
bump! :^D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
