Sprintman, is your thinking then what's bad for Bush is Bad for Howard?
The real John Kerry
- Thread starter SSlube
- Start date
- Status
Yes but Howard is Mr. Teflon. Blair is most at danger as the British public don't take kindly to being screwed over by their leaders or anybody for that matter. We are more apathetic like Americans I guess?
The teflon is wearing thin. He's not getting my vote, after voting Liberal all my life.
And btw, since when has a military background been a pre-requisite for a US President ? I thought being a rich southerner was the norm ?
And btw, since when has a military background been a pre-requisite for a US President ? I thought being a rich southerner was the norm ?
Sprintman, stop it with the "AWOL", OK?
Bush simply was not AWOL, no matter how many secret files you come up with. Like beating a dead kangaroo. The D's played that card last time...it's run it's course.
Bush simply was not AWOL, no matter how many secret files you come up with. Like beating a dead kangaroo. The D's played that card last time...it's run it's course.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you what's going on here. When you are ordered to be at an USAAF base on a date/time and you repeatedly fail to appear what do you call it then?
Even if Bush was AWOL a few times in the National Guard, somehow that does not seem to bother me as much as Kerry being involved with throwing war medals over a barricade (another man's medals-not his own), writing a book with an upside down American flag on the cover, being involved in a radical antiwar organization (which sometimes displayed NVA and Vietcong flags), and possibly being involved with the wonderful Jane Fonda.
Sprintman - he was there. I'm not sure why you think he wasn't??? The pay-stubs, the real live witnesses saying he left this base and arrived at this other, left helping the primary, arriving, including an interview with superior officer. Complete with paperwork. He simply was not AWOL....and boy Colin Powell really let some Democratic ******* at some committee have both barrels when he used the AWOL term today.
I don't know about your military but when you are in the Guard/Reserves here in the states you can not be verbally ordered out of the blue to do something on your off time status(28days out of the month). When you are doing a drill weekend they can have you take a fisical or be told to do whatever as long as it can be done in the weekend timeframe. Now if you have failed to show up for drills they can cut orders and put you on active duty status which would allow them to charge you with "AWOL" if you do not than show up, the same way they cut orders when is 2 week training time each year or when called to active duty for a war. But just because you don't show up for a drill weekend does not mean "AWOL". You are allowed to miss so many each year and if you don't show up for enough of them than that year is void for retirement and being put on active duty could be the penalty. The incentive for showing up for drills is the extra money paid for drills. For every day of drill you earn 2 days pay but during the 2 week training you only get regular pay, same as active duty.
One of the BIG problems here is reporters, polititions and just plain people not having been in the service or they have been in the service but never in the guard/reserves which is totally different than being on active duty. People like Terry?????global crossing guy-head of the demos(Clintons bud)crying "desertion" when he's never even been in the service or even understands the meaning of the word desertion or 'awol'. I did not like the reserves, would rather be on active duty- either all the way or none at all.
Guys, I believe the point here is that this AWOL story is playing in Australia. FWIW
Tks GM at least somebodys actually reading what I posted. And gudmund I did some time in the military (6yrs RAAF) if it's me your post was aimed at?
Groucho, yes, it hit the mainstream media downunder in the last few days.
I doubt that this will hit "Honest John", the master of plausible deniability, and any military record of George II should have little to do with the bloke that is purportedly running our country.
besides, he got paid for it, and therefore served.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040210-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040210-3.html
It appears that Lt Bush missed a bunch of training dates from 1972-1973, as well as his flight physical. He then got several nasty letters from the Guard and so made up the 36 training days once he got back to Texas. Since he made up the missed days, he was released from Guard duty with a clean record ....
You don't actually get discharged from the reserves by the way. I'm still in the in-active reserves even though I stopped regular training in the USAFR back in 1992 ....You can still be called up in times of national emergencies.
Both Democrats and the White House are shading the truth in this case to meet their own political objectives - imagine that
You don't actually get discharged from the reserves by the way. I'm still in the in-active reserves even though I stopped regular training in the USAFR back in 1992 ....You can still be called up in times of national emergencies.
Both Democrats and the White House are shading the truth in this case to meet their own political objectives - imagine that
And thats why the new leader of the opposition here (Mark Latham) the straighest talker for decades in Oz politics is now heading the polls. He comes from the 'wrong side of the tracks' and now appears to be setting the political agenda here, a refreshing change indeed. Election later this year will be very interesting.
Actually, the just-released pay summaries on Bush's Guard duty weren't meant to reflect any sort of attendance record, any more than a paycheck reflects the exact days a salaried employee works (or doesn't). That's what the duty sign-in sheets were for, but those have mysteriously dissappered. Bush's official Texas Guard record still includes the following entry: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report." (May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973). This included the three months in Alabama of course, but there is no record, formal or informal, of him ever showing up for duty there. The records clearly show a 12 month period of absence. Face the facts: Bush was AWOL for a year.
[ February 12, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
[ February 12, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
And I have printed copies of the exact reports right here in front of me. Good to see somebody in the US verifying what I've had for some time.
ok now we have seen Bush's military records(medical also), where are Kerry's? medical also along with Bill's being he hid his for 8 years! or are only Republicans required to show them?
Bush coughed up his medical records instead of his attendance records because his attendance records would make him look bad.
If there is any doubt that Kerry actually served in the military when he claims he did, I'm sure records will be forthcoming.
I seriously doubt that the Republican leadership want's to see any more of Kerrys service record out in public where it can be compared with Bush's.
However, I also expect that some really dumb Republicans will demand it. An item by item comparison of Bush's and Kerry's military service all over the press will be a hoot.
- Status
Similar threads
