"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:57:48p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he
got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much
crippled
on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to
smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S
okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right
wing hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a
rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got
crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served"
Chambliss's technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry
look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat.
Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp
the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks
"heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas
Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.

WRONG. That's not dodging the draft.

When did he desert?

Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals.

Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED
to take a physical and he didn't report.


He put in his time

Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he
actually did put in his time.

Still waiting.

"Crickets.wav"

You lose, rightie.



Nope, you're off the mark *yet again*. The fact is he accrued more "duty
points" than were required for six full years of ANG service.

Guess again.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm

The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he
served
By Kit R. Roane

Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of
President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the
files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National
Guard." Case closed, he said.

But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets,
including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House
claims.

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the
Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less
stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty.
Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was
required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal
year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of
that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only
12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service
should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date
in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force
obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he
attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated
sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method,
which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows
that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed
to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50
points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his
obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a
time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made
up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the
administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last
week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable
discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the
Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had
not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968,
shortly after becoming eligible for the draft. In his "statement of
understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included
attending "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He also
acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty if he failed to meet
these requirements.

Slump. Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of the first four
years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam War wound down, his performance
slumped, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. He did no
drills for one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight
physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not evaluate his
performance because he "has not been observed."

Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified
the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation,
stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force
regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were
judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not
have made satisfactory participation."

Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have compliance and
sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and
Duke University law professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an
insult to the Guard to suggest it."

The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and
author of an official history of the Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the
average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says,
"they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your
obligation."


--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004

"Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about
expressing our power and influence."
---George Bush, 3/4/01