Bush 'Desertion' Charge Debunked

NewsMax ^ | 1/24/04 | Limbacher

[chiller]

Jonah Goldberg received a note from a military vet who has known bunches of Generals in his career.(all arrogant pos who know it all). His guess is that Clark had no clue who Michael Moore is.

[IrishCatholic]

Thanks, saved for later

[stands2reason]

I'm supporting Kerry now?

  Posted by walkman to eagles
On News/Activism 01/24/2004 7:40:01 AM CST #10 of 19

Gridlock is what's best for the taxpayers. Let both parties fight. Do you think Tom Delay would've let Bill Clinton increase spending this much?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies

Uhhhh, yeah, Troll, you're supporting Kerry. Certainly not Bush.      

[copwife]

There is also the record of Kerry's behavior after he came home from the war.I think this was put out there to neutralize the effects of that behavior when the real campaign begins.That is,of course,if kerry is indeed the candidate.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark suggested during New Hampshire's presidential debate Thursday night that the facts of whether Bush ran out on his National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 are in dispute.

"The facts are in dispute" is another cowardly phrase that democrats love to use. All it takes is one looney out there to make an unsubstantiated negative assertion, or more cowardly still, say they saw it on the internet and "the facts are in dispute." Ninety-nine million people can understand a set of facts, but, if one crazy partisan denies them, then, "the facts are in dispute."

Call me crazy, but what that phrase means to me is that there is a genuine difference of opinion with substantial backing and evidence for each side of an issue.

It would be slanderous to say that it was Wesley Clark and not Michael Jackson who molested a young boy. I know that this statement is patently false. But, someone cruising the internet could take the phrase (marked in bold) and write in to his local paper. "Hey, it says on the internet that it was Wesley Clark and not Michael Jackson who molested a young boy.

Then, George Bush could tell Tim Russert that, although he doesn't really know what happened in the case of the molested boy, the facts are in dispute. One group says that the perpetrator is Michael Jackson. Another says it's Wesley Clark. A third says the boy was molested by someone else. A fourth says he wasn't molested at all.

This type of attack is what passes, in the democrat party, as honest discourse. That spinning sound is not merely caused by the democrats' massaging the truth. It is also caused by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, spinning in their graves.

[elli1]

The Boston Globe reported that Kerry requested & received an ''early discharge'' so he could run for Congress---on an anti-war platform.

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

[bolobaby]

Clark also said this morning that he would do away with the "don't ask, don't tell"....gays should be in the military!!!! As I said ...he's CERTIFIABLE!!

Actually, we *should* let gays in the military, just so that issue can resolved once and for all. Here's how it would work...

Openly homosexual men are allowed to joined the military. One of them does what homosexuals always do - he hits on a straight man. The straight man rebuffs his advances. (The myth that gays are only attracted to other gays can be debunked by *any* straight man who has ever had the displeasure of getting hit on by a gay man. It happens all the time.)

Now there is an uncomfortable feeling between the straight man and the homosexual man. Per usual, the two men still share the same shower facility. After the gay man looks at the straight man's arse for the last time, the straight man finally brings up a sexual harassment complaint.

The army has its hands tied. They realize that the straight soldier's complaint is valid and - if not addressed properly - would open the door for male soldiers to peep in female showers without repercussions. Not surprisingly, this type of complaint comes up hundreds, if not thousands, of times. The army realizes that something must be done.

Under pressure to continue to allow gay men to serve, the army begins providing gay soldiers with separate shower facilities - just like they do for women. But - LO - just as you would expect, tension begins to arise between GAY soldiers and one GAY soldier brings a sexual harassment complaint against another one. The army realizes that combat situations do not permit exclusive privacy. They also realize that homosexuals are incompatible with that type of environment. They finally give up on their failed experiment and go back to the way it should be.

We hope... but probably not. It's tougher to take away rights than it is to grant them, so we'd probably just be stuck with a circus sideshow within the army's ranks.

Sigh...

[Physicist]

He's Jane Fonda in britches.

Right you may be, but that dog won't hunt. The American public elected a bald-faced draft dodger over two combat veterans. There's no way Kerry will have any Vietnam liability in the eyes of the public.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Peter Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the story is "unsupported by the facts"

I saw the Peter Jennings' exchange with Wesley Clark, and I must say that I was perplexed. Jennings, a liberal who has bashed Bush in the past, is now defending Bush??? Props to Jennings.

[Zeroisanumber]

Wait...Is this Newsmax? Are they actually quoting the NY Times as a credible source?

[jackbill]

The Boston Globe reported that Kerry requested & received an ''early discharge'' so he could run for Congress---on an anti-war platform.

I read somewhere yesterday that a person who received three Purple Hearts could request an "early out".

The same article also mentioned that none of Kerry's wounds were more than minor and none kept him out of duty for more than a day.

[elli1]

There's no way Kerry will have any Vietnam liability in the eyes of the public.

You may be right. But I'm of a different opinion. I think Kerry does have Vietnam liability and he has it on several fronts. From the anti-war crowd for having gone in the first place and for gasp! having won medals. From veterans for tossing his medals &, thereby blighting their service & sacrifice. From people who are sick of hearing about Vietnam in any context. From people who aren't sick of hearing about Viet Nam but who are sick of hearing Kerry talk about Viet Nam... IMO, Vietnam is an issue that a lot of people of all different political stripes are just plain sick & tired of hearing about and that, rightly or wrongly, it's a stone around Kerry's neck from a lot of perspectives.

[jwfiv]

Didn't see it, but just the idea cracks me up...)

[muawiyah]

Fighter pilots really don't have a higher attrition rate than ground troops who are assigned direct combat duties.

Not everybody in the Army gets the opportunity to be an Infantryman.

[jwfiv]

I must agree, sadly...(

[Sabertooth]

Saved for election time; it will need to be debunked AGAIN.

Exactly right.

I was gonna post "debunked again?" when I clicked on the thread, but you beat me to it by a mile.

[pabianice]

Military paperwork is infamously bad. The Navy discharged me... while I was serving in good standing in the Reserves. Came as a shock, I can tell you. Took a year to get the paperwork squared away again.

Beyond that, drill rescheds are the norm in the air reserves, not the exception.

[kabar]

The Boston Globe reported that Kerry requested & received an ''early discharge'' so he could run for Congress---on an anti-war platform.

I find that interesting as well. I was in the military 1965-72 including 12 months in-country and 8 months offshore and had my four year obligation extended to five years when I requested to leave. I had a regular commission. How Kerry got his early discharge is something that should be looked at.

Re Bush and being a desserter: A caller to CPAN put it best. How did Bush receive an honorable discharge if that is true?