[MikeA]

Well...it's starting already. The Democrats suddenly feel they can attack Bush's military service and do so heedless of truth and facts, all because they have a Jane Fonda disciple they can claim is a Vietnam "war hero" who is about to be their candidate.

The article below refutes all the shop worn slanders being resurrected from the 2000 campaign by the Democrats which claims: A) Bush got preferential treatment to enter the Air National Guard B) That he got into the Guard to escape Vietnam service C) That he was AWOL during that time D) That he was given preferential treatment in being let out of the Guard early.

These are vicious and baseless lies being perpetuated by Democrats now that it appears they'll have a Vietnam veteran as their candidate (but forget the fact that he and they called the war "evil" and how can one now claim to be a war hero in a war they once said was so entirely wrong? And of course forget the fact that Vietnam service, not to mention outright draft dodging, was irrelevent to the DemoCRITES when it was Clinton).

The media has willingly and slavishly picked up this re-tread slander from the 2000 campaign in the service of their Democratic collegues and are AGAIN propogating this lie as they did in today's Washington Post. My gosh, the general election campaign is hardly even underway and these scumbag Democrats are already exhausting me with their lies and pathetic desperation tactics.

[cmsgop]

Good Find, I am battling a 55 yo V-Nam vet(DEMO) with this,

[Dog]

It will only get worse.....they have no ideas.....so they will lie .....cheat ......smear....scare....they hate this Preisdent like nothing I have ever seen.

This hate will only grow as the election nears......you just watch.

[Muleteam1]

It seems obvious that the Democrats realize what is headed their way when they nominate the traitor John Kerry to lead their charge into November. They really have no choice but to attack GWB's military background, because as the Democratic nominee, Kerry will be clobbered on this issuse. However, the Democrats should be very wary of trying to show an allegiance to the military when they ally themselves with the likes of Jane Fonda and other traitors of her ilk. Any person who has been in the military service under a Democratic Administration in the last thirty years knows these people despise the military almost as much as they do morality. These Vietnam veterans who support John Kerry are simply pouring salt into their old war wounds.

Muleteam1

[Lancey Howard]

BUMP for great freeping.
Bookmarked.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

For the record.Type of Discharge: HONORABLE

[Recovering_Democrat]

You know, Rush said today that if this is the Democrats' line of attack, it is laughable. It'll never work, Americans aren't going to buy it...the time to raise the issue was 2000, some tried and FAILED to make G.W. look like a deserter, and it really looks good for Bush if this is the best they've got.

[kitkat]

BUMP FOR BUSH

[BigSkyFreeper]

I guess it's a matter of time before the Democratic party is rendered destroyed. They've got nothing else to run on, except scorched Earth hit pieces. Bush in 4 years has rendered them basically unelectable.

[cwb]

Yep...and if it was Bush that got the Silver Star in Vietnam for what some have called a war crime, I can guarantee that they would be attacking him for that. While I applaud Kerry's service and the actions he took in battle, if he was a Republican, the left would be calling this "war hero" a coward for murdering a wounded and retreating soldier. The hypocrisy of listening to Moore condemn Bush while he supports "General" Clark and defends "Lt." Kerry's war record, is unbelievable. These guys make heroes out of anyone who tried to avoid Vietnam...especially if they protested the US from foreign soil. Hey, maybe that's were Bush went wrong:)

[stop_fascism]

The media has willingly and slavishly picked up this re-tread slander from the 2000 campaign

Would that be the same media who told us that Clinton's draft dodging wasn't an issue because it was a long time ago, and anyway, Vietnam was an unpopular war.

It surprises me that the dems are willing to slander National Guard service as somehow unworthy if not downright unpatriotic. Don't former guardsmen vote?

[AminoAcid]

Great info, useful for combatting the desertion BIG LIE.

It astonishes me that people can believe things like this which are so easily proven false.

Bush's Guard service also gives lie to the "he's stupid" bashers: stupid people don't fly F-102s (well, not for very long, anyway).

[MikeA]

For those interested, below is my letter to the editor replying to the Post carrying the Democrat's water for them in today's attack piece on Bush, a slander now thoroughly discredited but that the Dems. are again planting in the media and their stooges are willing to print:

Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071

February 3, 2004

To the Letters Editor:

Lois Romano's piece "Bush's Guard Service in Question" (Feb. 3, 2004), propagates unjustified innuendo in asserting that "a review of Bush's military records shows that Bush enjoyed preferential treatment as the son of a then-congressman, when he walked into a Texas Guard unit... and was moved to the top of a long waiting list."

While it is true Bush was moved to the top of the waiting list, it is not fair to leave hanging the implication that this preference was due to his father's influence or position. Indeed, a July 4, 1999 Dallas Morning News Piece "Bush's Stint in Guard Scrutinized" corrects this shop worn accusation by stating: "Officers who supervised Mr. Bush and approved his admission to the Guard said they were never contacted by anyone on Mr. Bush's behalf."

The article goes on to quote Bobby Hodges and General Walter Staudt, the surviving members of the panel that approved Bush's officer commission, as saying that Bush was moved to the head of the admissions list because he was one of the few recruits who could both immediately commit to the 14 month full time activity duty status required to complete pilot training as well as pass the officer written exam and the rigorous flight physical. Few other recruits could meet these requirements.

Along with these facts, a little more investigation by Ms. Romano would also have uncovered a July 2000 New York Times piece which after looking into Bush's military records exonerated Mr. Bush of dereliction of his Guard commitments. Bush made up for missed time, allowable under Guard regulation so long as it's completed in the same quarter which Bush did do, and absences were no where near as long as Col. Turnipseed's faulty memory claimed. Indeed, Bush reported for duty during many of these supposedly missed dates according to the records.

Such reckless charges against the president need to be more thoroughly questioned as what promises to be a very ugly, attack dog campaign by his opponents unfolds.

Sincerely,
Michael

[Toespi]

My only question to the Democrats is this, since when is a military record so important to you? Many of you have spent a lifetime dodging, lying and ridiculing the United States Armed Services. The only military record Bill Clinton had was a letter of rebuke and loathing, and the dems have specifically said and defended his hatred.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I have always found it odd that anyone would think that Congressman Bush would have much influence on the Texas Guard in 1968. At that time EVERY statewide office was held by a dim, and we had only two Republican Congressmen and one Senator along with a handful of legislators. No one cared what the Republicans thought.

[defenderSD]

Bumparooski...

[My2Cents]

Great find. Like you, I don't see how the Kerry vs. Bush military service angle can work for the DemocRats. Although Kerry served with distinction in Vietnam, as soon as he got home, he was ashamed of his service.

[Eva]

Early outs were quite common then, for purposes of entering school on time. My husband got out one or two months early for that same purpose.

[W04Man]

Thanks for the info. Like Rush said, this is old stuff and it won't work.

http://W-04.com

[ChadGore]

[ChadGore]

In 1971, Bush was wearing the uniform with pride, and serving his country. In 1971 (see "KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg") John Kerry was desecrating the flag, calling our troops baby killers, and siding with the North.

KerryNotASoldier_2.jpg(61K)
KerryNotASoldier_3.jpg(60K)
KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg(60K)
KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg(59K)

If this punk Kerry wants to make this an issue, I say bring it on. Clearly Kerry is on the wrong side of suorting our troops in the 70s, and he's on the wrong side of supporting the troops today when he voted, in 2003, not to fund their efforts.