Take that!
1 posted on
02/10/2004 4:49:27 AM PST by
The G Man
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: The G Man; Howlin; nopardons
Bump for the research folder.
2 posted on
02/10/2004 4:52:57 AM PST by
ClintonBeGone
(<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/~clintonbegone/">Hero</font></a>)
To: The G Man
Wonder if Mccullif(sp) will appoligize?
3 posted on
02/10/2004 4:54:36 AM PST by
DeaconRed
To: The G Man
4 posted on
02/10/2004 4:56:21 AM PST by
GailA
(Millington Rally for America after action http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/872519/posts)
To: The G Man; Hon
To: The G Man; All
6 posted on
02/10/2004 4:57:52 AM PST by
backhoe
(--30--)
To: The G Man
Chris Matthews is going be very disappointed with this article...grins.
sw
7 posted on
02/10/2004 5:03:10 AM PST by
spectre
(Spectre's wife)
To: The G Man
Bookmark BUMP!
8 posted on
02/10/2004 5:03:32 AM PST by
WorkingClassFilth
(DEFUND PBS & NPR - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
To: The G Man
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert. C. Lloyd Jr., a former personnel director for the Texas Air Guard, said in an interview last night that the minimum number of points required for any year was 50, although most Guardsmen logged substantially more. "The document shows he satisfactorily completed his military obligation for that year," Lloyd said.
Case closed
9 posted on
02/10/2004 5:03:50 AM PST by
The G Man
(John Kerry continues to be AWOL in the War on Terror!!!)
To: The G Man
This article is trying so hard to spin this into a negative that it makes the English language dizzy. I feel like the writer must have drunk too much soda pop at the fair then went on the tilt-a-whirl. His rhetoric is the result.
To: The G Man
I don't have the source, but I just read something the other day where the source (former military individual) said his explanation has been misquoted by the Boston Globe, the originator of this whole criticism of Pres. Bush's military record.
In any event, he has spent the most recent 3+ years in the military as Commander in Chief.
To: The G Man
Notice though --that while the records show Bush had the required amount of points and service days the GLOBE still has to resort to inuendo's and subtle wording to make this as much of a hit piece as possible.
Had to serve a "Flurry of Days" to make his requirements
Commander says "Flurry of activity in May-July shows that he might not have had enough days before that"
Commander says "I don't remember him being there"
"why did they show a "torn Copy" in 2000
Why show records that were incomplete in 2000 when these records show a different story
etc etc etc etc
13 posted on
02/10/2004 5:14:44 AM PST by
commish
(Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
To: The G Man
This is great news. This morning I was listening to this raging liberal Chris Matthew on the pin head Imus show and he was making President Bush service in National Guard as a major theme in the campaign and that Bush must answer these questions about his service. At the same time, he was making Kerry as this great war hero and he disregard his treason to his fellow soldiers when he came from Vietnam as simply anti-war stands. I am sure that this Boston Globe article is very sad news to Matthew, to all the liberals, and to John Kerry the traitor of Vietnam.
14 posted on
02/10/2004 5:15:24 AM PST by
jveritas
To: The G Man
"The activist, Bob Fertig, is a cofounder of Democrats.com, a website that has no formal affiliation with the Democratic Party."
Anything seem strange about this?
To: The G Man
I am very surprised that Walter Robinson actually allowed his named to be included with this report, which directly contradicts his earlier report that has been cited by the demoCREEPs since 2000.
16 posted on
02/10/2004 5:16:14 AM PST by
mattdono
(Big Arnie: "Crush the democrats, drive them before you, and hear the lamentations of the scumbags.")
To: The G Man
NOT good enough..../sarcasm
22 posted on
02/10/2004 5:25:43 AM PST by
lysie
To: The G Man
And the sad thing is that the DemonRATs expected the AWOL charge to fly the second time after McCain had the wings shot out from it. If there wasn't so much vote fraud that there's a distinct possibility of them getting power again, their attempts at smears would be pathetically funny instead of simply pathetic.
23 posted on
02/10/2004 5:27:18 AM PST by
steveegg
(You don't clean up 8 years of messes in 4, only to turn it over to Pigpen - W'04)
To: The G Man
Now that there appear to be actual days listed for GWB being at NG meetings in AL, it would be nice to have other NG members who were also present on those days come forward and verify attendance. Let's put this issue to bed - once and for all. Corroborating testimony is always good when driving home a point.
To: The G Man
But its commander has said Bush never appeared.
This is untrue.
The man has said he doesn't "remember." He was a BrigGen at the time. Why would a brig gen note a lietenant showing up or not?
That's like saying that a deputy division commander should know if a lieutenant in the G-3 shop was there every day or not.
It's not the BG's job to know that.
28 posted on
02/10/2004 5:29:49 AM PST by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!!)
To: The G Man
30 posted on
02/10/2004 5:34:44 AM PST by
Jaxter
("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
To: The G Man
As you all know, the difficulty with this issue is that the left will play it as long and as hard as they can. In fact, they will continue to "question" and "wonder" until the actual facts are disseminated so far and wide that they'll actually look stupid for continuing to beat a dead horse.
It is also obvious, from their position, that the tactic is to smear Bush through this campaign of "questions" and innuendo until enough people (measurably significant) are aware of the true facts and then they'll drop it like it never existed and give it no more ink. In that way, an equal measure of setting the record straight can be omitted and the tactic of "questioning" the motives of Bush's political enemies for raising the issue cannot come home to roost.
If you'll recall, most minor clinton scandals were handled through a variation of this tactic (the disappearing ink trick) and only the biggies were half-heartedly reported because of existant public knowledge obtained through alternative sources. Principally because of the outrageous bias demonstrated by the press and the flagrant abuse of their charged duties (remember clinton's press finale and the lavish party where they all gave each other tongue baths?), their vaunted credibility took massive hits that they haven't recovered from to this day.
However, since the Mullahs at the NYT and the Globe have spoken, it seems that this smear may have outlived it's usefulness as far as the elite media circles are concerned. In other words, the biggest wave has crested on the sand. Of course, minor-league dolts at the Gopher Gulch Gazette may still write barn-burning articles about it, but hey, we already know the nature of the beast and their aversion to the truth, eh?
34 posted on
02/10/2004 5:38:23 AM PST by
WorkingClassFilth
(DEFUND PBS & NPR - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson