Posted on 02/11/2004 2:16:32 PM PST by demlosers
Edited on 04/16/2004 11:46:07 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Kevin McCullough
Radio Talk Show Host, Syndicated Columnist, and past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards
I have said it at least 200 times on my talk show heard in New York City, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island... John Kerry has picked a loser issue with challenging President Bush's National Guard service. Despite these obvious warnings John Kerry and Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe continue to play the stupidest hand of political poker I have witnessed in recent years. But should they continue to insist let's get the records out on the table...(as they already have been laid out in 1994 when President Bush ran for Governor of Texas, and in 2000 when he ran for President).
The White House supplied pay stubs from President Bush's days of service in the National Guard. The points completed indicate that he served his full commitment to the Guard.
br>
The Associated Press also reports that two high level military experts who have reviewed the document you see before you said the following...
"Lt. Col. Scott Gorske, a 23-year Guardsman with experience in personnel issues, said there is no requirement for National Guard members to drill every month. They are required to train a certain amount of time each year. It appears Bush met that requirement, said Gorske, who reviewed the documents.
A memo written by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr. said a review of Bush's records showed that he had "satisfactory years" for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74 "which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."
For Terry McAuliffe to continue to encourage his candidate to press the issue of Bush's service will only cause people to look more closely at John Kerry's as well.
And while Kerry saved lives and earned the purple heart in his less than two months in combat, he also immediately used the priviledge of the purple heart to get transferred state-side and take a quick leave of the Navy all together.
Shortly thereafter he linked himself with Jane Fonda and began to lay accusations on the United States military personnel who were still getting shot and killed. Beyond that in 1971 he went to the United States Senate to say that as a generally accepted military practice and occurring almost daily the honorable service men and women in Vietnam (thousands at the time) were "raping, dismembering, beheading, poisoning food supplies, killing livestock for fun, and razing villages". A claim he was later forced to admit he could not substantiate nor had he witnessed. (Of course his obligation if he knew first hand of any such activities would have been to report it - but it appears this did not happen either) John Kerry's testimony implied that the United States military persons on large scales were committing acts of atrocities. His pet project the Vietnam Veterans Against the War has since been sited by experts as one of the reasons that the war was extended and ultimately unsuccessful.
My friend compare that to the military record of someone like John McCain who - when he could have recieved an exemption to get out didn't, and suffering injuries that to this day keep him from being able to have full use of his arms.
National Guardsmen never know when they could be called to active duty. President Bush while working in areas of affecting public policy continued his training as a Guardsman and was ready to fly into battle had his number been called. He can not be punished for not having his number called.
John Kerry on the other hand stabbed the very men he fought with only weeks earlier in the back by aggressively giving aid and comfort to the enemy and working in conjunction with the likes of Jane Fonda.
(Remember she posed for a picture pretending to shoot down American fighter planes...)
And as it turns out John Kerry stabbed POW's in back as my friend Ben Shapiro explains in hard hitting details today... (read the whole thing)
If Terry McAuliffe wishes this presidential cycle to be about who has done more to protect America then as his eventual nominee is so eager to say "Bring it On".
Who will forget the President of the United States standing amongst the exhausted volunteers at Ground Zero and speaking as best he could through a hand held megaphone, telling them that "their country was proud of them and that soon the people who had knocked those buildings down would hear from all of us soon." He kept his promise. America is safer because the Al Queda is disrupted, their financing was frozen, most of their leaders are either dead or captured. And now as the last few remnants of these jokers insist on creating trouble in Iraq we are cleaning up remains there. Al Queda and other mid-east terrorists are frightened that freedom will be established in their part of the world - because it will give them no more safe haven. President Bush's job is to see to it that they have No Safe Haven - and America can see that he is doing is job!
I was just thinking about this the other nite...
What case can be made about Hitlery in '08 if she a) ran a full term as Senator while holding a number of high level committee postions and b) runnning on a Presidental ticket. I mean she already ran the White House once, right? She can take credit for all the "good" of the Klintoon years while not having the corrupt baggage of Him....by then, ALL their baggage will be old news. Heck, she polls now as a viable canidate
Also, if W is continually successful at the War on Terror, by '08 the country (and World) will be ready for a woman US president (or pseudo-female at least) who will feel OUR pains again...
GULP, I scare myself to much sometimes...
The three "wounds" were basically scratches. It has been reported that he lost only two days of service because of them.
During WWII they talked about the "million dollar wound", i.e. one that would get you back to the U.S.. Kerry's were apparently 99 cent wounds. But he's gotten millions of dollars of media attention for them.
BUSH,CLINTON,CLINTON,BUSH,BUSH,CLINTON?
I imagine (which I do far to much), if this was to happen, she'd only get one term due to a) her inate evileness becomimg exposed while in office or b) the country's demise coming about on her watch, from either a civil war with appropriate UN intervention or the road's end is reached for our fragile "democracy" (i know its a republic democracy, but that would all change under her watch too).....
I bet the Kerry camp wished they didn't.
He must of dumped a lot of ketchup on them to make them look worse than they really were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.