Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here Is Why The Boston Globe Guard Piece is a Smear

Posted on 09/08/2004 12:57:31 AM PDT by jaycost

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: carl in alaska; jaycost

"The public understands that Globe reporters are little more than partisan DNC operatives. Outside of Boston nobody even reads the thing and it's only use is for lining bird cages."

The public out of state does not understand; and the Globe article will assuredly be circulated in some form by the A.P. and others.

The analysis is very helpful and should be actively utilized when possible. Thanks, jaycost.


21 posted on 09/08/2004 1:55:48 AM PDT by mtntop3 ("He who must know before he believes will never come to full knowledge.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

I wish I had been more accurate in my original post...the Globe is still distorting by using "fiscal," but not in the way I had indicated.

It seems to me that their use of "fiscal year" is just to refer to a consecutive 12 month period. So when they say "two consecutive fiscal years" it seems to mean that they just mean 24 continuous months. They give us no temporal qualification of that term, nor do they bother indicating that the Air National Guard had a particular fiscal year in mind when it comes to Bush, nor do they mention the fact that for those particular fiscal years there is evidence that Bush served.

They are being intentionally vague with that term, vague in a way that distorts the truth, which is that Bush served honorably as far as the guard is concerned. What the Globe has done is taken the uncontested facts -- i.e. Bush served these following sets of days... -- and reinterpted them to reflect negatively upon him, reinterpreted them in a way that, for the guard, is wholly irrelevant. The only way they could have done this is if they had thrown out the fiscal year that is appropriate to evaluating Bush's service: April 30 to May 1.


22 posted on 09/08/2004 1:56:23 AM PDT by jaycost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

Your work on this is outstanding. Wish we were able to get the message out.


23 posted on 09/08/2004 2:00:23 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jaycost
In a striking coincidence, the Boston Globe's sister publication, the New York Slimes, reprinted Gerald Lechliter's analysis of President Bush's national guard service records here. And Op-Ed contributor Nicholas Kristof just happened to decide to run an op-ed piece on the Bush AWOL subject today as well. What a remarkable coincidence! I am sure this had nothing to do with Kerry's attacks on the President and Vice President during his midnight breakdown last Thursday, and Terry McAwful and the DNC haven't given any marching orders to the press.

It's funny how the Slimes still hasn't even printed an op-ed piece analyzing the Christmas in Cambodia lie, or reprinted The Bandit's analysis that Kerry "Band of Brother" David Alston was, at most, on Kerry's boat for a week, despite earlier claims by Kerry's own website to the contrary.

Anyway, Gerald Lechliter's allegation is that Bush had to satisfy two requirements. First, he needed to satisfy a yearly point requirement from May to May. Second, he needed to satisfy a fiscal year "satisfactory duty" requirement under Air Forces Manual Section 35-3. According to Mr. Lechliter, this required regular attendance at monthly drills with no more than four absences per fiscal year (July 1-June 30), and missed drills allegedly needed to be made up before the next monthly drill and in any event before the end of the fiscal year.

Is this anywhere close to correct?
24 posted on 09/08/2004 2:11:44 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

The whole National Guard is another "issue" where the Dems are working both sides of the street: On the one hand, they sneer that National Guard service is just a dodge to get out of Vietnam; on the other hand, they express utter indignation that Bush may have ducked out of part of his National Guard service (however hard they have to work to trump up the charge). They seem to have pre-sawed off the branch they're clinging to.


25 posted on 09/08/2004 2:30:17 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc; jaycost

Maybe jaycost is resting after
his sleepless night working this.

But I will say, the supposed make-
ups not performed immediately shot
on Bush by the piece you cite is
absurd & here's why:

I don't know what's correct here,
but TAKE IT UP WITH THE NG,
not Bush. Let's see what held in
the Guard back then & there. They
honorably discharged him.

Also, the entire military had a
GLUT of pilots b/c of Nam pilots
coming home. They didn't need him,
& his plane was phased out. So why
would they jump him for no quick
makeups??? Air Force manuals or
not!!!

Take it up with them, not him.
These slime only want to hurt
this man. Anything to hurt him.

PUKE!


26 posted on 09/08/2004 2:35:50 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette; ohioWfan

ping to #26 & this thread


27 posted on 09/08/2004 2:39:53 AM PDT by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jaycost
Under the terms of his service contract John Kerry had a two-year Ready Reserve committment from Dec 16, 1969 to Dec 16 1971, and a one-year Standby Reserve committment from Dec 16 1971 to Dec 16 1972.

John Kerry was not terminated as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve until Feb 16 1978 (in fact Kerry's 12-year service was exclusively with the USNR).

Where is the missing three years of John Kerry's Ready Reserve and Standby Reserve documentation from the Reserve Manpower Center, Naval Training Center, Bainbridge, Maryland, circa Dec 1969 to Dec 1972?

28 posted on 09/08/2004 2:43:52 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

Very interesting. Thanks


29 posted on 09/08/2004 2:59:01 AM PDT by harrycarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

It's so nice to see a newbie who knows the proper way to jump into authoring a thread. Extraordinary!


30 posted on 09/08/2004 3:17:48 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Hey, KERRY! We said it to Saddam, and now to you -- If you have nothing to hide, QUIT HIDING IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

bookmark


31 posted on 09/08/2004 3:28:12 AM PDT by federal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
I am very sure that it is true that boys in 1968 who had influential fathers found it easier to get into the National Guard.

I am also sure it is true, and I bet President Bush would stipulate that 68Kerry would have been a better President than 68Bush.

THAT WAS THIRTY-SIX YEARS AGO.

In the intervening 36 years, Kerry has shown us what kind of a President he would be, as has President Bush.

Of course Kerry and his flacks want to run against 68Bush.

So what? Let's run against 04Kerry.

68 Kerry (and 68Bush) have been gone for a long time.

32 posted on 09/08/2004 3:29:13 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Hillary becomes the RAT candidate on October 9. You saw it here first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jaycost
I'm usually not so lazy as to ask for a link, but this is such a good thread, I think it would be great to have Byron York's article linked.

And this one too:

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9259

33 posted on 09/08/2004 3:32:14 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@The Mainstream Media Thinks We Don't Have Access To The Truth.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

Byron York's article is here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp


34 posted on 09/08/2004 3:42:17 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: conservative in nyc

Thank you, lonely person.


35 posted on 09/08/2004 3:51:06 AM PDT by YaYa123 (@The More People Who Read York, The Better.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

Great entrance..Sterling. Welcome to FR. :))


36 posted on 09/08/2004 3:55:54 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump


37 posted on 09/08/2004 4:16:06 AM PDT by listenhillary (We are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy.GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; Andrewksu

ping


38 posted on 09/08/2004 4:47:29 AM PDT by centurion316 (Infantry, Queen of Battle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaycost

bttt


39 posted on 09/08/2004 5:02:58 AM PDT by chronic_loser (Yeah? so what do I know?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

This is maddening....If Bush#41 managed to get Dubya in the Guard where he would be safe, then why did Dubya volunteer to be a fighter pilot...not exactly a safe cushy job to avoid VN....


40 posted on 09/08/2004 5:03:55 AM PDT by mystery-ak (This President, This Time......Ron Silveraaohey hae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson