Posted on 09/20/2004 5:28:26 AM PDT by JaguarXKE
Fox and Freiends now
(Sorry if this is a repeat - but I just now heard it)
Jag
I just heard that report.
Many freepers have known this and it's about time Fox reported it.
They should report it daily for a while.
It is true.
Bush did volunteered for viet service.
Problem was the war was winding down and second the fighters he flew the F104 was not designed for viet battle.
I was cheering! We need to send FaF some PJ's.
Ooops!
Bush flew 102's.
Even if he did go to Vietnam, it's not like he had a dangerous job. Dropping bombs on innocent people from 10,000 feet, then flying home 400 miles from the front line to eat a hot meal and sleep in his comfy bed... while *REAL* heroes like John Kerry ate bugs and slept on bamboos skewers.
Oh. Sorry. I was channeling Max Cleland there for a moment...
Okay, I get it now. The first is a Republican and therefore bad and the second is a DemocRAT and therefore good.
Bush had about 300 flight hours and they wanted pilots with over 500 flight hours (they prefered close to 1000)
Bush got turned down on the spot.
The F104 Starfighter was not designed for it either. But Bush flew F102.
Not to diminish this fact, but it is old news. Just not the kind of news you will hear on the alphabet networks.
This won't matter to the detractors. They will just say that Bush had inside knowledge through his Daddy that the F 104's (102's?) were being phased out of participation in the war. Bush knew he was safe. It's all moot anyhow. Bush got an honorable discharge and never sought to make a campaign issue out of his guard service.
He flew the F 102 not the F 104.
The F 102 fire control system was a 1950 design.
No transistors only tubes.
Its computer was analog not digital.
Its only 8:30 am and I think that is the post of the day. Bravo! LOL
I thought I heard that he volunteered for Palace Alert, was turned down due to insufficient flight hours, then re-applied asking for a waiver which was denied.
Anybody elso remenber this?
bump!
You have to also throw in the argument that if they had accepted GW for NAM duty...he would have had to retrain into another airframe...which means at least six months of training. And the major airframes of the period would have been the B-52, C-130, C-141, and the F-4.
Mr Bush is too humble to be proclaiming this news, unlike his oppoenent who likes to pretend he was a big hero. And he's in the party that stands for pacifism and surrender.
Of course the "media" will not give much attention to this Bush info, much as they ignored the devastating testimony against jk given at the Viet vets rally in DC Sept. 12.
Killian's son said the same thing.
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 09:48:50 -0400 (EDT) To: friends@foxnews.com Subject: Mary Landrieu's Assertion Senator Landrieu asserted that George W. Bush "stayed behind," while John Kerry volunteered for front-line duty in Vietnam. Any facts to back that up? Nope. I think not. YOU seem to be unable or unwilling to share the -UNCONTESTED- and easily verified facts with your viewers: George W. Bush - Requested and was granted training on the F-102. At the time he requested the training, the F-102 was active in Vietnam - After being flight qualified, requested assignment in Vietnam. At the time, F-102 was active in Vietnam. His request was denied because his superior officers deemed him too "green" for combat duty. - After having more experience, again requested assignment to Vietnam. This time his request was denied because the F-102 was not active in Vietnam. John Kerry - Requested assignment on Swift boats at a time when their duty was not upriver, but shore. A Boston Globe story reported, "Kerry also believed a swift boat assignment would keep him away from the frontlines of combat." John Kerry himself wrote, in 1986, "At the time, the boats had very little to do with war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing. Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn't really want to get involved in the war." Now, I know that Senator Landrieu is a partisan, and that she is not truthful. But you are failing to perform a public service when you fail to provide facts for your viewers. Not that there is anything wrong with your omission of relevant facts. But the omission does illustrate the limits of your value as contributing to reasoned public discourse.
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.