Posted on 09/20/2004 7:59:18 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
What a young man did more than 30 years ago shouldn't be a primary guide in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost 4 years now as Commander and Chief of the World's largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic left won't give it up. On almost a daily basis he says I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam (4 months/12days) and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief. Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his guard obligations; even forging documents to prove their point.
The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation. Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points, 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1070/71 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74. Points far in excess of the service agreed to and required to meet his obligation and be Honorably Discharged. George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.
While the Left and the Main Stream Media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November. But what about John Kerry's record…….
(Excerpt) Read more at michnews.com ...
Democrats made similar attacks earlier this year. In April, Kerry referred to Bush as a president who "can't even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard," and who "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty." In February, Kerry said he wanted answers about Bush's service in Alabama, saying "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."
Lost amid all the charges are the facts about Bush's time in the Guard. When did he serve? What did he do? Did he fulfill his responsibilities? Was he in Alabama? In the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review, Byron York investigated and found the answers. …..***
Maybe the President should take the 180 form with him to the 1st debate and ask kerry to sign it.
I bet the Bush campaign is envisioning a lot of great "gotchas."
But I imagine Bush will be polite and not attack.
Kerry can't help but be snotty and he'll sink himself.
Yeah, it worked so well for Lazio.
Why should President Bush dive into the muck himself? He's got many more "Presidential" issues to discuss? I think the issue is out there, and will take its own course, pushed by people who are not President Bush.
My neighbor, a retired Spec. Ops officer, says this is the important story on Kerry.....and probably why he won't release his records. He figures they are damning.
This does look very suspicious for Kerry. Carter grants the amnesty on 21Jan78 and Kerry's records mysteriously start having entries again 16Feb78? Kerry must sign the DD180!
Wouldn't get any hopes up. Kerry managed to get citations for Silver Star altered at least twice. It's likely any negative documents were purged from his file at the same time. Kerry efforts as a Senator were lackadaisical on behalf of his constituents, but he probably labored long and hard for himself.
It never hurts to ask, plus it might have the side effect of keeping kerry from saying "I was in Viet-nam" for two minutes.
I was wondering if kerry had anything else but that.
Yes I know the president has more class, but it's just a little wish in the back of my mind.
Even better, take a sealed envelope with the 100 odd pages that the National Archives hasn't released, and the 31 pages the Navy says that it hasn't released. Hand Kerry the SF 180 and tell him to quit hiding and let America Know the whole story about his "honorable service". If he signs, release the docs to the media. If he refuses, just hand the envelope to Kerry and tell him that America still wants to know what he's hiding.
OUCH, that would leave a nasty scar.
Kerry just gave a major speech on Iraq. I expect that this will be his focus over the next 40-something days.
Interestingly, he looked good in the speech. If someone started to pay attention to the campaign with this speech (and therefore ignored all of the events that shed light on Kerry's character, his flip-flops on Iraq, his failure to attend meetings of the Intelligence Committee, etc.), that latecoming voter might think that we are about to have a serious presidential campaign between two stand-up guys on the issues.
At this point, though, I think that Kerry will be unable to hide from his past. Too many people know.
If nothing else, maybe there will be a rational debate between the candidates, one where kerry pins himself down to one position on a subject (like what's he done in the senate lately?).
We'll all be shouting those things at home our TV screens.
When Bush gives that little smirk, we'll know that he heard us.
more on this topic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1220981/posts
Bump!
A rational debate on the issues between the candidates would be inauthentic, since Senator Kerry, one of the candidates, is unhinged and has no integrity. A rational debate on the issues would only show that he can adhere to a script.
A rational debate would be about whether we should consider electing as President of the US -- especially during wartime -- a man who can lie and dissemble the way that Kerry does. When his character has been shown wanting so many times, a debate on the issues would be nothing more than a diversion.
As he has shown in the past, President Bush is very patient. I think the RNC, Karl Rove, et al., are just biding their time. They will act when the time is right and everything is in line -- then MOAB!!!!
I would wager that using the concept of a friend talking to a friend talking to a friend, the "right-wing-pajama-clads" of the world could find out someone who was a Pentagon/Navy clerk who either processed Kerry's less than Honorable Discharge or processed turned down requests to modify it or who worked on reversing it to an Honorable Discharge. To the extent that the DU's go on a quest to identify Buckhead, why can't Freepers go on a quest to identify if Kerry's original discharge papers were no an "Honorable Discharge."
Actually, as far as the DNC "Favorable Son" adversing campaign goes, a set of adversing pointing out that Senators get favorable treatment of their military records, during Democratic Administrations, might resonate far wider through this country and much quicker.
Bush is a fisherman.
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.