[The G Man]

Take that!

[FRgal4u]

Boston Globe is not a FAN of Kerry

The Globe has dirt on Kerry on his conduct in Vietnam, his "romeo" days with hollywood types, and how the city move the fire hydrant in front of his house so that Therasa can park her SUV there..

Don't be surpised by this liberal rag have more stuff on Kerry. Afterall, a Kerry win in 2004 will doom all the hopes of a Hillary Presidency in 08 (that's may well be the ONLY good can come from a Kerry win).

[George W. Bush]

I don't think any significant numbers of votes will be determined on this issue. Those who use it as a one-issue litmus would have cast their votes the same way.

Net gain or loss on this 'issue': zero.

[cyncooper]

Notice how the media can dig at a story when they wish to. They've managed to demonstrate the president is honest and served honorably, yet still they insinuate there is something being hidden, something deceitful going on.

Clymers.

Now, just think of a dem...any dem. Just think if the media wanted to investigate a story and wanted to take that politician down. Piece of cake! They'd actually be on to a REAL SCANDAL. Think Clinton WH, for starters. I would have loved this unending analysis directed at, say, the John Huang story and why he was at Commerce in the first place, and why the WH lied about there being two John Huangs, and why clinton personally moved him to the DNC and he retained top secret clearance and had that secret office across the street and made phone calls to China. But that's just me.

Lord, give me strength.

[The Bronze Titan]

-"the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston..."

QUESTIONS...

-How was George Bush able to receive an Honorable Discharge from the Guard if he was confirmed to be AWOL by "his commanders"?

-Did "his commanders" (quoted and referred-to in the above article) notate George Bush's his "did not report for duty" violations in any Guard report or log?

-If not, then why are not "his commanders"'s credibilty being called into question? Wouldn't "his commanders" themselves be violating Guard regulations by NOT REPORTING George Bush's "did not report for duty" violations?

Seems to be like this is an easy cunnard to poke holes into, but the BUSH people and BUSH himself, are fumbling the opportunity to REALLY GO AFTER this insidious flap!

[Just mythoughts]

Now can we see your records JFKerry?

[RightOnline]

Too many here are missing the point of all this.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush's Guard service. It has EVERYTHING to do with the Dem's desperation in trying to find an "issue" since it's patently obvious they're going to be wearing their collective arses as hats come November.

This lame attempt at trying to contrast Bush's service with Kerry's is just that..............incredibly weak, incredibly lame; a non-issue.

If THIS is all they've got...................................................................

BTW.........re: Kerry's service: I salute any man (or woman) who put on a uniform and wound up on the other side of the world in defense of their country.....or even just following orders, no matter their individual motivation. Can't take that away from Mr. Kerry. That said.........I haven't seen any evidence that he was a true "hero". Not saying he wasn't.......just haven't seen proof or real eyewitness accounts. Either way, his behavior upon returning was nigh unto treasonous.

[Mike Darancette]

If The President was missing from the Guard so much how did he learn to fly?

The Rats may have over done it because questions about Kerry's involvement with Jane Fonda are coming to the fore.

[kristinn]

Fertig called for an independent investigation. Noting that the new documents are contradicted by other public documents, and statements by Bush's Guard superiors, Fertig said the public has a right to know whether Bush received credit for duty he did not perform.

This is the why of The Globe getting these documents. The 'Rats won't let it go.

[SpinyNorman]

But the following month, he won permission to move to Alabama for several months to work on the US Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a Republican. In Montgomery, Bush was supposed to do periodic drills with another Guard unit. But its commander has said Bush never appeared. Bush has said he did, but does not recall what duties he performed.

If that commander was William Turnipseed, the Globe's crack (cocaine) reporters have it wrong again.

I am sure it was an "oversight" as Dukakis and Kerry like to say.

[Stallone]

Walter V. Robinson is the Duranty of modern journalism.

The Lying Sack of Shiite has been taken to task for his misrepresentation of the National Guard service of our beloved president, and Robinson is squealing and twisting while the blade of truth quarters this yellow journalist.

Destroy the Lying Left at every opportunity.

[CWW]

"The commander of the Alabama unit has said Bush did not appear for duty at his assigned unit there."

This is an outright lie which the Commander (Gen. Turnipseed) has repeatedly disavowed. In fact, as recently as last week, Turnipseed stated that he did not even know who George Bush was back them and that as far as he knew, Bush showed up and completed his obligation. But, I guess those fact would also show that the Globe's orignal story (back 1999/2000)was a pile of B.S.

[optimistically_conservative]

Veterans & Politics Are we Our Own WORST ENEMY?

If anyone in America has an obligation to vote, it is most certainly Veterans--men and women who have personally sacrificed to preserve the principles that guide the greatest nation in the world. As a voting-block, we rank with AARP as one of the single-largest groups that should be courted by any person seeking elective political office. Sadly, there are fewer politicians serving in the United States Senate and House of Representatives than at any time in our history. I believe most military veterans will quickly agree with me that we need more of our brothers and sisters in elective office. I'm afraid, however, many of you will be quick to disagree with the issue I would like to address in this column.

There is great danger for any veteran who steps forward to seek elective office. Sadly, it seems that veterans are quick to "eat their own." Several years ago while attending a high-profile veterans function in Washington, DC, I was surprised to learn that the majority of the rhetoric was aimed at blasting Senator John McCain. The web was full of negative stories about the former Prisoner of War, much of it sensational and tabloid journalism. But the repetition of the criticism by so many veterans caused me to begin to wonder if my own admiring assessment of the man might be in error.

Then, while attending a Medal of Honor convention as a guest of the Society, I heard Medal of Honor recipient George Bud Day talk about his time at the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain. One of the most decorated heroes in American military history, Colonel Day is an incredible hero and an American icon. His respect for John McCain was quickly apparent, and I learned promptly the danger of giving too much credence to rumor and diatribe in the veteran community. Whether stemming from jealousy, or from some other source, the easiest way to become the enemy of a small but highly vocal group of veterans is to become high-profile and successful. Sadly, it can be a dangerous thing to be a veteran in the spotlight. One of the first things to be called into question is the nature of one's service...and all too often it comes from fellow veterans.

During the last presidential campaign, as a conservative and as a Republican I supported George Bush. Nonetheless, I was greatly disturbed to see veterans turn on Al Gore for the sheltered nature of his Vietnam service. First and foremost, I could understand that. If I had been the man's company commander, I'd have taken every step possible to keep the son of a prominent American politician out of harm's way. Secondarily, Al Gore as a correspondent for Castle Courier, my own unit's newspaper, covered the Lam Son 719 mission in the field. I was involved in that mission, earned the ARCOM with "V" for the initial assault, and may well have bumped into him in the early months of 1971. I know he was not TOTALLY sheltered--there was NO safe place when we returned to Khe Sahn.

The bottom line is this:
The honorable service of no veteran should be called into question, purely for political purpose or because one disagrees with the affiliation of that politician.

In the days leading up to the war in Iraq, one of the most high-profile protestors of the war was a former Army chaplain who earned the Medal of Honor in Vietnam. This man returned his Medal years ago in protest against other political policies, and continues to be involved in unpopular and often-radical movements. What this man has done since his service in Vietnam may be offensive to many, but it does not diminish the acts of heroism that earned him the title "hero" in Vietnam. Though he is not involved in the Medal of Honor Society, he is STILL a man who performed heroically under fire, and having heard first-hand from men who were there at the time, these still admire him for his courage in that moment in time. We may disagree with his current political activism, even despise his anti-war activities in Iraq, but the man's personal service in Vietnam is deserving of our respect.

In recent years we've seen former Senator Robert Kerrey assailed by some in the veterans community, his Medal of Honor called into question, and his service in Vietnam scrutinized for every detail of sensational war-crimes. As with Al Gore, I am certainly not a Kerrey fan politically, but I have ultimate respect for the man and his military service. I am saddened that so many of his fellow veterans, men who were not there to witness the man's service, are quick to jump on the bandwagon to try and destroy an American hero.

Heroism, and the nature of one's service, is in the eye of the beholder. As a historian, I could not begin to count the number of heroes I've heard bashed. Recently, while doing a story on a WWII airman, I interviewed a crewman who flew on the mission in which this individual died earning the Medal of Honor. "(Name) was an *****, this man told me. He never deserved to receive the Medal of Honor, and the Army only gave it to him because he was killed."

A few days later I interviewed another member of the crew of that same aircraft. This man was with the dying hero, indeed held him in his arms until the man died. With great emotion he related, "(Name) was one of the greatest heroes of the air war. It's sad so few people have ever heard his story."

I opted to make this the current topic for commentary, for we are now entering a new round of political maneuvering for the White House. Recently my email has been full of messages from veterans assailing the military record of Democratic front-runner Senator John Kerry (no relation to Bob Kerrey and NOT a Medal of Honor recipient). Despite the fact that Senator Kerry came home from Vietnam and engaged in radical anti-war activities, one cannot deny respect to his service before coming home that earned him the Silver Star, Bronze Star with "V", and three Purple Hearts. Sure, you will hear veterans claim that his Purple Hearts were awarded for minor wounds. The argument is unfair, many other Vietnam Veterans received Purple Hearts for minor wounds but I would certainly NOT take away from them the legitimate right to wear the award or to be rendered the respect it deserves. Others will question the merits of John Kerry's Silver Star. Almost without exception, the outcry will come from veterans who have never met the Massachusetts Senator and who have NO personal knowledge of the details behind the award other than the text of the citation.

I, for one, will not vote for John Kerry if he receives the Democratic nomination to run against George Bush. I make this decision based SOLELY upon what John Kerry has done SINCE his military service in Vietnam, and based upon his current political agenda. I will NOT, however, criticize his military service in Vietnam or downplay his medals. For all the wrong things he may have done since the war, while in the uniform of the United States Navy he did some things VERY WELL, and I will honor that.

I hope that others of the veterans community will do likewise.

Doug Sterner

[aruanan]

The activist, Bob Fertig, is a cofounder of Democrats.com, a website that has no formal affiliation with the Democratic Party.

Like burning urination has no formal affiliation with the clap.

[antiRepublicrat]

It looks like releasing the rest of the records just might clear up the training days issue, making me admittedly quite wrong.

If the records exonerate him, that leaves only questions on one issue outstanding: why was there no standard investigation for a pilot losing his flight status? Why didn't Bush take the physical?

[From The Deer Stand]

Why wasn't Bush's National Guard service that big a deal when he ran against Gore? I don't remember all the flak back in 2000.

[CMClay]

More like kerplunk:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html

ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October.
ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.
To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush's 1973-74 ARF record — but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972, as his Form 712 Master Personnel Record from the Texas Air National Guard clearly indicates.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - W! - GUARD

[plain talk]

The propaganda spin woven throughout this piece is reminscent of the communist press.

[OldFriend]

Sorry, Ann Compton of WABC radio news at the top of the ten o'clock hour said it's not good enough because it doesn't show WHERE he served.

It's time to say enough is enough!

[The South Texan]

Of course you know the leftist Rats will say that President Bush had the Defense Dept fix the records.

When and if we catch Bin Laden, thye will also say we have been hiding and bringing him out for political reasons. Hopefully this will happen during the Rat convention. OOO , wouldn't that be sweet!