Probably One of the Most Vicious Anti-Bush Letters You'll Ever Read

Lewiston Sun-Journal ^ | May 12, 2003 | Paul Macri

[Robert A Cook PE]

It is explicitly in Barnes' (a democrat attacking Bush!) interest to lie, lie again, and lie repeatedly. As the democrat WRITER of the original letter EMPHASIZED in his repition of the baseline lie about being AWOL, they USE these lies about these TWO WEEKENDS thirty years ago to continue their propaganda against Bush.

The democrats have offered NOTHING but lies (positive lies about the Clintons' records - particularly Hillary's records and "achievements" since 1990 - and negative lies about Bush's records and achievements) in EVERY spin cycle since since Clinton's FIRST run for governor in the 1980's.

I repeat: Where do you get your "evidence" Bush is lying here?

The documents DO NOT show "0" service in 1972! The ONE document shows weekend duty in a short period in 1973 - which is outside of the two months in question!

These "documents" DO NOT establish your point.

Rather they establish MY POINT that he served properly, that he requested permission to serve in AL, and that he was credited (at the end of his active service in the Reserves with MORE duty days "in the line of fire" (in danger of crashing and getting killed - than Gore had in his 5 months of newspaper service at an air base behind the lines!

If there were ANY question of his service, you have hidden it.

[Egregious Philbin]

It is explicitly in Barnes' (a democrat attacking Bush!) interest to lie, lie again, and lie repeatedly.

I was under the impression that Barnes and Bush are friends. From the Washington Post article it sounds as if Barnes didn't want to confess, but was required to, as he was UNDER OATH - some people still take that seriously. Since he hasn't been in politics for a long time, it seems unlikely that it would be in Barnes' interest to lie anyway.

Here's the crux of my "crusade":

The documents online show that Bush was not in Texas from May 1972-April 1973 - 12 months, a year. They do not show that Bush did his time in Alabama. If there was a document that showed that, you can bet that Bush would have brought it out during the campaign, to put this question to rest once and for all. Also, if there was a document that showed that, you can bet that few would be willing to make a case against Bush with such obvious misrepresentation by such a conspicuous absence. Since the documents are not to be found (granted they could have been lost), you cannot prove that Bush did the time in Alabama, making your certainty only based on you being unable to imagine Bush lying about it. That means that he MAY really have done nothing in the National Guard for an entire year, which appears to be highly unusual at the very least, if not worse.

[Robert A Cook PE]

What do you mean they show he WASN'T in Tx from May '72 to May '73?

If he (Bush) WASN'T serving IN Texas AS A MEMBER in good standing through the ENTIRE peiod of the summer (May '72 through Sept 15 '72) BEFORE he left for Al in October ....

HOW did he permission from his CO to serve in AL in Oct and Nov? If he were deliquent, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM for a full year, his CO would NOT have given permission to serve in AL.

Further, if he were delinquent as you claim, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM for a full year, his final service record would not have given him credit for "active days training" for the 1972 "year." His record DID give him credit training that year, so Bush WASN'T delinquet.

If he had been "skipping" training for 1972, WHY would he have applied in writing to go to Alabama AND SKIP MORE TRAINING? H**l, asking to go to Alabama would remind his CO that he (Bush) HAD been mising, and would have "opened" his records for disciplinary actions. A student who is "skipping" class and truant DOESN'T ask their teacher for a note to go on a special field trip; The fact that Bush asked means he WAS serving accurately, and that he (Bush) wanted to keep his record clean.

The documents expicitly DO NOT show his absense. YOU are (falsely and malaciously) claiming exactly what they DON'T show.

Show me (freedom of records act or whatever - and I'll pay for the FOIA costs! ) that the 1972 records show no duty. The SINGLE record you have provided is for a single quarter IN mid-1973 and COULDN'T show any duty in '72.

That (May 1973 training summary) record you cite is as irrelevent to establishing Bush's record as a May 2003 pay stub is about establishing whether I was paid in Oct 2002.

You claim Bush must establish his record: If Bush fought as dirty and with as much effort as the democrats do in pushing their lies, he'd have used the Clinton's record of treason and deceit against Gore.

He didn't sttop that low - ever.

But Gore (Gore's friends in the press) used a thirty year-old driving offense against him!

And the same occurred many, many other times where the democrats lied, and Bush ignored the lies.

[Egregious Philbin]

If he (Bush) WASN'T serving IN Texas AS A MEMBER in good standing through the ENTIRE peiod of the summer (May '72 through Sept 15 '72) BEFORE he left for Al in October ....

Exactly! There are no documents that show him serving in Texas during the summer you mention, between the denial for his request for transfer to AL and his second request for transfer.

Further, if he were delinquent as you claim, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM for a full year, his final service record would not have given him credit for "active days training" for the 1972 "year." His record DID give him credit training that year, so Bush WASN'T delinquet.

His final service record, assuming you're talking about this, makes NO MENTION of serving in Alabama, so how does it not strengthen my case, as there is a document saying he was not in Texas during that time? If you're talking about this, the days served were for the period before May 1972, not after.

If he had been "skipping" training for 1972, WHY would he have applied in writing to go to Alabama AND SKIP MORE TRAINING? H**l, asking to go to Alabama would remind his CO that he (Bush) HAD been mising, and would have "opened" his records for disciplinary actions. A student who is "skipping" class and truant DOESN'T ask their teacher for a note to go on a special field trip; The fact that Bush asked means he WAS serving accurately, and that he (Bush) wanted to keep his record clean.

Keep his record clean, cover his ***. You're pointing out MY concerns - if it's not "delinquency," then it looks like Bush was clearly getting away with something. The documents make my case. After all, if the documents that make your case existed we'd see them - they'd put an end to our debate immediately, and clear any speculation about Bush's record.

Show me (freedom of records act or whatever - and I'll pay for the FOIA costs! ) that the 1972 records show no duty. The SINGLE record you have provided is for a single quarter IN mid-1973 and COULDN'T show any duty in '72.

Indeed! Where are the 1972 records? You're assuming they exist. The documents online were provided as per the FOIA. If the 1972 records exist, presumably they would have been provided per the FOIA. And again, as I said earlier, I don't care about the 1973 record.

You claim Bush must establish his record: If Bush fought as dirty and with as much effort as the democrats do in pushing their lies, he'd have used the Clinton's record of treason and deceit against Gore.

When you're unable to make your case you return to Clinton/Gore. Are you too partisan to hear the truth? Perhaps you're saying i'm right, but what Clinton/Gore did is much worse than what Bush did?

[Robert A Cook PE]

" If you're talking about this, the days served were for the period before May 1972, not after...."

Uh, did you read this document?

Your reference clearly shows 22 days of training AFTER May 1972 as a 1st LT, and more weeks of training BEFORE May 1972 as a 2nd Lt and then a few more as a 1st Lt.

So from May 1972 until Nov 1972 Bush had 22 days (10 months equal duty at two days per month!) during the exact same period you just claim he skipped duty completely, and even more than that during the period when you claim he did nothing all year!

If you claim Bush was skipping duty, why does this record PROVE he did it?

[Egregious Philbin]

Your reference clearly shows 22 days of training AFTER May 1972 as a 1st LT, and more weeks of training BEFORE May 1972 as a 2nd Lt and then a few more as a 1st Lt.

So from May 1972 until Nov 1972 Bush had 22 days (10 months equal duty at two days per month!) during the exact same period you just claim he skipped duty completely, and even more than that during the period when you claim he did nothing all year!

Take a good look at it, I think you're reading it wrong. The line reads: "Total AD/ACDUTRA as of 72 May 26: 1st Lt 22 days." (my bold) That's the year up to May 26, 1972, whereas the time in question is the year ending May 26, 1973, which is not even listed. Notice the absence of the days in 1973, and also the absence of information about the transfer to Alabama. Again, as with all these documents, the implications are not positive.

[Egregious Philbin]

I'm already beginning to miss our daily sparring on the Bush-National Guard issue. Can I accept your silence as my victory, or have you simply tired of debating the issue? I'm guessing the latter.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Busy today with the 3-letter 10-hour/day j-word that pays the mortgage and taxes.

More later.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Reply reminder.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Et two?

[bogeybob]

I penned the column appearing below for last week's edition of the Twin City Times (Lewiston, Maine):

=================================================

A particularly vicious letter appeared on the pages of the “other paper” this week. While it is a bit unusual for one newspaper to comment on letters to the editor of another newspaper, but the outright lies contained in the “Opie” letter demand that the record be corrected for any Twin City Times reader who happened to catch the attack on President Bush in Monday’s Opie.

It was certainly disappointing to learn that the Opie letter was written by a member of one of Lewiston’s premier law firms. One would expect that the attorney would have checked his sources more thoroughly before making such damaging statements regarding our President.

The local attorney, a Democrat contributor personally and part of a firm that apparently contributes exclusively to Democrat causes, has taken up the current Democrat criticism of President Bush’s landing on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. The local barrister, evidently under the influence of a bad case of “flight suit envy” (a condition normally reserved for the females among us), was sufficiently upset by the image of the President mobbed by the Abe Lincoln’s crew to toss verbal ‘bombs’ at Bush’s own military record.

To make the statement that President Bush went AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard unit and publish it in a major Maine daily newspaper is truly unfortunate. A little research on the matter would have shown the counselor that this AWOL allegation would, in the end, make him look foolish.

The AWOL allegation bubbled around in the press and on the internet during the 2000 Presidential campaign. Even the most liberal mainstream media organizations, try as they might, have dismissed the AWOL allegations as pure poppycock.

George Magazine, founded by Teddy Kennedy’s late nephew John F. Kennedy, Jr. stated “it’s time to set the record straight” and reported that Bush was a granted an honorable discharge. The then 1st Lieutenant Bush was credited with five years and four months of service.

The New York Times, certainly no paragon of conservatism, sent two reporters to sniff out the AWOL story. They reportedly spent six months interviewing around 1,000 individuals and found the allegation baseless way back in 1999.

Even the ultra-liberal Boston Globe found no merit in the allegations.

A little research would have gone a long way.

The letter also dumped upon those that serve their country in the National Guard, inferring that it was a haven for more affluent young people who are seeking to avoid going into harm’s way. I am tiring very quickly of the incessant Democrat ranting and whining about National Guard service.

When George W. Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard, guess where his unit was deployed to? If you guessed Vietnam, you would be correct.

President Bush was an excellent pilot and flew the F-102 Delta Dart. The F-102 was a high performance, delta winged air defense interceptor. If you consider that fully ¼ of all such aircraft had their ejection seats used (i.e., crashed), for our local attorney to intimate that Bush was risk averse and hid out from danger in an Air Guard unit is utterly laughable.

For the attorney to impugn the character, bravery and combat readiness of America’s National Guardsmen and women is pathetic. It was the Air Guard who flew combat air patrol over America post 9-11. It was the Air Guard who flew in combat over Vietnam and Iraq in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was our own Maineiacs, from the Maine Air National Guard, who flew air-to-air refueling missions in support of all recent American military campaigns.

I think the attorney owes our Maine Guard an apology. To write that serving in the National Guard is pretending to be in the military is utterly insulting to our citizen soldiers and aircrews!

In an incredible display of effete intellectual snobbery, our attorney friend then dumps on the intelligence of the American voter and frets that their simple minds will be swayed by photographs of Bush in his flight suit. Bush will be remembered for his leadership post 9-11; for throwing the Taliban out of Afghanistan; and for kicking Saddam’s sorry butt out of Baghdad. Flight suit envy will play a minor role, for sure.

I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the party of the little guy? Sounds like today’s Democrats fancy themselves as the intellectual elite.

Still whining about the 2000 Presidential election, the letter writer then shames the President for winning. The last I checked, the President was duly elected as per the Constitution of the United States.

The attack letter concludes by attempting to compare the Vietnam era records of Al Gore and Bill Clinton to President Bush. It accuses the President of being rich and born with a silver spoon in his mouth, thereby giving GWB the world on a silver platter.

I would question the attorney’s assertion that Gore was ‘smart’ and ‘from Tennessee’. Gore flunked out of law school and failed 5 of 8 courses at divinity school before dropping out. Gore was raised in a swanky Washington, D.C. hotel and spent minimal time in Tennessee. You see, his dad was a powerful United States Senator.

Gore’s Vietnam record is also cloudy. Make no mistake about it, anyone who served in Vietnam was in harm’s way. There was no such thing as a rear echelon in Vietnam. But Gore’s service was markedly different than the boys from Lewiston that fought in Vietnam.

Gore was a reporter in an Army unit. None of his work has ever been found. He had a bodyguard assigned to him and spent 6 months there, just long enough to earn a Vietnam service medal. The normal tour for an Army soldier was 12 months.

He made E-5 in an incredibly short 11 months. Did Daddy have anything to do with any of this? You decide.

The letter concludes by paying homage to a certain Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas. Again, taking a back handed slap at the President’s intellectual capacity, our erstwhile attorney praises that icon of the left, former President Clinton.

Since the term “Rhodes Scholar” was mentioned, let’s look at Clinton’s Oxford experience. Clinton never completed his studies at Oxford. He spent most of his time organizing anti-war rallies and traveling to other European countries, including the Soviet Union.

The London Daily Telegraph reported other activities that reportedly earned him an invitation out of England.

Sigh! So much for our loveable Bubba, the Rhodes Scholar who was a bit short on scholarship.

Due to editorial restrictions at Opie, it’s too bad that its readership will see only the attack letter on Bush. Once again, the Twin City Times will provide you with a balanced viewpoint and a bit of truth.