Kerry’s signed his 180 but 100+ pages are missing

6 Responses to Kerry’s signed his 180 but 100+ pages are missing

1. SSgt Yatahey says:

   5/23/2006 at 9:18 am

   You knew I wouldn’t pass this up, didn’t you?

   That sanctimonious S.O.B. has never told the truth; and I too, hope Americans have enough common sense not to put this lying ******* in the Oval Office, as he is certainly not deserving of such a position — even now, he’s rarely in his Office; yet, MA citizens continue to condone this by supporting him … “whole lotta stupid goin’ on there”.

   John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry is guilty of war crimes and lying to the people – he should be:

   Strung up in a tree — shoot him in his tight *** at sunrise — kicked in the nuts — *****-slap his Momma for producing such an ugly, lying ****-bird — shave his *** and tell him to walk backwards — ship his lying *** to the South Pole with nothing but Yachting clothes.

   And run his TRAITOR *** out of America along with:

   * Ramsey Clark
   * Cindy Sheehan
   * Louis Farrakhan
   * Al Sharpton
   * Michael Moore
   * Stephen Pearcy
   * Ted Rall
   * Theodore Kennedy
   * Frank Church

   Git-R-Done!
2. Shazzer says:

   5/23/2006 at 9:46 am

   I’ll take your concern over Kerry’s military records seriously as soon as you show the same curiosity about Dubya’s national guard service.
3. Cao says:

   5/23/2006 at 5:25 pm

   I’ll take your concern over Kerry’s military records seriously as soon as you show the same curiosity about Dubya’s national guard service.

   Ok, then it’s time for you to start taking the concern over Kerry’s military records seriously. Should I add you to the Kerry 180 blogroll?

   In September of 2004 I wrote about it. The story is over as far as I’m concerned…there is no controversy as far as Bush is concerned.

   Because Bush’s military service has repeatedly been covered, in numerous places…over and over again, and I’ve read it. How about giving ‘thinking’ a try? What. Makes your head hurt, you say? Obviously you either missed it…or don’t care…so making that statement saying you’ll show some concern about Kerry when I show the same curiosity about Dubya’s national guard service is really stupid. And I don’t believe you’re serious…because right here…I prove that I certainly have taken the time to synthesize and analyze Bush’s record. You think I didn’t check all that out? You assume I’m just like you; and you’re terribly wrong there. I have the ability to reason and think things through and can even discern between fact and fiction! ha! You obviously pay attention to only one side of the story; the communist propaganda side.

   Kerry’s good at that, too, he wore the communist bandana during the anti-war demonstrations when he was a leader of Vietnam Vets against the war (during those mysterious missing 6 years, I take it) and he reportedly even attended a meeting to kill Senators. Shouldn’t be shocking, actually, he met with Madam Bin in Paris and came back talking the communist talking points for withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s no “democrat”…he just masquerades as one. Ask a REAL democrat what he thinks of Kerry: Zell Miller. Oh, I forgot, Zell told the nation what he thought of Kerry at the Republican National Convention! Zell is an old-fashioned marine and Christian…a real tried and true military guy who served and loves the military…not a fake like Kerry who tries to leverage….lies. And threatens those who try to tell the truth with lawsuits.

   This is probably too much for your little mind to take in; it involves thinking. It’s SO much easier to repeat slogans than to think about the facts presented and weigh them against what you’ve read at KOS, Village Media, MiamiNewTimes, the Smirking Chimp, Indymedia and ALTERNET isn’t it? That’s why you sit on the other side; no thought processes are involved. Good luck with that.

   
   Bush’s National Guard years
   Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

   What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
   That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

   News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

   The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

   That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

   Not two years of weekends. Two years.

   After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

   According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

   Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

   That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

   Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

   “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

   So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

   Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

   In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

   Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

   During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

   A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

   A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

   Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

   And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

   The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

   And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

   In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

   Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

   That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

   And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

   I doubt it. We can keep sounding the alarm bell on this one; Kerry will not answer, just as he didn’t answer the call years ago when he wound up in Vietnam and decided to find the quickest and shortest route to home…and fragging the mission after he left…and turning his back on his comrades at arms long afterwards by making sure the POWs who might still be there would never be returned home. It’s not bad enough that he did this just once; like Hanoi Fonda did–he did it over and over again all these years later–and threatened the honorable men who served and wanted to expose the truth about him with lawsuits for libel. The man is a despicable example when compared with all the great men who’ve served in this country.

   Remember, Eisenhower was a freakin’ GENERAL and he never bragged on his service or went up to the podium declaring he was ‘reporting for duty’. Perhaps those 4 months even though he spent most of it running away from the enemy–are the only thing that qualified him to run the country, in his mind. Pathetic…when he didn’t mention much about his 20 years in the Senate. How unremarkable.

   Must we rehash Rathergate all over again to refresh your memory? Apparently so. Remember: BUSH RELEASED HIS RECORDS.

   MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it’s just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When –

   Q I understand –

   MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear —

   But for some reason, Kerry is too chicken to do the same thing. He should shut up about everyone else’s records because when the truth started to come out….

   Kerry was forced to revise his decades-long contention he was on a secret mission in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968.

   Douglas Brinkley, author of approved war biography “Tour of Duty,” is reported to be writing a piece for the New Yorker saying it actually was January 1969 when Kerry was sent into Cambodia, not December 1968.

   As WND reported, the authors of “Unfit for Command” claim that despite the senator’s many public references to spending Christmas Eve in Cambodia – including a 1986 speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate – the candidate was never in Vietnam’s neighboring country. Rather, they say he was more than 50 miles from the Cambodian border at Sa Dec.

   Also, said O’Neill, Kerry closed the Democratic National Convention with a story in which he claimed that five swiftboats fled on March 13, 1969, after a mine explosion and only he came back to rescue Lt. James Rassman. His campaign now is admitting that he fled and the rest stayed, before he later returned for Rassman.

   What other little tidbits will we discover in those 100 missing pages, I wonder? Probably something like this, I’ll bet–citing his own journals, a passage in Kerry’s approved war biography, appears to contradict the senator’s claim he won his first Purple Heart as a result of an injury sustained under enemy fire.

   
   Let’s try another one at NRO about the release of Bush’s records:

   Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed

   EDITOR’S NOTE: This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

   Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you’ll get an earful. “No, I don’t think they have,” he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn’t recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn’t have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven’t been interested in Turnipseed’s best recollection. “They don’t understand the Guard, they don’t want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush,” he says. “So when I say, ‘There’s a good possibility that Bush showed up,‘ why would they put that in their articles?”

   Because as most of us have been able to figure out–who have brains–it was a badly conducted and orchestrated smear campaign that had gaping holes in it that most of us could see through. Don’t know how to read, do you, or do you just read KOS and the Smirking Chimp?

   …Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a “deserter” who went “AWOL” for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC’s Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president’s Guard service.

   Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president’s enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.

   Apparently not for the moonbats in Idiotaria, though, they keep beating on that dead horse.

   During the heated campaign, when Rather and CBS News trotted out never-authenticated documents to demonstrate that Bush had performed “poorly” in the National Guard during the Vietnam War and then received “preferential treatment” from his commanding officers, the story began immediately falling aparts because of: bloggers.

   The typesettings of the documents didn’t exist in the ’70′s when they were supposedly created.

   Standing by the phony story for weeks, CBS News President Andrew Heyward dinfally said,

   “Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authetntic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.”

   Think CBS was seeking to influence the election in favor of Kerry? Or did they simply ‘make an honest mistake’ by not adequately fact checking what could have been the most important news story of 2004?

   Bloggers deconstructed that story in a matter of hours. CBS fact checkers need to look for other work…just like Mariah Blake did as the result of her fake story about Jack Idema.

   I can’t believe how stupid some people are!

   Back during WWII, Republicans rallied behind a Democratic president for the good of the nation. But it doesn’t work both ways: in a cynical display of raw partisan politics, today’s democratic presidential candidates undermine our national security by resisting the president every single step of the way in the War on Terror–and then have the balls to accuse him of ‘politicizing’ the war.

   Liberals don’t seem to understand that peace marches and antiwar demonstrations on new York’s Fifth Avenue won’t stop terrorism. (If that worked, terrorism would have been forever destroyed by now after all the adolescent tantrums of the 60′s.) Offering bin Laden a Frappacunio won’t do the trick; wars aren’t won on rhetoric. You must FIGHT TO WIN. Just ask Neville Chamberlain, who made the mistake of believing that he could ‘negotiate for peace in our time’ with Hitler–only to find England later havig to fight a war aginst a much stronger, better prepared and fully militarized Germany.

   Republicans are simply better at defending our country than Democrats, and the country knows it. “In the lastest poll by Democracy Corps, run by Democrats, the GOP enjoys a twenty-five-point lead over Democrats on the measure ‘protecting American against any threat’ and a twenty-seven-point edge on ‘strength’”.

   Go cry to your mama and don’t forget your pacifier, lefty. God help us all if you people ever end up back running things–you’re simply too illogical, too unhinged, too full of perseveration and echlalia of the stupid talking points that you obvious are either too lazy to think through or are too stupid to fathom.
4. SSgt Yatahey says:

   5/23/2006 at 6:53 pm

   Posted by “Shazzer” — I’ll take your concern over Kerry’s military records seriously as soon as you show the same curiosity about Dubya’s national guard service.

   Apparently, you are a DEMOCRAPPER who loves John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry – – or has never followed all of his lies that have been proven; especially by thousands of American Vets who can’t stand the LYING *******.

   Get a clue about reality and honesty; then change that username to something more like “*****-U” — — that’s the dog that, when trying to potty-train it, you don’t which end to push down … very much like John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry.
5. Cao says:

   5/23/2006 at 6:58 pm

   Actually…I think a lot of these commenters are a lot more extreme than mere ‘democrappers’, Yat. Even Kerry is a masquerading one…they ought to come out in the open as to what their true agenda is…ah but communism and socialism can’t be sold by their brand names yet.
6. SSgt Yatahey says:

   5/24/2006 at 7:33 am

   You’re right Cao; they are more extreme, but I was trying to be nice — as for any of them coming out in the open … none of them have the balls to do that; maybe those brand names will eventually catch on!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

CAPTCHA Code*

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>