Points

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:49 am

With all the rhetoric surrounding Bush's NG service (or non service as the libniks would have us believe) there is perhaps only one way to look at it. NG pilots had a certain minimum set of points they had to accumulate by flying X number of hours. So lets see how Bush did:

Points need to meet obligations: 50
Bush yearly point accumulation:
1st year 253
2nd year 340
3rd year 137
4th year 112
5th year 56

Also to further explain how Bush got out early:

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,' Campenni (Bush's superior offecer) says. 'The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In â??72 or â??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."

To bad the liberal mainstream press fails to dig these little nuggets up, yet 60 minutes will foist what now appear to be forgaries of Bush's record without doing any checking on their own. Why is it some outside agency has to discover the documents are fake?
Couple this with parading a sleeze ball gossip columnist like Kitty Kelly around on Good Morning and having Katy act as though KK is some sort of reputable source of inside information on the goings on at camp david just bolsters my disdain for organisations that purport to be reporting news but in fact are nothing more that mouth pieces for the far left. These are the "News" groups that will be the only entities allowed under McCain/Feingold to air topics on the presidential elections.Perhaps M/F got it all wrong and the law should be just the other way around.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:17 am

So you're saying the spoiled rich white kid spent 5 years of the Vietnam war...flying in a circle over Texas. This is impressive how? You know the only reason his father put him into NG is so he woulnd't go overseas. Too bad he didn't leave the country like the more zealous draft-skippers.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 9:58 am

You know the conservatives are reaching when they criticize Kerry for going to vietnam while bush stayed at home

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:41 am

Shiny object.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:57 am

Dedman wrote:Shiny object.

LOL

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Testiculese wrote:So you're saying the spoiled rich white kid spent 5 years of the Vietnam war...flying in a circle over Texas. This is impressive how? You know the only reason his father put him into NG is so he woulnd't go overseas. Too bad he didn't leave the country like the more zealous draft-skippers.

You mean like the liberals' precious Clinton?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 12:44 pm

Testiculese wrote:So you're saying the spoiled rich white kid spent 5 years of the Vietnam war...flying in a circle over Texas. This is impressive how?

Well considering millions of poor white boys spend every sunday watching men drive hundreds of miles really fast in a circle...a rich guy doing it in the air might sound impressive!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:42 pm

Birdseye: master of the straw man.

Nobody's criticizing Kerry for going to Vietnam. People are criticizing Kerry for trying to get a non-combat position, ending up in combat, getting out as soon as possible via questionable medals, testifying about invented war crimes as soon as he got back, and then making Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. He might have good reasons for all of this behavior, but it looks to me like he's just been using Vietnam to try to score political points. I refer you to Democrats 2004 - Worst Campaign in Presidential race history.

Bush never told us "I served in the National Guard, so you should vote for me." Yet people seem entirely convinced that questioning his NG service -- using obviously forged documents, no less -- is the best way to beat him. They seem entirely too focused on questioning Bush's NG service, while yelling that questioning Kerry's Vietnam service is "attacking my patriotism". And then they claim that the RNC was filled with such attacks, when the only references I could find were of the "we value Kerry's Vietnam service and honor him for it, now let's talk about his voting record." I think we call that "projecting". Again, I refer you to Democrats 2004 - Worst Campaign in Presidential race history.

Zoop! · Post by **Zoop!** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 6:46 pm

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Bush's history in the national guard or Kerry's service in Vietnam would have a minimal effect on presidential policy.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:21 pm

I agree.

However, the implications surrounding both cases are significant when evaluating the character of the men who want to be president. If Kerry faked his medals, or Bush refused to return to guard duty, these reflect on the character of the men at the time, and need to be explained. That's why they keep putting forth the "shiny object" -- because people care. People don't want a fake war hero or a guy who doesn't follow orders in the white house.

With respect to Democrats 2004 - Worst Campaign in Presidential race history: most of the people who'd be convinced not to vote for Bush because of the National Guard story, if it were true, already refuse to vote for Bush. And the risks in trying to pick up those few votes using forged memos (see LGF for more info) are just monumental. The Kerry campaign has done a brilliant job of bringing the wrong issues (Kerry in Vietnam and Bush in the Guard) to the forefront.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:28 pm

Heh, I thought I made it apparent that I wasn't looking for a real argument in here with the baiting comment and the smiley. It's woody posting

Just looking to rouse him up. Sorry to others affected, I won't do it again

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:34 pm

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:39 pm

Birdseye wrote:Heh, I thought I made it apparent that I wasn't looking for a real argument in here with the baiting comment and the smiley. It's woody posting Just looking to rouse him up. Sorry to others affected, I won't do it again

Sorry not to be aroused as I am practicing my zen posting. Maybe if you are seeking arousal you should see if Stress's icon is available

Zoop! · Post by **Zoop!** » Fri Sep 10, 2004 8:34 pm

I wouldn't necessarily call Kerry's campaign the worst campaign in Presidential race history until the electoral college votes him off the island. It doesn't help that he is now revamping some of his campaign staff because they waited forever to respond to claims, which hurt Kerry's campaign, or that he is is challenging an incumbent candiate (who tends to have a higher success rate), but he can still salvage himself, even if it comes down to running the equivalent of a two-minute drill with onside kicks and two-point conversions.