Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.


Walt

You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.

Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law didn't require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting date.
I may be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.

George Z.

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/19/2004 3:57 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and he
said not to worry about it.

Walt

Good thing you didn't say you decided not to register. We can't have you
admitting you committed a felony, can we?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.

Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.

Michael Moore uses some footage in "Fahrenheit 911" from the 2000
certification
of Florida's elctoral votes in the Senate. They could have been challenged
if
any one senator had agreed to co-sign the documentation provided by black
members of Congress.

Yes, they could have challenged, but would have lost. With the make up of
Congress, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, only the candidate who held
state certification would win this type of challenge. Of course, Bush held
state certification as a result of the remedy crafted by the Democrat
majority of the Florida Supreme Court (Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
vs. Harris). Instead of ordering a full recount, the court decided that
state certification would be awarded to the winner of 4 Democrat majority
county recount.

"Rougher translation: We're giving you a chance to explain your way out of
the federal law trap into which you stumbled on Nov. 21. But we don't see
how you can do it. And by the way, it isn't only us that you have to
convince. Under another provision of that 1887 act (3 U.S.C. section 15),
the Bush electors that Gov. Jeb Bush has already certified and sent to
Congress, via the archivist of the United States, will be the ones counted,
unless any Gore electors approved by the Florida courts can pass muster with
both the Republican-controlled House and the Senate. Not much chance of
that."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...2000-12-13.htm

While Democrats will argue that is was Gore's right to only protest counties
that he wanted, his short-sighted decision cost him the election.

Since you seem pretty familiar with this, what do you think about the
rationale
the Supreme Court used to close out the Florida recount?

My understanding is that the Court has usually deferred to state courts in
interpreting state constitutions.

That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.

But here, they took the issue away from the state court
and basically declared Bush the winner.

No, Bush was already the winner by that time, see above.

In "F-911" you can hear Congresswoman Corrine Brown say that 16,000 of her
constituents had been illegally disinfranchised in Duvall County.

Bush is already gearing up to steal this election. Karl Rove, his
communication director worked with Donald Segretti, who served time in
prison
for his activities in the 1972 campaign. Bush actually has Nixon
adminstration officals working for him. These include Cheney and
Rumsfeld.

The Republican Party dirty tricks organization is hard at work and has
been
since Nixon's time.

Walt

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 7/19/2004 11:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register and
he
said not to worry about it.


Walt

You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.

Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law didn't
require
you to register if you had volunteered and were waiting for your reporting
date.
I may be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.

George Z.


Me too.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "ian maclure"
Date: 7/19/2004 10:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:11:03 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

Was I said was that Kerry didn't seem
particularly committed to his crew and his oath to serve since he took an
"early out" from Vietnam.

That early out took being wounded three times.

So Trotskerry sez. The doctor who treated at least one of those
booboos and his CO at the time would beg to differ.

Kerry had to volunteer three times to get that early out. He had to
volunteer
for the Navy. He had to volunteer for Viet Nam. And he had to volunteer
for
the Swift Boats.

Bet he thought he'd spend his time swanning around the TOnkin
Gulf Yacht Club. Bet he was surprised.

I wonder if his experience in the Swift Boats didn't sour him on the war.
If
he opted out of being killed for a mistake, I'd say it would be hard to
gainsay
him.

Hmmm, does the chronology match with Johnson realizing he'd
well and truly screwed the pooch and deciding to skidaddle?

He had an honorable out and he took it.

Nah, he chickened and ran.


And you of course stayed in after your three Purple Hearts and a SIlver star.
Right?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Buzzer ) writes:
On 19 Jul 2004 04:32:11 GMT, (Bill Shatzer)
wrote:

-snip-

Rules change if one is activated - assuming he was still eligible of
activation. Until that happens however, one is essentially a civilian.

Certainly he was not subject to the UCMJ.

Appears he was an ID card carrying member of the Naval Reserve at the
time. Don't know if they are subject to the UCMJ?

See article 2 of the UCMJ. Reserves are only subject to the UCMJ
while on inactive duty training.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Ed Rasimus ) writes:

Sorry, Fred, but unless you are referring to the certification of the
vote of the EC, you are wrong. The President is elected by majority
vote of the Electoral College which, although it has the same number
as Representatives and Senators of the states, is NOT synonymous with
the Congress.

The EC votes in December of presidential election years, but does so
remotely and does not convene in a single location. They, by law, are
NOT the members of the Congress.

Actually, it is the -constitution- (and not a mere law) which
makes senators and representatives - as well as anyone else
holding an "office or profit or trust under the federal government
- ineligible to be an elector.

The winner must win by a majority vote, not a plurality. If no
majority, then the Presidential race goes to the house where each
Representative gets a vote and the VP race goes to the Senate where
each State gets one vote.

Actually, that's backwards. The election for president in the house
has the representatives voting by states with each state getting
one vote regardless of the number of representatives and the votes
of a majority of the states required for election. The VP election
in the Senate has the senators voting individually with the votes of
a majority of the senators being required.

Whether the current VP gets a vote in the senate to break a tie-vote
deadlock is not exactly clear.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul 2004 08:57:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I turned 18 in 1973. My draft lottery number was somewhere between
183 and 187. But no one was drafted from my year, the first such
year since the start of the Vietnam era draft.


I turned 18 in 1973 also. I asked my recruiter if I should register
and he
said not to worry about it.


Walt

You recruiter told you to break the law and you did? It becomes
clearer with each posting why think the way you do.

Unless they changed the law back in the 70s, in my day the law didn't
require
you to register

It did, you didn't have to register between 1975 until 1980, when Jimmy
Carter got concerned about the Soviet's in Afghanistan.

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
Give me an army of "kids barely out of their teens" and I'll give you
an effective war-fighting force in about four years, provided I've got
a cadre of senior NCOs and Officers with the mettle to do the job.

I wasn't much of a soldier, though I wore the uniform and took the
Queen's shilling while I worked at learning the trade (and enjoyed most
of it; the rest I'll call 'character building'. *I* wasn't medevacked
with hypothermia even if other members of my platoon were! [Mostly, I
was in my basha when the rain hit so I was drier than they were in the
winds that followed... but why spoil a good story?]).


But with hindsight, one of the reasons the units I served in worked so
well was that each year's incoming cadre of 18 and 19-year old 'officer
cadets' ran head-on into some skilled, experienced and devious SNCOs
with good senior officers to back them up (definition of a good
adjutant... like God, you know He's there but you're glad you never get
proof of His existence ) and junior officers being given the chance
to sink or swim as leaders with a platoon of officer-cadets to lead. (If
we managed nothing else, we were a tough audience)

Even in peacetime, sorting "those who can lead" from "those who should
follow" and sifting out "arrogant buggers with too much technical
knowledge who think they *should* lead but lack the necessary skills[1]"
is not a simple task. My respects to those who tried to do so in
wartime.



[1] Yes, with hindsight, that was me. Still, better to try and fail...
and my current 'acting rank' is higher than anything I'd have achieved
in uniform, if you believe the published equivalencies.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"ArtKramr" wrote

The American public has all they can take of Neocon crap.

Welfare is a tough choice, but I guess you have to live it to appreciate it eh?