Could the Press Grow a Spine?

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

What the Bush administration wanted was a direct violation of the UCMJ, under
the article covering assault. I don't have a copy of the UCMJ. I believe
they
said it was Art. 77.

Every military man should have a copy of the UCMJ available readily for his
personal reference. Here's yours:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../mcm/blmcm.htm

No charge. (^-^)))

George Z.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
for duty for a two year period.

There seems to still be some life left in the old girl. I heard a piece on the
tube the other day to the effect that the Associated Press had just filed suit
against the US Government under the FOI Act to require it to produce ALL of the
paperwork in its possession pertaining to the service of one 1st Lt. George
Walker Bush (Texas ANG).

Let's see how that plays out in the courts.

George Z.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:05:51 -0400, "Leslie Swartz"
wrote:

Scott:

Sorry for calling you "Dude" (if indeed you took offense). However, to
assume that wealth in the hands of the wealthy is static is ludicrous. The
assumption that anyone but a liberal would just sit on $900,000 is very
"Dude-Like." The $900,000 would be invested- creating additional value for
the economy.

The wealthy didn't get wealthy by ascribing to socialist nostrums. Unless
they inherited it; like most wealthy liberal socialists (but I repeat
myself- three times!).

Steve Swartz


That's my whole point. People complain that the wealthy have too much
money and think it ought to be more evenly distributed and that's
crazy. Sure it sounds good at first cut and who wouldn't want the
poor to have a better lot in life BUT as the saying goes "it takes
money to make money". Granted not every rich person decides to
donate money to the poor but TAKING it from them simply because they
have it. . .well that's not just wrong but it's not too smart either.
That $900k can be put back to work and WILL be (the rich person got
rich by being smart, not because they stole it). Ninty million more
pennies doled out would be wasting it.

Denyav wrote:
I could not find anything in US Constitution that allows Pentagon Generals
to
plan and execute PSYOPs aganist their own civilian superiors in Washington
or
aganist Sayered Duvdevan in Iraq.

Dood, I'd ask you for some of that **** you been smoking, except
that whatever it is, it clearly causes you to make a raving ass of
yourself every time you open your mouth (or touch fingers to
keyboard, anyway).


Jeff

Subject: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/25/2004 2:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Is he still "highly decorated" if he threw his awards away?


Yes, and still wounded three times.

What it shows when people condemn Kerry and support Bush s that they:

Have an agenda

Or:

Don't understad what's going on.

Bush has a 16 month break reflected in his chronilogical record of service.

Kerry has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three purple hearts.

When people attack Kerry on his integrity, backbone, spine, whatever you want
to call it -- think about Bush's record.

Walt


The neocons always attack war heroes. They trashed the hell out of McAine And
Cheney said when asked why he never went to vietnam, "I had better things to do
at the time". Could you vomit at that lack of patriotism and cowardice?

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: Could the Press Grow a Spine?
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 6/25/2004 2:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Please come up with logical arguments if you can.

It's all just personal attacks, isn't it?

The record sure won't support you.

There's a 16 month break in Bush's service from 5/26/72 to 10/01/73:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif

Kerry is a bona fide hero. Bush is and was a shirker. I cal him a shirker
now
because he has refused (or perhaps he's incapable) to admit a single mistake.

Walt



Yeah Bush said that God told him to do it.The insane have taken over the
asylum,


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

On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly bring
up military service are on the Kerry side.

I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy corpsman,
to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
source..."

And I know they've had people come forward and belittle the fact that he took
the third wound reassignment option.

But Bush -- Bush has a 16 month gap in his chronilogical record of service.
And the 10/01/73 entry is just adminstrative. Bush can't prove he was present
for duty for a two year period.

We have repeatedly demonstrated to you in this forum evidence that
Bush had five years and three months of six year commitment. The
records show his administrative posting to Montgomery was reasonable
and proper. There is no "two year" or "16 month gap".

He and his surrogates have no right to belittle the service of a decorated WIA
veteran.

Of which you "have no source" but "believe a Navy Corpsman" is the
source? That's your support of "He and his surrogates"? Your case
seems a bit unsupported.

It's working though. There are decorated verterans on this NG that will
belittle the hero and support the shirker.

I've repeatedly stated that while I think his service was minimal, the
issue I have is his conduct afterward. And, now his desire to profit
from the service and ignore the lies that he told in Senate testimony.

Maybe the reason Art's generation is called "the Greatest Generation" is
because he sees through Bush's bull**** screen.

They are called the Greatest Generation because they fought when it
was necessary to defeat an unspeakable evil. They subordinated their
fears and politics to support their elected leadership. They made
great sacrifices to defend this nation when it was attacked without
provocation and half the number of people killed on 9/11 died at Pearl
Harbor. FDR didn't have a military record in any form, but folks
didn't crawl out from under rocks to attack him for that. They fought
for their country.

Consider the difference today.


Walt


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jun 2004 09:50:23 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

In fact, his chronolgical record of service has a 16 month gap.

-He- has no right to denigrate the service of a highly decorated WIA
veteran like Senator Kerry, or to have his surrogates do it.

Walt

Show me ONE case where Bush did that. The only people who consitantly
bring
up military service are on the Kerry side.

I don't have a source, but the Bushies got someone, I believe a Navy
corpsman,
to come forward and say that Kerry's third wound was just a scratch.

I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record. A meeting in April
in Washington at the National Press Club brought together more than
120 former Navy Swift personnel who pointed out the problems with
Kerry's service. You choose to ignore that evidence. You "don't have a
source..."



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

I think you are wasting your words. Walt's postings are about creating left
wing propaganda, not facts.

Jarg

I've twice posted a list of more than twenty Navy officers from the
Swift boat program who discredited Kerry's record.

And I've posted his fitrep. I'll do her again:

"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG
(Lieutenant Junior Grade) Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics
and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every
opportunity. On one occasion while in tactical command of a three boat
operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly
assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush.
This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several enemy KIAs.

LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing
and appearance are above reproach. He has of his own volition learned the
Vietnamese language and is instrumental in the successful Vietnamese training
programs.

During this period of this report LTJG Kerry has been awarded the Silver Star
medal, the Bronze Star medal, the Purple Heart medal (2nd and 3rd awards).

18 Dec 1969"

http://www.awolbush.com/kerry-vs-bush.asp

Maybe those guys were just jealous.


And besides, no matter what those swift boat officers say, Bush has NO right to
say squat because he didn't serve.

Walt

We have repeatedly demonstrated to you in this forum evidence that
Bush had five years and three months of six year commitment.

What I know is that there is a 16 month break in his service, and that's a
no-no.

Walt