Who's The Real Coward?
Today on the House floor, fresh Repuke Representative Jean Schmidt (R-OH) took to the House floor to call Rep. John Murth, who recently called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, a "coward."
She said:
"Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through."
Shortly thereafter, Schmidt returned to the house floor, to have her remarks removed from the record. And she said:
"Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed to any member of the House and I did not intend to suggest they applied to any member, most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania."
So just who is Jean Schmidt? Recently, Schmidt came thisclose to losing a special election to Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran. Hackett saw the grave mistake that was Iraq up close, and he returned to this country to continue his service, and ran for Congress as a Democrat in the red state of Ohio. Hackett make an execptionally strong showing against Schmidt that surprised everyone, and is now running for the Senate.
Jean Schmidt may be a United States Representative. But today she showed that she is the true coward, not John Murtha or any Democrat who wants to see us get Iraq right.
If Jean Schmidt were truly proud of her original remarks on the House floor, and stood by them, then she would not have returned to the floor to basically apologize.
People who are truly proud of their statements, do not back down from them.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
The Republican Party has never forgiven Bill Clinton for winning. In Bill Clinton, the Republicans saw this Southern, country Governor who was not well known nationally.
Then he comes along and WINS the White House, which the Republicans felt they were entitled to. That was Bill Clinton's biggest sin: Winning.
Now..on to the real issue at hand:
Dick Cheney received FIVE (5) deferments because his coward ass did not want to go to Vietnam.
George Bush bragged to his Harvard Business School professor about using his father's name to get out of going to Vietnam. George Bush was so gung-ho, ra-ra for the Vietnam War, but yet he did not want to serve.
The cowards in this administration refused to serve, yet they are the biggest war hawks.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/18 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
I think you have got it backwards. The Democrats have never forgiven G.W. for winning. Bill Clinton didn't even receive a majority of the vote when he won against R. Perot and the first Bush. (39%).
One of the reasons Clinton won was because he faked being in the center (at least closer to the right than he really was). That's the only reason and the only Democrat to win two terms since FDR.
And if you are upset about Cheney not serving than you (if you are intellectually honest that is) should feel the same way about Clinton not serving.
George Bush did serve in the Air National Guard. The same national guard that is fighting for you and I in Iraq right now. So don't bad mouth the guard.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/18 @ 10:22 PM — (Reply)
I think you are forgetting that George W. DIDN'T WIN!!!
He needed his friends on the Supreme Court, and at Diebold Inc., to install him in the WH 2 times.
Now on to the real issue at hand:
With the respect to their military service you are forgetting one major thing: Clinton was NOT for the Vietnam War.
One of the major problems I have with Bush and Cheney, is that they were both so gung ho, ra-ra for the Vietnam War. They supported the Vietnam War feverently.
Yet, they were too cowardly to serve there. George Bush bragged about using his father's name to get out of going, and Cheney received 5 deferrments.
They supported a war in which they did not want to go and serve.
That's the ultimate act of cowardice.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/19 @ 08:03 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/19 @ 08:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/19 @ 08:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/19 @ 08:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/19 @ 08:46 AM — (Reply)
George Bush DID NOT fulfill his air national guard requirements.
On August 1, 1972, LT Bush was grounded by Col Killian for his failure to "perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered."
A year later, Col Killian wrote a memo in which he says he was being pressured by higher-ups to give Bush a favorable yearly evaluation, one that Killian says Bush did not deserve.
Moreover, Killian's secretary, Marian Carr Knox, says that while she DID NOT type the memos that CBS News received regarding Bush's National Guard duty (or lack therefof), she says she can vouch for the veracity of what was obtained therewith.
She says that what was contained in the CBS memos, was exactly how her boss felt about Bush. (The fact that he was trying to game the system).
Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.
“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml
So now matter how YOU might try to sugar coat it, all the evidence suggests that George Bush did not serve in the National Guard honorably. He was suspended for those failures, for crying out loud.
Next, you mention Clinton's "weak response to terrorism."
I will take Clinton's response to terrorism over George Bush's any day.
Because when Clinton responded to terrorism, WE DID NOT GET ATTACKED HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
During the millenium threat, we went to battle stations, and the "principles" involved in matters of national security, HAD to attend DAILY meetings at the White House, to help shake the trees and exchange the information they were learning in their various departments each day.
And because we went to battle stations, and we had a President who was fully engaged in this, LAX Airport DID NOT get bombed, as the terrorists had planned.
Do you know that as 1999 turned to 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno slept in the Justice Department, in case she was needed to respond to any adverse even here in the country?
What the Clinton administration did in countering the Millenium bomb threat, was called true leadership.
When George Bush had even more serious information in his hands, he just ignored it and stayed on vacation, and we got attacked.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/19 @ 09:31 AM — (Reply)
Shalana your ignorance of the military is stunning. In order to have a good year in the Guard you must earn 50 points or more. G.W. met or exceeded that every year. That means he showed up, was on time and did everything he was supposed to do. He also received an honorable discharge, something we still don't know about Mr. Kerry because he has not realeased his records. nMissing a physical is not grounds for dismissal nor is it even considered being AWOL.
Clinton's response was to treat it like a crime when even the 9/11 commission said the Jihadists were at war with us and we were not with them. 27 of my shipmates died because Clinton ignored intelligence that indicated that our ships were going to be attacked in Aden.
Here's another history lesson for you:
Brig. Gen. William R. Turnipseed. He is the sole source for the four year old story that Bush was AWOL during his National Guard service.
Mr. Turnipseed is very unhappy with the way what he said "casually" four years ago has been twisted by the "Bush haters" (his words) in the media, especially the Boston Globe (who first reported the story) and the New York Times.
In a nutshell here is what happened, according to Turnipseed. Back in 1972 his Alabama National Guard unit received a letter from Bush (who was in the Texas Nation Guard) asking if he while he was in Alabama do some equivalancy training with the Alabama unit.
Turnipseed said that this request was as a matter of routine turned over to his administrative assistant, Lott, who wrote back to Bush, giving him the dates of the next unit drills. Lott told Bush he could report for those dates.
Neither Turnipseed nor Lott can now remember whether Bush appeared for these drills or not. Turnipseed says he himself might not have even been around the base at the time, so he wouldn't know one way or the other. And he says he has always said this.
The points Turnipseed wanted to stress are these: Bush was never ordered to report for duty to his unit. Since Bush was in the Texas National Guard and Turnipseed was in the Alabama National Guard, he couldn't have ordered him even if he had wanted to. But he didn't want to.
He (or his assistant, Lott) simply gave Bush the dates he could report if he wanted to do equivalency training with them. There were no orders given. If he showed up or didn't show up, it wasn't their concern.
Additionally, Turnipseed says that he never once said anything about Bush being "AWOL." He said it isn't even a term used in the National Guard. And anyway, as already noted, Bush's training record was not his concern, but the Texas National Guard's.
He said that since the Texas National Guard gave him an honorable discharge it shows that he fulfilled his training requirements.
Turnipseed said that the media has constantly misrepresented what he said and edited him so as to make Bush look bad.
He also said that he had no idea who Bush was, and that he certainly didn't do him any special favors. Nor would he have.
He said that when he first spoke to the Boston Globe reporter about this four years ago he didn't realize he was talking to a "Bush hater."
Turnipseed is a strong Bush supporter. He said that he has been contacted many times especially recently, by "Bush haters" in the media, who try to get him to say that Bush was AWOL. Once they realize that he won't cooperate they lose interest in talking to him. When they do quote him, they say he is backpedaling--even though he is still saying the same exact thing he told them four years ago.
He has been recently asked to go on with Peter Jennings and NBC's Dateline, but he is concerned that they will edit him in such a way as to misrepresent his story again. I have been in touch with Fox news, in hopes that they will have somebody talk to him and try to present his story fairly.
Bottom line, this whole AWOL story was media spin from the git-go. The Boston Globe reporter simply cherry picked Turnipseed's comments and totally misrepresented him--to make Bush look bad.
And the media are still doing it four years later. They should be ashamed--but they have no shame. They have only their agenda.
Comment by — 2005/11/19 @ 02:45 PM — (Reply)
Embassies and ships are sovereign US territory so we did get ATTACKED here.
Elmers brother made the last comment.
Comment by elmer brother— 2005/11/19 @ 02:48 PM — (Reply)
You will just not own up to the fact that under Bill Clinton's leadership, we DID NOT get attacked on U.S. soil.
LAX Airport was prevented from being bombed on New Year's Eve, thanks to the Clinton Administration going to battle stations.
Accept it, be thankful and move on!
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/19 @ 08:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 02:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 02:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 02:04 PM — (Reply)
And do you know WHY that attentive customs agent was able to pick up on what was going on?
Because the information about the terrorist threat had been passed down to her, from the higher-ups within her agency.
Remember, the general American public was not aware of the Millenium threat. The Clinton administration did what it had to do, protecting the American public.
The "principles" were required to go to daily meetings at the White House, to exchange information. And they took that information back into their departments.
Had they NOT done that, it is unlikely the agent would have been on alert.
I find it so hard to believe that you are such a partisan, that you will not say "The Clinton Administration deserves the gratitude of the American publican for helping keep us safe."
It just shows that you are only loyal to the Republican Party. You care nothing about America or Americans.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/20 @ 04:47 PM — (Reply)
How can you say I care nothing about America or Americans when I dedicated and sacrificed over 20 years of my life in the military to the American people? Talk about lack of gratitude and appreciation! That's why you will never get it Shalana, that not until the bad guys won't let you out of the house without a male companion or a burka over your face.
The Clinton administration held meetings and guffawed when they should have been sending OBL a clear message, when Clinton passed up 3 chances to capture OBL they were having meetings. bwahahahah. Did you forget about the first WTC bombing or did my little history lesson jog your memory?
Comment by — 2005/11/20 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
last entry by elmers brother
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/11/20 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
And did YOU forget that Clinton ordered the bombing of Al Qaeda training camps. The team of American special forces that went in, apparently just missed Osama by like 2 hrs.
Bill Clinton went after Osama bin Laden, and when he did so, his Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, testifed before the 9/11 Commisssion that he (Cohen) was called up to Capitol Hill, and yelled at by his fellow Republicans.
They accused him of letting his boss play "wag the dog." Bill Cohen had to assure them that he would never take part in such foolishness.
So the Republicans on Capitol Hill accused Bill Clinton of acting TOO AGRESSIVELY against terrorism.
I want you to read these quotes from Richard Clarke, from his appearance on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on March 24, 2004.
Richard Clarke was right there in the White House, in the "thick" of it, and this is what he says about what Clinton did:
"In December 1999, the president ordered daily meetings of the FBI director, the attorney general and the head of the CIA and the secretary of defense in the White House, with the national security team, to shake out any information and prevent the attacks. And they were successful in doing that.
Presented with even more frightening information, President Bush did not choose to do that, did not choose to get personally involved, except getting those morning intelligence briefings."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODRUFF: Let me quickly turn you, though, back to President Clinton. You talk in your book, "Against All Enemies," about the fact that President Clinton, that there were steps that he took, that he could have done more.
Was the Monica Lewinsky scandal one of the reasons President Clinton couldn't pursue a war against terror on a more sustained basis?
CLARKE: I think it probably was. And here's why I think that. George Tenet, Sandy Berger and I went to the president and said, "We think bin Laden is going to be at a certain location in Afghanistan at a certain time." And Clinton said, "Fine, let's blow it up." And he fired a lot of cruise missiles at that location, apparently just missing bin Laden.
The reaction of the American people was not, "Great job, you're fighting terrorism with military force," something previous presidents had not done. It was, "Wag the dog," meaning, you're using this to divert attention from your own personal and political problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODRUFF: Could President Clinton have done more to educate the American people about the al Qaeda threat to change the public?
CLARKE: If you look, beginning in 1996, in his last four years in office, President Clinton gave about 40 speeches where he mentioned terrorism, five speeches that were devoted just to terrorism. He did a lot, but, frankly, if you look at the media play on those speeches, the media didn't pick up those speeches. When he made a speech on terrorism, it wasn't on the front page, it wasn't on CNN.
Because only 35 -- I hate to say it this way, because every life we lost is one too many -- but 35 Americans died over the course of those eight years at the hands of al Qaeda. And based on that level of problem, Clinton authorized the unprecedented assassination of bin Laden and his top lieutenants, and he fired cruise missiles at him, and he launched a major covert action program.
It's clear from Richard Clarke (who has faithfully served both Republican and Democratic Presidents) that President Clinton acted against terrorism, which you, Elmer's Brother, will not admit. Shame on you.
And yes, I can say that you do not love America or Americans.
I stick by that statement.
Because if you truly loved this country, you would not be such a partisan that you would say if you do not support the Bush administration, you don't support the troops.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/20 @ 07:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 07:49 PM — (Reply)
You complain about not getting a pay raise. Boo freakin' boo. Sob, sob, sob.
You're not the only one who didn't get a pay raise.
If you even had a clue about the federal government, you would know that after Clinton came into office, he had to clean up Bush Senior's fiscal mess.
And Clinton proposed a 0% (yes, that's right, zero percent) pay raise for the federal government (both civilian and military employees). I am a civilian employee myself, so I know).
Now, the Congress overruled him, and gave us a pay raise.
And Clinton is not the first president to propose no federal pay raise.
Unfortunately, there is a "cat and mouse" game the incumbent President plays with the Congress, with respect to federal pay raises.
The incumbent White House will propose either a zero percent or a very modest pay raise, and the Congress will propose something higher.
Next, you keep wanting to pin the first World Trade Center bombing on Bill Clinton.
The first World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993---ONE MONTH AND SIX DAYS after Clinton took office.
One month after he took office, the WTC bombing occurred. And there has been no evidence that the federal government knew in advance that there was a threat, or this would happen.
Contrast that with George W. Bush.
During the transition, Sandy Berger (Clinton's outgoing NSA), told Condi Rice (the incoming NSA) that she would spend more time on the issue of terrorism in general, and Al Qaeda specifically, than ANY other issue.
Yet despite those warnings from her predecessor, Condi Rice ignored the threat. She refubbed Richard Clarke's request for an urgent and important principle's level meeting.
She ignored the August 6 PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US."
And as a consequence, WE GOT ATTACKED, and almost 3,000 Americans were killed because George W. Bush and Condi Rice sat on their behinds with critical information.
Are you even aware that on September 10, 2001 this government intercepted some Al Qaeda communication.
It said "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "the match begins tomorrow."
Yet, that was NOT translated until September 12, the day after the 9/11 attacks.
I would submit that IF George W. Bush had taken us to battle stations (as Bill Clinton did), that would have made everyone in the "bowels" of the various departments on alert as well.
And possibly, that communication would have been translated on the very same day, and the 9/11 attacks might have been prevented.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/20 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
Clinton's military attache described how MR. CLINTON treated the military. He hated the military and it was obvious.
What specifically does that intelligence mention that would have prevented the attack? Does it mention the WTC? Does it mention making airplanes into bombs?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 08:23 PM — (Reply)
George W. Bush had all the dots----he was just too lazy to connect them.
1. His National Security Adviser is told my her predecessor that she will spend more time on the issue of terrorism in general, and Al Qaeda specifically, than any other issue.
2. His White House Counter-terrorism Chief asks for an "urgent and important" principles-level meeting to discuss the threat posed by Al Qaeda, and is refused.
3. George Tenet says that during the summer of 2001, he and others were running around the CIA with their "hair on fire" because they felt that an attack was imminent.
4. George Bush receives an August 6 PDB called "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S."
5. September 10- The National Security Agency intercepts communication from Al Qaeda which says "tomorrow is zero hour" and "the match begins tomorrow."
Again, the dots were there. They were just not connected.
I find it amazing, that YOU, someone who claims that you love your country (which you really don't) would LAUGH at a President taking this country to "battle stations."
Going to battle stations is not to be taken lightly.
The Clinton administration did that because they recognized the Millenium threat.
And their going to battle stations helped prevent the bombing of LAX Airport.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/20 @ 08:30 PM — (Reply)
I have now dedicated a portion of my blog to you and the other ungrateful progressives. You will be held up as a shining example of unappreciative people who sat on their asses while others sacrificed for you.
Your hatred of the military will only go so far as to bash them on your blog and in your warm home while they work hard for you?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
Here's what your ass doesn't get: your military service (IF you even served) isn't at issue here.
We are talking about the failed military policies of the Bush crime team, not your supposed service.
Secondly, you talk about progressives being ungrateful, as if progressives have not served in the military.
Tell that to Max Cleland, John Murth and John Kerry.
You trash Clinton for not serving.
Yet, you excuse Bush's not serving, Cheney's not serving, and Condi Rice not serving.
Again, your service is not the issue here, so why do you keep acting like it is?
This is about the policies of the incumbent admimistration, something which your lazy ass is not prepared to discuss.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/20 @ 08:54 PM — (Reply)
What is it I should have understood from you when you said
"I hate Americans"? That's not bashing a Bush policy, that's bashing me. Would you like to see a copy of my military ID? I'll show it to you if you show me your Communist Party Card.
If you call having a meeting going to battle stations then again I suggest you do your homework and learn what going to battle stations really means.
You denigrate those who serve in the National Guard by saying Bush
did not serve, yet they are dying in Iraq for you. You support the military...come on Shalana give up the facade.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 09:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/20 @ 09:44 PM — (Reply)
First off, I didn't lose at the ballot box. George Bush lost, which is why he needed his neo-con friends on the Supreme Court to select him. And he needed his friends at Diebold to rig the machines, and Secretaries of State like Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell to do their part.
Secondly, Richard Clarke is the one who said the Clinton administration took us to battle stations during the millenium threat. That comes right from Richard Clarke, and he would know, since he was there.
And yes, I can say you hate America, because it's clear you do. Any time you are such a partisan that you say unless you support the Administration, you don't support the troops, then you hate Americans. Because you want to do their thinking for them, not have them think for themselves or have their own opinions.
And you DO NOT appreciate Max Cleland's service. Because if you did, you would denounce the tactics the Republican Party used against him in 2002.
They called a man who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam unpatriotic, and morphed his face into Osama bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein, simply because he disagreed with some of the details in regards to the creation of DHS.
Max Cleland was called unpatriotic, when his opponent received multiple deferrments.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/21 @ 04:41 AM — (Reply)
Your argument about Max Cleland is a straw man.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/21 @ 05:05 PM — (Reply)
You most certainly did say that in order to support the troops, you had to support the Administration.
You said that my criticism of the White House and Pentagon, with respect to the way the Iraq war has been conducted is a direct reflection on the troops.
So in other words, you are saying that by critizing George W. Bush and Rumsfeld, I am critizing the troops.
And what do you mean, my comments about how the Republicans treated Max Cleland is a "straw?"
Obviously, you did not follow that particular re-election campaign.
Saxy Chambliss, who ran as the Republican nominee, ran ads where he morphed Max Cleland's face into Osama bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein during the 2002 midterm race.
He and the Republicans called Max Cleland, a man who left multiple limbs in Vietnam, unpatriotic simply because he had some disagreements with the GOP with respect to some of the finer details of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Saxby Chambliss calls Max Cleland unpatriotic, yet he (Chambliss) received mulitple deferrments for a so-called "bad knee," yet he went on to play college basketball.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/11/21 @ 07:27 PM — (Reply)
You most certainly did say that in order to support the troops, you had to support the Administration.You said that my criticism of the White House and Pentagon, with respect to the way the Iraq war has been conducted is a direct reflection on the troops.
You drew your own conclusion. I have not stated this. If so please refer to the direct quote.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/22 @ 09:19 PM — (Reply)
But that is what you said.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/23 @ 03:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/23 @ 06:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/23 @ 06:17 PM — (Reply)
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/23 @ 06:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/24 @ 11:00 AM — (Reply)
I am sorry their son had to die for a lie. And I hope your friends ask of George W. Bush, the very same question that Cindy Sheehan has asked of him: For what noble cause did my son die?
Secondly, the facts are there for anyone interested in seeing them: George W. Bush did not serve honorably in the National Guard.
Let's deal with the fact that he bragged to his Harvard Business School professor about the fact that he used his Daddy's connections to keep from serving in Vietnam, although he was a huge supporter of the Vietnam war. He supported the war, but didn't want to go over there.
And he DID NOT fulfill his requirements in the Guard. He was suspended for not taking his required physical, for crying out loud.
And considering his lifestyle then (drinking and possible drug use) you have to wonder WHY he did not want to take that physical.
He was a source of extreme fustration for his Col. Killian.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/24 @ 11:51 AM — (Reply)
Here are some FACTS for you concerning the president and his service.
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.”
And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.
The noble cause for which Jeremiah died is called freedom, mam the same noble cause our military spilled blood during WWII etc. I thought as a liberal you would have compassion for people who are oppressed (such as the Iraqi's under Saddam)? Or does your compassion only extend to Kosovo because Clinton put us in there? Funny Clinton puts the military in Kosovo to free the Kosovars and you are okay with that despite the lack of UN approval and an exit strategy. Bush frees 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq and your wacky political ideology prevents you from seeing the contradiction in your position. Your statements continue to prove my point that you can not bring yourself to support the troops. It's probably because you see it as synonymous with supporting Bush and you wouldn't have that.
Thanks again for your support of the troops, I am sure they appreciate it.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/24 @ 12:55 PM — (Reply)
So, do you believe that Col. Killian was lying when he wrote in a memo that he was being pressured to give Bush a favorable evaluation, one that he did not deserve?
Why did George W. Bush not show up for the physical he was required to take?
And why do you ignore the comments of Col. Killian's secretary?
Secondly, it truly saddens me to say that Jeremiah did NOT die for the cause of freedom. For him to have died for the cause of freedome, would mean that we (the United States) had been under attack from Sadaam Hussein and Iraq, and we were not.
Unfortunately, Jeremiah died for an Islamic state. He died so that Iraq could install an Islamic constitution.
Comment by SMillard— 2005/11/25 @ 08:19 PM — (Reply)
I have passed on your diatribe to my friends, again they thank you for your support of the troops. An Islamic state would include Sharia law, that is not the case in Iraq. Our own constitution makes reference to God (something in recent history people choose to forget). I have chosen a red burka for you because it is the color of Communism. If you don't pull your head out soon you will be wearing that burka and will be sharing a house with 3 other wives.
I was in Iraq and I saw how happy those people were to be free. I understand that you lack compassion for other people while you sat fat dumb and happy in your warm home. It's okay your true colors are starting to shine through.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/26 @ 09:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/26 @ 09:44 AM — (Reply)
Want to show your support Shalana?
Here is a place where you can send the troops a message.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/11/26 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)