alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> Like I'd take the word of a reporter from the Boston Globe who's never been
> in the military over the words of the men in the military who served with and
> supervised George W. Bush. Give it up, I'm going to judge the candidates in
> the next election by what they can do to help the country now.
So, are you saying that you *do* believe the officer who was commander
of the unit in question when he stated that they *were* flying the F102s
and continued to do so for at least a year after the current resident of
the White House was handed a discharge?
He was, after all, one of the men who 'served with and supervised' the
guy. (At least, he would have if GW had bothered to show up fit for
duty.)
--
Mike KD7PVT
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net.
<Vegetables aren't food; vegetables are what the food eats!>
"Mike Pearson <see .sig>" <nojunk@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fxbc7g.16huf5m1srqb6oN%nojunk@no-spam
> alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Like I'd take the word of a reporter from the Boston Globe who's never
been
> > in the military over the words of the men in the military who served with
and
> > supervised George W. Bush. Give it up, I'm going to judge the candidates
in
> > the next election by what they can do to help the country now.
>
> So, are you saying that you *do* believe the officer who was commander
> of the unit in question when he stated that they *were* flying the F102s
> and continued to do so for at least a year after the current resident of
> the White House was handed a discharge?
>
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. If you take the effort to research
the matter, you'll discover that a great deal of the misunderstanding came
about because of journalists who don't understand military terminology and
misinterpreted what the military people said and reported. What much of the
press reported, compared to what the records actually show is hilarious!
But, vouchsafe the majority of informed voters know the truth irrespective of
the media's attempts to cook the news to suit their prejudices and I predict
it will show in the balloting. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:_dRLa.29294$0v4.2178182@no-spam
> "Mike Pearson <see .sig>" <nojunk@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fxbc7g.16huf5m1srqb6oN%nojunk@no-spam
> > alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Like I'd take the word of a reporter from the Boston Globe who's never
> been
> > > in the military over the words of the men in the military who served
with
> and
> > > supervised George W. Bush. Give it up, I'm going to judge the
candidates
> in
> > > the next election by what they can do to help the country now.
> >
> > So, are you saying that you *do* believe the officer who was commander
> > of the unit in question when he stated that they *were* flying the F102s
> > and continued to do so for at least a year after the current resident of
> > the White House was handed a discharge?
> >
>
> No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. If you take the effort to
research
> the matter, you'll discover that a great deal of the misunderstanding came
> about because of journalists who don't understand military terminology and
> misinterpreted what the military people said and reported. What much of
the
> press reported, compared to what the records actually show is hilarious!
> But, vouchsafe the majority of informed voters know the truth irrespective
of
> the media's attempts to cook the news to suit their prejudices and I
predict
> it will show in the balloting. KM
> --
Are you seriously admitting here that to you, the facts aren't important and
that only what you believe to be the truth really counts??
The "media", as you put it, did no investigation more than reporting (those
few who even noted the issue) the lies made by the Bush campaign. The
Boston Globe article (in contrast) was well researched and used direct
evidence and sworn testimony from direct participants. How can you dismiss
a directly quoted statement from a senior officer (Col. Turnipseed for
example) that Bush was AWOL?
There really is no question that Bush was AWOL (actually desertion given the
war condition) - the only question is why hasn't the press reported this.
"WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote in message news:3f0098a4$1@no-spam
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:_dRLa.29294$0v4.2178182@no-spam
> > "Mike Pearson <see .sig>" <nojunk@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:1fxbc7g.16huf5m1srqb6oN%nojunk@no-spam
> > > alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Like I'd take the word of a reporter from the Boston Globe who's
never
> > been
> > > > in the military over the words of the men in the military who served
> with
> > and
> > > > supervised George W. Bush. Give it up, I'm going to judge the
> candidates
> > in
> > > > the next election by what they can do to help the country now.
> > >
> > > So, are you saying that you *do* believe the officer who was commander
> > > of the unit in question when he stated that they *were* flying the
F102s
> > > and continued to do so for at least a year after the current resident
of
> > > the White House was handed a discharge?
> >
> > No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. If you take the effort to
> research
> > the matter, you'll discover that a great deal of the misunderstanding
came
> > about because of journalists who don't understand military terminology
and
> > misinterpreted what the military people said and reported. What much of
> the
> > press reported, compared to what the records actually show is hilarious!
> > But, vouchsafe the majority of informed voters know the truth
irrespective
> of
> > the media's attempts to cook the news to suit their prejudices and I
> predict
> > it will show in the balloting. KM
>
> Are you seriously admitting here that to you, the facts aren't important
and
> that only what you believe to be the truth really counts??
>
> The "media", as you put it, did no investigation more than reporting (those
> few who even noted the issue) the lies made by the Bush campaign. The
> Boston Globe article (in contrast) was well researched and used direct
> evidence and sworn testimony from direct participants.
>
No, I'm saying that the majority of the electorate isn't going to be fooled
by the tomfoolery you promote and I'm saying the journalists for the Boston
Globe were abysmally ignorant of military terminology. And no, Bush was
never AWOL. Bush received an honorable discharge an impossibility had he
ever been AWOL. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/