Bush where was he?

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Did you actually try reading the facts?
Yep, did you? The difference is I'm looking at the whole story and considering all facts, not just cherry-picking snippets of information which, when taken out of context, seem to support Bush.

You should try it. It is most enlightening.

Yes, ofcourse I read the facts - the question was about you not reading the facts. The FACTS are that Bush completed his service and was honorably discharged. The "whole story" is that Bush served in the Guard, was trained as a pilot, flew plenty of hours to fulfill his requirements and earning enough points to be discharged honorably.
What "facts" do you seem to think contradict that? Exactly - none. Just some kook fringe conspiracy BS that people have been trying to claim for years but offer no real proof or evidence for. Just baseless "AWOL" claims.

CsG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Did you actually try reading the facts?
Yep, did you? The difference is I'm looking at the whole story and considering all facts, not just cherry-picking snippets of information which, when taken out of context, seem to support Bush.

You should try it. It is most enlightening.

Yes, ofcourse I read the facts - the question was about you not reading the facts. The FACTS are that Bush completed his service and was honorably discharged. The "whole story" is that Bush served in the Guard, was trained as a pilot, flew plenty of hours to fulfill his requirements and earning enough points to be discharged honorably.
What "facts" do you seem to think contradict that? Exactly - none. Just some kook fringe conspiracy BS that people have been trying to claim for years but offer no real proof or evidence for. Just baseless "AWOL" claims.

CsG
The difference is I'm looking at the whole story and considering all facts, not just cherry-picking snippets of information which, when taken out of context, seem to support Bush.

You should try it. It is most enlightening.


 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Bowfinger,

Please tell the "whole story" as you intimate much about it, but have nothing to show. So far Bush has FACTUAL, non-forged documents showing that he served his time, got good OERS, fullfilled his commitments, and was Honorably Discharged.

Everything else is still conjecture, assumption, and so far unproven, or even supported by any of the records released or ordered released. Spin as you may, this one's looking good for Bush and Co.

You may have reservations and dislike for Bush, but the more docs released the better Bush looks. If I was digging for dirt I'd stop digging there before too long.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,414
30,621
146
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Talk is cheap, sunshine.

On that subject I would consider you an expert cowBOY. If anyone would know about cheap talk it certainly would be you.

Looking forward to the day we meet.
What are you guys going to do, whack at each other with your Depends? Give him a roundhouse with your Colostomy bag?

LOL.

I'd be happy to paddle out with you into some 10'+ slammin' surf. Soon after we could check who the candidate for the Depends would be.
Where do you hit it? I usually hit 2nd light or the O-Club, but since Frances I've been hitting the split in A1A. Bottom is still a mess but the new sandbar makes for some good tube time when conditions are right. PM or e-mail me next time you head to the coast and we'll hook-up for the first ever AT surf session :sun: This swell we are getting should be around a few more days yet so get 'er done!

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Where do you hit it? I usually hit 2nd light or the O-Club, but since Frances I've been hitting the split in A1A. Bottom is still a mess but the new sandbar makes for some good tube time when conditions are right. PM or e-mail me next time you head to the coast and we'll hook-up for the first ever AT surf session :sun: This swell we are getting should be around a few more days yet so get 'er done!

[/quote]
Schweet. A fellow surfer here at AT.

I surf O-Club; Anthony's; and a place we call "The Spot" which is actually Crescent Beach Dr., across from Natural Art (which sounds like "The Split" you're talking about). I also surf the boardwalk down in Melbourne, which I prefer during bigger conditions because I like the fatter wave down there (and the sweet Trudis that hang out around there). Used to surf 2nd Light a lot, but got tired of all the little groms there who act as if they own the place when I've been surfing it for twice as long as they've been alive. Surf Hangers when I feel like getting my feet sliced up. I also used to surf Sebastian quite a bit back when some of my buds were 1st peak kings, but that place is another huge cluster much like 2nd Light is these days.

Jeanne is supposed to hang around at least until the weekend. If conditions clean up a bit maybe it'll motivate me for a dawn patrol. If I go I'll get in touch with yah.

 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,414
30,621
146
I know we have seen each other before given where you go How is 5th ave since the storm? Have you been there? I don't get down there much anymore, Sebastian even less. I usually hit the area around RC's when it get's really big then grab a insane burrito plate@Dakine Diegos 2nd light ain't bad for me as I'm an old local heavy :evil: but I usually find it breakin as good or better elsewhere anyways. Picnic tables were closed due to the storm, and I think the hangers too. maybe open now...EDIT: come to think of it, the tables were loaded this weekend and I saw a nice betty while driving by the hangers so they are definitely open again

Lately I've just been hitting the split by Natural Art since I don't have to pay to park and it's only 15 minutes or so from my house. Anywho, Definitely give me a shout when/if you come over this week, I'll buy you a burrito&:beer: after our session.

BTW, apoppin', Megatomic, and a couple other members I'm aware of surf too :thumbsup:
 

MOHO456

Member
Sep 13, 2004
56
0
0
Wow this is cute, this whole issue was resolved. It was a crock, a groundless attack on the president. The documents were foraged, and Dan Rather lied about the whole thing, thats why CBS is in the midst of a secret scandal. The liberal media machine just covers its tracks.... And for all of you who think the media is fair, then why was this story buried, or excluded altogether from other newspapers?

Links:

http://www.newsmax.com/archive...2004/6/25/114037.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com...40624-112920-5897r.htm

10-12+ poison gas bombs, irrefutable proof that Saddam had and still has a WMD arsenal.

To all the shocked liberals: I'm sorry the truth was so harsh. Go hug a tree and make it all better.
 

MOHO456

Member
Sep 13, 2004
56
0
0
Heres the quote itself:

"We're not sure how many more are out there that haven't been found, but we've found 10 or 12 sarin and mustard rounds," he said. "I'm reluctant to judge what that means at this point, but there's other aspects of the program which we still have to flush out."
U.S. military officials in Baghdad found two bombs in May containing chemicals. A roadside bomb made from an artillery shell discovered May 15 contained chemicals that, when combined, form sarin.
Earlier on May 7, another improvised explosive device was found containing mustard agent.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: MOHO456
Wow this is cute, this whole issue was resolved. It was a crock, a groundless attack on the president. The documents were foraged, and Dan Rather lied about the whole thing, thats why CBS is in the midst of a secret scandal. The liberal media machine just covers its tracks.... And for all of you who think the media is fair, then why was this story buried, or excluded altogether from other newspapers?

Links:

http://www.newsmax.com/archive...2004/6/25/114037.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com...40624-112920-5897r.htm

10-12+ poison gas bombs, irrefutable proof that Saddam had and still has a WMD arsenal.

To all the shocked liberals: I'm sorry the truth was so harsh. Go hug a tree and make it all better.
1. It's an old article. It was widely reported at the time.

2. It was already discussed here.

3. "10-12+" hardly constitutes the "massive stockpiles" claimed by the Bush administration.

... but ...

4. As it turns out, it was yet another false alarm anyway. They were not loaded with chemical agents as originally reported: Shells free of chemicals. (Copied from the earlier thread here.)

5. The YABAs seem to be real gluttons for punishment. They never seem to get tired of being wrong. I think that's why they quote NewsMax and the Washington Times so much.


Dan Rather acknowledged his mistake. Any guesses on whether MOHO456 has as much integrity as Dan Rather?
 

MOHO456

Member
Sep 13, 2004
56
0
0
I guess you'd be too silly to note that those are in fact different finds, one by us troops, and another by Polish, 2 seperate events. Do you over tire of being wrong? Or do you think like all the other liberal scum: That you are the savior for humanity with your collectivist socialist dogmas that are FAILING the world over. Look at Germany's recent pollings. Who's losing major backing? gg kthx
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: MOHO456
I guess you'd be too silly to note that those are in fact different finds, one by us troops, and another by Polish, 2 seperate events. Do you over tire of being wrong? Or do you think like all the other liberal scum: That you are the savior for humanity with your collectivist socialist dogmas that are FAILING the world over. Look at Germany's recent pollings. Who's losing major backing? gg kthx
Nope, you're mistaken. Read the articles again and note the dates. When Duelfer said "we", he was referring to the coalition, not U.S. troops. Those shells were all discovered by Polish troops in two separate finds.

 

MOHO456

Member
Sep 13, 2004
56
0
0
I suppose the one that blew up on a us convoy filled with inert serin was a gag? And While I stand by the claim that there is WMD in Iraq, we will never find them in the stockpiles one suggests. If you dont want a pile of gold to be found, isnt it easier just to scatter it to the 4 winds, placing it in places surrounded by similar looking but false ones?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: MOHO456
I suppose the one that blew up on a us convoy filled with inert serin was a gag? And While I stand by the claim that there is WMD in Iraq, we will never find them in the stockpiles one suggests. If you dont want a pile of gold to be found, isnt it easier just to scatter it to the 4 winds, placing it in places surrounded by similar looking but false ones?

The more scattered they are would mean a greater chance of finding more WMD's. Are you trying to suggest that Iraq was a credible threat to the USA?? If you are then you are just another crazy NeoCon.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: MOHO456
I suppose the one that blew up on a us convoy filled with inert serin was a gag? And While I stand by the claim that there is WMD in Iraq, we will never find them in the stockpiles one suggests. If you dont want a pile of gold to be found, isnt it easier just to scatter it to the 4 winds, placing it in places surrounded by similar looking but false ones?
Now you're changing the subject. That one was real, albeit too decrepit to pose any significant threat. It has nothing to do with the "10-12+" you claimed were also real. As I said in the first place, that turned out to be Yet Another False Alarm. (Does that make it a YABA YAFA? )

Rather had the integrity to acknowledge his mistake. Do you?
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
I find it convenient that Rathers lies are called "mistakes" while the Presidents mistakes are called "lies". Does it appear to anyone else that the point of view afects the label?

Rather knew that Burkett did not have originals, or at least knew that the Burkett did not create the originals. Their "unimpeachable source" demanded contact with the Kerry campaign before presenting CBS with the docs. The documents were unverifiable as delivered, because they were copies, and Burkett claimed to have destroyed the originals. Burkett could not give details about where the docs came from, other than stating that he recieved them from an unknown male, instead of from Ramirez, his contact in the pre-arranged deal.

The fact that CBS had contact with the Kerry campaign prior to recieving the docs is improper. The facty that they presented un-verifiable documents as factual is at the least, hack journalism. The fact that they claimed Burkett to be "unimpeachable", after knowing that he would only release these documents after speaking with the Kerry campaign......crossed the line into conflict of interest.

Facts are that CBS presented information known to be unverifiable as news, and Dan Rather, being not only anchor, but the Managing Editor, bears the full blame for the information presented.

Had CBS been given originals from a non-Kerry supporter, and had at least one expert verify the veracity of the documents, they never could have been in this situation.

Apologize all you like, it doesn't change poor journalism, and lack of integrity. Nobody was duped, nobody was fooled. They chose to present unverifiable propaganda as factual.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
I find it convenient that Rathers lies are called "mistakes" while the Presidents mistakes are called "lies". Does it appear to anyone else that the point of view afects the label?

Rather knew that Burkett did not have originals, or at least knew that the Burkett did not create the originals. Their "unimpeachable source" demanded contact with the Kerry campaign before presenting CBS with the docs. The documents were unverifiable as delivered, because they were copies, and Burkett claimed to have destroyed the originals. Burkett could not give details about where the docs came from, other than stating that he recieved them from an unknown male, instead of from Ramirez, his contact in the pre-arranged deal.

The fact that CBS had contact with the Kerry campaign prior to recieving the docs is improper. The facty that they presented un-verifiable documents as factual is at the least, hack journalism. The fact that they claimed Burkett to be "unimpeachable", after knowing that he would only release these documents after speaking with the Kerry campaign......crossed the line into conflict of interest.

Facts are that CBS presented information known to be unverifiable as news, and Dan Rather, being not only anchor, but the Managing Editor, bears the full blame for the information presented.

Had CBS been given originals from a non-Kerry supporter, and had at least one expert verify the veracity of the documents, they never could have been in this situation.

Apologize all you like, it doesn't change poor journalism, and lack of integrity. Nobody was duped, nobody was fooled. They chose to present unverifiable propaganda as factual.

Dream on, nobody I know is apologizing for anything. You are obviously believing your own propoganda.





Bush didn't meet his Guard obligations
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
And the sad thing is most of whats in this article has already been refuted in THIS thread.
NOT. Even. Close.

This whole circus about the authenticity of those three documents was staged to draw attention from the underlying, unrefuted facts:
  • Bush pulled strings to dodge Vietnam service
  • We blew $1 million training him
  • He was grounded for reasons never really explained (though there is substantial indirect evidence it was due to increasingly poor performance and his drug use)
  • Bush eventually abandoned his cushy Guard responsibilities, presumably because they were just too darn inconvenient for his self-indulgent lifestyle.

To suggest this has all been refuted is wishful thinking. The only reason Bush got out with an "honorable" discharge is his political connections.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CaptainGoodnight
And the sad thing is most of whats in this article has already been refuted in THIS thread.
NOT. Even. Close.

This whole circus about the authenticity of those three documents was staged to draw attention from the underlying, unrefuted facts:
  • Bush pulled strings to dodge Vietnam service
  • We blew $1 million training him
  • He was grounded for reasons never really explained (though there is substantial indirect evidence it was due to increasingly poor performance and his drug use)
  • Bush eventually abandoned his cushy Guard responsibilities, presumably because they were just too darn inconvenient for his self-indulgent lifestyle.

To suggest this has all been refuted is wishful thinking. The only reason Bush got out with an "honorable" discharge is his political connections.

"Bush pulled strings to dodge Vietnam service"
No one has ever been able to prove that.

"We blew $1 million training him"
How did we blow "$1 million" on training him? He had 337 hours of flight time, which is alot for a fighter pliot. One of the reasons he got an early out is because he fulfilled all his flying requirements in less then 6 years.

"He was grounded for reasons never really explained (though there is substantial indirect evidence it was due to increasingly poor performance and his drug use)"
He was never "grounded"
Last time Bush flew, as records show, was April of 1972. He was "suspended" in September of 1972. The physical is only mandatory if your going to fly. No big deal really. If they needed him to fly, he would just have to requalify and take the medical exam. The physical has to be done by a Flight Surgeon. A regular doctor won't do. Then there is the added problem of being in the Guard. Flight Surgeons aren't always available. Maybe once a month to give physicals. Why go though all the trouble if your on non-flight status?

About the "mandatory drug test". The Air Force did not have "mandatory drug tests" until the 1980s, before that I believe only those under the age of 23 were tested. Bush was too old to be tested. I confirmed this other people who served in the USAF durning that time. (I served much later)

"Bush eventually abandoned his cushy Guard responsibilities, presumably because they were just too darn inconvenient for his self-indulgent lifestyle."
If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.

The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs.

Bush has nothing to be ashamed of in his military service.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
From "Bush didn't meet his Guard obligations"
Bush twice signed documents pledging to meet requirements; twice violated that oath: According to a September 8 article in The Boston Globe: "Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice."

This is one of many things wrong with this article. I am tried of going over and over of these things...

Relevant Document in Question. This is what they are referring to.

To the untrained eye, the item entitled penalty for bad attendance gives the appearance that George Bush was punished for not attending drill. The improper, and probably intentional, mislabeling of it coupled with the poor quality of the copy leads people to believe that Bush was AWOL. This is NOT the case. Perhaps if anyone bothered to take the time to read it they would see that this is a counseling sattement informing the service member what can happen if he fails to fulfill his obligation to the guard. This is standard practice. The words have probably changed since Vietnam but most service members are counseled on their service obligation and it is done in writing to prevent any of the I did't know that stuff from happening. Read it carefully, It states:
j. I have been counseled this date regarding the provisions of DOD Directive 1215.15, 23 February 1967. I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation as presently defined in Chapter 41, AFM 35-3. Further, I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, and have an unfulfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver Colorado and subject to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months considering all previous active duty and active duty for training tours.
This, my friends, is a counseling statement (like informed consent). A statement showing he had been counseled. I'll bet there is one like it in every ANG member's record who served during that time. Furthermore, it is obvious they intentionally tried to deceive readers because this is item (j). Where are items a-i? Missing because they probably help the reader to understand the form. Hell, I'll bet the first page has a title that would debunk the whole claim. That would be a good reason to leave it out.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |