John Kerry Is The Light Of Truth, The Congressional Hearing

Here's an artical in Salon about Bush and his service record.


Sept. 20, 2004 | Under order from U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr. to find and make public any of President Bush's military records that had not already been released, the Pentagon late on Friday released yet another batch of documents. None of the new paperwork addresses the lingering questions surrounding Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War, how Bush's own records indicate he missed mandatory duty for months at a time, or how he managed to go unsupervised for nearly two years. The federal court order stems from an ongoing lawsuit filed by the Associated Press in June to obtain all of Bush's relevant records. In February, when White House aides told reporters they had made public "absolutely everything" about Bush's military service, the AP noticed several obvious gaps and went to court to obtain additional documents.





www.salon.com...

www.salon.com...

www.salon.com...

www.salon.com...



This last URL is a MUST READ

In retrospect, it's doubtful that even White House aides understood all the information embedded in the records, specifically the payroll documents. It's also unlikely they realized how damaging the information could be when read in the proper context. Seven months later, the document dump is coming back to haunt the White House, thanks to researcher Paul Lukasiak, who has spent that time closely examining the paperwork, and more important, analyzing U.S. Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, Lukasiak arrived at the overwhelming conclusion that not only did Bush walk away from his final two years of military obligation, coming dangerously close to desertion, but that he attempted to cover up his absenteeism through swindle and fraud.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.salon.com...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry about that, the one Url boxed in does not go with the paragraph above it. The paragraph above goes with the paragraph below .

www.salon.com...

[edit on 21-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]

[edit on 21-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]

[edit on 21-9-2004 by nanna_of_6]

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Your "proof" is bogus. Period. GWB had the points, and he was honorably discharged, period. No amount of "CBS-ing" on your part can change that. Sorry, that's just the facts, Ma'am....

I read your retort. You did not focus on anything I posted but added comments about how Bush was a great pilot. You did not address the key issues I raised by raised your own.

If Bush was truly in the top 5% of pilots, why did he graduated #22 in a class of 53 pilots when he finished training.

Your posting some commendations of Bush's flying ability from the time that he was there does not discredit the proof that he wasn't there, that people don't remember him, that NO ONE has provided proof that he was in any military unit after he left Texas initially, that he left the guard 8 MONTHS EARLY, that he got a commision WITHOUT OCS OR ROTC or he was awarded the points for 1973 GRATUITOUSLY.

Originally posted by marg6043
Astroblade we cannot pull out of Iraq and that is a fact, the present president committed US already to stay in that country and that is a fact.

But if Kerry becomes president the agenda to deal with Iraq could be different new views different strategic.

And at leas it will be hope for us and for our troops.

It's that too much to ask?

At least it's worth to try for my son and for the sons, fathers, husbands and female counterpart that are risking their lives in Iraq.

Hope.

Marg, as i explained in the other thread, the war against Iraq was already underway under the Clinton administration.

December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
.........
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

www.cnn.com...

The Clinton administration left the road prepared for the current administration to go to Iraq. So the commitment to go to war with iraq started with the previous administration.

Now about Kerry....he has said that he will keep the troops there, that first. Also in one of his flip-floping moments, he voted against sending needed funds to our troops in Iraq....now would you risk having a president that would keep our troops there but will vote not to send more money to properly supply them?

Not only that but knowing that Kerry flip-flops his way in any issue, are you willing to trust a man that does not stand by his word, but instead changes his mind to fit the views of the crowd he is in?

Do you want a president that votes in favor of going to war in Iraq and then chages his mind to say there is no reason to fight this war and we should have never gone there even thou he has stated in the past that he agrees with the war?

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib


Also in one of his flip-floping moments, he voted against sending needed funds to our troops in Iraq....now would you risk having a president that would keep our troops there but will vote not to send more money to properly supply them?
[edit on 21-9-2004 by Muaddib]

You really need to get the full facts straight before making a statement like this one.
John Kerry DID NOT vote against sending needed funds to our "TROOPS", he would not do such a thing being a War Hero himself,.........

What John Kerry voted against was GIVING BUSH A "BLANK" CHECK , and I do not blame John Kerry for that and no one else should either. It's hard telling what Bush & Co., would have done with a "BLANK CHECK", and DO NOT try to tell me that " Bush and Co.," can be trusted with a "BLANK CHECK", because my come-back on that WILL be;

Once a Bush , always a Bush,..... blood is blood,....it's thicker than water, and if "brother" Neil Bush would fraud People/bussiness out of THOUSANDS of Dollars , what makes you think GOOD OLE GEORGE W BUSH, wouldn't do it too.

Originally posted by nanna_of_6
You really need to get the full facts straight before making a statement like this one.
John Kerry DID NOT vote against sending needed funds to our "TROOPS", he would not do such a thing being a War Hero himself,.........

Wrong. In fact a flat out lie.

www.senate.gov...

What John Kerry voted against was GIVING BUSH A "BLANK" CHECK , and I do not blame John Kerry for that and no one else should either. It's hard telling what Bush & Co., would have done with a "BLANK CHECK", and DO NOT try to tell me that " Bush and Co.," can be trusted with a "BLANK CHECK", because my come-back on that WILL be;

87 billion. A stated amount. Blank check? hardly.

Once a Bush , always a Bush,..... blood is blood,....it's thicker than water, and if "brother" Neil Bush would fraud People/bussiness out of THOUSANDS of Dollars , what makes you think GOOD OLE GEORGE W BUSH, wouldn't do it too.

And just what is this even supposed to mean? I have read this entire thread and this crap needs to stop. Many of the posts from you and dgtempe are nothing more than useless Bush bashing that belongs in "chit-chat" or, even better, why don't you just u2u each other and save us the trouble of wading through 15 posts to find some substance.

WE GET IT! YOU DON'T LIKE BUSH! YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINT!

And before you resort to some more personal insults, or saying that we "Bushies" can't face the truth, realize that just like you, we are entitled to an opinion. Post to the issue or don't post at all.

What I want to know is why bother at all. I've been reading this as well and something is brought up, the offended side says it a "partisan" source, not acceptable, unless it's their own "partisan" bent on things.

I guess when things don't go the way some wants them to go we tell each other were to post the issues, facts and opinions I guess if we follow these type of suggestions ATS will not be here at all but just for the few, that think that every thing they post is the real thing.

I am confused now.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

I read your retort. You did not focus on anything I posted but added comments about how Bush was a great pilot. You did not address the key issues I raised by raised your own.

If Bush was truly in the top 5% of pilots, why did he graduated #22 in a class of 53 pilots when he finished training.

Your posting some commendations of Bush's flying ability from the time that he was there does not discredit the proof that he wasn't there, that people don't remember him, that NO ONE has provided proof that he was in any military unit after he left Texas initially, that he left the guard 8 MONTHS EARLY, that he got a commision WITHOUT OCS OR ROTC or he was awarded the points for 1973 GRATUITOUSLY.

Look, if you are going to continue to ask the same questions over and over, I'm not even going to address you period. In addition, you are now changing the numbers again. Who said anything about top 5%?

Go read the post, I'd say again, but you didn�t' read it the first time or you wouldn't be asking the same droll questions again.

You haven't come up with any proof of anything. You say he was awarded points gratuitously. Where's the proof? You've shown none, in fact, you show paperwork that proves he received points for attendance.

GWB had his degree before he started training. He was in a pilot's slot when he joined, and received his commission the standard was at that time. You have no proof to the contrary. If you do, show it! Again, I cannot prove a negative. If you have proof, and I mean ACTUAL PROOF, of something, then by all means, show it. So far you have not, and if you ask the same questions that I have already answered again, I will ignore you.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Your "proof" is bogus. Period. GWB had the points, and he was honorably discharged, period. No amount of "CBS-ing" on your part can change that. Sorry, that's just the facts, Ma'am....

I read your retort. You did not focus on anything I posted but added comments about how Bush was a great pilot. You did not address the key issues I raised by raised your own.

If Bush was truly in the top 5% of pilots, why did he graduated #22 in a class of 53 pilots when he finished training.

Your posting some commendations of Bush's flying ability from the time that he was there does not discredit the proof that he wasn't there, that people don't remember him, that NO ONE has provided proof that he was in any military unit after he left Texas initially, that he left the guard 8 MONTHS EARLY, that he got a commision WITHOUT OCS OR ROTC or he was awarded the points for 1973 GRATUITOUSLY.








Take a look at this "URL"

www.nytimes.com...

Its not enough that Bush gets away with murder, and his lies and his crimes against humanity, they insist on knocking Kerry down to the depths in order to make George look like he's some kind of hero. Ignore all the murders, ignore all the abuse, ignore the coming draft, ignore it all so as to build up your God, George.
If Kerry is a liar and a traitor, Gorge W, is a BIGGER ONE.
So out of the two, I'll take Kerry anytime. Thank you.
We ramble on with meaningless rants and dont make any sense and according to you we absolutely have no rights to do this. Well, as long as we have the internet, and as long as the King decides we still have freedom of speech, we're going to continue posting all the "crap" we want.
Because we are right. We are the ones who see things for what they really are, we dont have to hide behind some "medal" avatar in order to show the world we've earned our right to speak.

Teddy Roosevelt stated this and I beleive it fits !!!!





NUMBER: 1507
AUTHOR: Theodore Roosevelt (1858�1919)
QUOTATION: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
ATTRIBUTION: THEODORE ROOSEVELT, �Lincoln and Free Speech,� The Great Adventure (vol. 19 of The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, national ed.), chapter 7, p. 289 (1926).
SUBJECTS: Presidency



www.bartleby.com...


Quote from Theodore Roosevelt,



"Free speech exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free."


quotes.liberty-tree.ca...