50K Reward for Proof...

Hmm. Maybe you’ll actually read this if I post the text - Note, this was written before Rathergate:

Bush?s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems? spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush?s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn?t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president?s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time ? to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

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.?

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush?s service ? in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets ? would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry?s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it?s reasonable to look at a candidate?s entire record, including his military service ? or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it?s important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans? attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush?s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry?s.

In April ? before the Swift boat veterans had said a word ? Kerry said Bush ?has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.? Earlier, Kerry said, ?Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.?

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That?s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com

The National Guard is not a full time military obligation. They are reserve units under an entirely different system. They are expected to have jobs, go to school and whatever else they have going on. I have looked over some of the national guard records that claims are being made around. Most of the people making the claims have no idea how a military service record works.

There have been many times when our military has let people leave early. The first two years Clinton was president the military was getting rid of people left and right. I’m sure it will be a major issue in an election in 20 years now. It had nothing to do with honorable service it is called downsizing. It happens everywhere.

I feel the real issue is who came back and lied before the senate about what he saw during his service. The issue that is really pissing off all of the veterans with Kerry is the stories about torture and abuse.

Anyone who has spend significant time in the military can see right through most of these stories. That is why the military is mostly republican.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Lumpy-

You’re the Man Bro! Keep dropping the truth!

Mr Chen-

You’re truly a riot… a riot I say![/quote]

It’s funny that you think that you have the market share on “truth”. TRUTH be known, you and Lumpa don’t know jack shit and neither do I.

What I do know ~ Bush has been faced with the most extreme challenges since WWII, and today, I live a better life and have a greater hope for the future. I fear for all of us in the event that John Kerry were voted in as President. It’s a damn good thing we don’t have to lose too much sleep over that though.

http://www.whitehousewest.com/

LedheadZeppelin-

Click your heels thrice and you will be back in Kansas and out of the land of Oz!

[quote]monteitis wrote:
http://www.whitehousewest.com/[/quote]

That was hilarious! I think I even peed a little!

Still laughing…

CD - just a comment on your ‘burden of proof’ post. The Democrats are the one’s making the charge that Bush didn’t serve. Shouldn’t the burden of proof rest on those making the charge?

Anyhow -

Apparently Bush’s National Guard service record is a non isssue with voters.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/CBS%20Memos.htm

A whopping 16% of those polled think Bush’s service is even an issue.

It’s amazing that we are a little over 6 weeks away from a presidential election, and the dems are wasting precious time and effort to keep beating a dead horse.

I guess those Clinton advisors that Kerry brought on board are really doing a bang up job.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
LedheadZeppelin-

Click your heels thrice and you will be back in Kansas and out of the land of Oz![/quote]

You’re funny. Not as funny as Will Ferrell at http://www.whitehousewest.com/, but funny.

Signed,

JackYoAssZepplin ~ clever, huh?

I don’t think I can get the money just for citing two links, but maybe Byron York or Annenberg’s factcheck.org will take it:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=254

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The Democrats are the one’s making the charge that Bush didn’t serve. Shouldn’t the burden of proof rest on those making the charge?[/quote]

No, because you can’t prove an unbounded negative. It’s a logical impossibility. That’s why people who demand proof of an unbounded negative get so smug about it. But when you demand an impossible proof, that’s not a victory, it’s just a cheap trick.

There are some tricks you can use to get around this, like disproving (or “falsifying”) the opposite claim – but the opposite claim needs to be sufficiently defined.

The argument that Bush served is semantic, and depends on how you define “served”. By subtly shuffling the definition of “serve” around, mostly by claiming that whatever Bush did wasn’t REALLY serving (a case of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy), they can simply refuse to accept whatever you did prove as valid.

The only real defense against this is to request a clear definition of what “serving” is. The usual response from the opposition is an irrationally specific definition, such as a demand to prove that G.W. Bush served every single day of his contracted service without disciplinary action… or something like that.

So is that like asking Lumpy if he has stopped pleasuring the fattest, ugliest hogs he could sweet talk up to his pad?

[quote]CDarklock wrote:
No, because you can’t prove an unbounded negative. It’s a logical impossibility. That’s why people who demand proof of an unbounded negative get so smug about it. But when you demand an impossible proof, that’s not a victory, it’s just a cheap trick.
[/quote]

Since George W. has an honorable discharge from the National Guard, aren’t the Dems charges of failure to serve actually bounded negatives, therefore shifting the burden of proof back on them?

In my feeble mind, I don’t see how, if I’m holding an honorable discharge in my hand, I should have to prove that my service was such that I actually deserved what I received.

But then again - I do have a feeble mind.

Funny then that some are calling on Kerry to prove he deserved his wartime medals.

[quote]vroom wrote:
In my feeble mind, I don’t see how, if I’m holding an honorable discharge in my hand, I should have to prove that my service was such that I actually deserved what I received.

Funny then that some are calling on Kerry to prove he deserved his wartime medals.
[/quote]

touche

I’m completely satisfied with Kerry’s service and always have been.

But I don’t blame the ‘band of brothers’ he smeared upon return from Vietnam for going for the jugular on his service.

Schrauper,

You wrote: “So is that like asking Lumpy if he has stopped pleasuring the fattest, ugliest hogs he could sweet talk up to his pad?”

Strong work!!!

I love it!!!

JeffR

Chris Rock - JFK (not the PT109 guy)wanted us to care enough about his (mis)spent (according to him)youth enough to elect him on eighteen and a half months of it and not twenty years as the sober Lib Senator from Taxachusetts.

Lumpy- “How do we know they are lying? Because they’re Democrats?” You are justing figuring this out, and by trying to be sarcastic no less?

Dubbya got a honorable discharge and all the Half-Assed Socialists (Dems) can do to prove the contrary is…keep digging the hole that they have put themselves in? Have they thanked Danger Dan, Mapes, and Burkett for their handy shovel work?

What is the contention of the Swifties? Unfit for Command, as in being the President, the CIC, and not a second string Senator. These guys have had a grudge against Kerry for now many years? DUH, as you have said before.

Lumpy, you of all posters, should just shut the F up about “some rude and out-of-line comments.” I should too, but then again I say bring it on.

I liked Lee Atwater. He fought fire with fire, got his man into the White House, and got the Something-For-Nothings to bunch their panties tighter than ever before. Bravo!!! Rule of thumb in politics- if the opponent whines about your tactics like a little bitch, it’s because they work, and she doesn’t have an effective answer.

Vroom- Those attacking Kerry’s service in the Nam are those who served in close proximity to him, for the most part. For reasons of expediency alone, the Republicans are keeping silent on this, or clenching their teeth and praising him for it.
Personally, I think the Swifties have, and more to the point, OUGHT TO HAVE, the right to do so. In fact I think that anybody ought to, and that any meglomaniacal attention whore in DC who acts to the contrary should have their privates zapped by some serious voltage in the truest spirit of bi-partisanship- not that it would learn them all that much, though.