[Rhodes22-list] Effros is Misleading

[Bill Effros]

Ed,

Please stop calling me names.  I don't call you names.

My political views don't fit neatly into any box.  Neither do Stan's, nor Brad's, nor yours, nor anybody else's for that matter.

Did you read the New York Times piece I cited this morning?  I think they got their facts right.  If you can show that their facts are wrong, I'd love to see the evidence.  The New York Times used documents released by the White House, by the military, and interviews.  I had seen most of the material previously, and drew the same conclusions from it.

I never said "W. is a deserter" and I won't be put into the position of trying to defend statements made by people I don't know, saying things I don't believe.

Here's what I said: "The point of the National Guard issue is not Vietnam, any more than the Clinton Impeachment was about sex.  Both hinge on the question of Presidential misleading."

In your reply, you said you agree with me.  You said "Clinton committed perjury in a civil lawsuit;" and "The National Guard issue is based on forged documents."  I will say it again: "Both hinge on the question of Presidential misleading."

What pains me about this discussion is that we can't agree on the facts.  I think you've got your facts wrong, both with regard to Clinton, and with regard to Bush.  I am unwilling to go through the Clinton exercise again, we did that 4 years ago.

So let's stick to Bush, and lets stick to the issues.  I am not interested in how you characterize documents--what I want to know is whether the facts portrayed in those documents accurately state the views of the people quoted, or not.

Apparently they do.   Killian's secretary said she did not type them, but she also said they accurately portrayed his views, and the views of others at that time.  If you have facts to the contrary, I would be anxious to see them.

In any event, it is quite clear that W. has misled the country on this issue.  If you can show me any evidence that he showed up in Alabama, I'd love to see it.  So far he has not been able to provide it, and everyone who was there is on record saying he was never there.  Notwithstanding those facts, the administration continues to try to leave the impression that he did report for duty.  I call that misleading.

He got an honorable discharge, but he clearly pulled strings to get it--and according to military records, he failed to fulfill the military requirements.  For him to now say that because he got the honorable discharge he must have fulfilled the requirements is misleading. 

With regard to all of the other issues I raised, I would be happy to go over them with you, point by point, if you like.  In each and every case I know he said one thing and did another.  These are demonstrable facts, and even his putative allies are starting to call him on these matters.

"We made serious mistakes," said Republican Senator John McCain yesterday.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel yesterday.

"This is the incompetence in the administration," said Republican Senator Richard Lugar yesterday.

You don't call them names.  Why me?

If you have the facts to refute the Senators, I'd love to see them.

Bill Effros





 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: ed kroposki 
To: 'The Rhodes 22 mail list' 
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Effros is Misleading



Reply is after quote:

"Brad,
The point of the National Guard issue is not Vietnam, any more than the
Clinton Impeachment was about sex.  Both hinge on the question of
Presidential misleading." 

Wrong conclusion - and misleading too boot:  Clinton committed perjury in a
civil lawsuit.  He was disbarred in Arkansas for committing a felony, that
is, the crime of Perjury which is false statements under oath.

The National Guard issue is based on forged documents.  Bush completed
enough flying hours to meet his National Guard requirement.  Your assumption
expected him to compete with those other pilots who still needed time flying
F 102's for the limited number of hours available to stay current.  You are
not going to find it in writing anywhere, but the truth was that since he
was not going make a career in the Guard, those other pilots who needed the
flying time came first.  At that time there was a dwindling number of hours
available in the F 102 because the number that they could keep in flying
condition was getting smaller fast.  There were only two (2) squadrons still
flying the F 102, and they were phasing them out.  If you notice, but I am
sure you did not, there were not any F 102's in the regular Air Force. 
As to the physical question, if there was a national emergency and
they needed him as a pilot, they could have given him a physical in a couple
of hours.  What is not said, is that in an emergency, the Wing Commander
could have waived the immediate physical requirement and said that take
physical when you get back on ground.
You and other liberals are trying to read into the National Guard
and military in general things and ways of doing daily business that they
did not take so serious when they occurred.  When he completed his required
hours for flying, which he did, at that point he was surplus.  He was not
really needed, just marking time, a very common military tradition, which
you do not comprehend.  

"George W. Bush ran for President on this issue, saying repeatedly that he
would not mislead the American people.  The extent to which he has misled
the American people about his National Guard record is emblematic of the way
he has misled the American People about virtually everything else."  -- a
very untrue and inaccurate statement.  

"And it doesn't matter on which side of the political fence you place
yourself."  Except to watch you distort the truth! 

"Did W. report for duty in Alabama as ordered?  No, he did not." --You were
not there and can not be the authority for the truth.  When someone arrived
on a base, you told some sergeant that you were there and told him where you
could be reached.  It was put on a note pad for office use, and not keep as
a military record.  I cannot see a duty sergeant or officer remembering who
came and went after a short period of time.  While he was assigned TDY, they
knew how to get him.  Once he was gone, that record would not have been
kept, especially for your benefit.

"But the issue is not military records.  It is misleading."  Yes it is
misleading and You are the one misleading and distorting history!

It is sad that you, Dan Rather, Bill Moyers and others let your dislike for
Bush let you lie and distort history.

I was never a fan of George Bush, but your lies and distortions make me
defend that part of the past.  I was a military officer during that time.  I
base my comments on observations of how it was.  Were you in the military
doing a similar job during that time?  

Ed K


__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list