[Rhodes22-list] Effros is Misleading

[Steve]

Bill
You really need to read more than the NYtimes.  Along
with the Washington Post, CBS,NBC and ABC; all you are
getting is a liberal take on any situation.  
Steve


--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:

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



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail