[Rhodes22-list] Ben C continues to disappoint

[Brad Haslett]

Ed,

You nailed it!  The odds were greater of surviving Vietnam on the
ground than the F-102 in the air Stateside.  Gore risked his life
behind a typewriter in Saigon for five months, and Kerry survived 120
days total in country, 90 days in harm's way. Some of Kerry's fellow
combatants thought he was a reckless glory seeker with ulterior
motives.  Over the years, I've had 6 former Vietnam POWs as coworkers.
 I only flew with two but we didn't talk war or politics.  I have
flown with some older Navy fliers who were very critical of McCain.
As the story goes, the initial target was heavily defended (he was a
bomber pilot, not a fighter pilot) and made a poor choice to hit a
second one that was even more heavily defended. Wherever the truth
lies, he certainly paid a price. The other part of that tale (never
verified) was that the POWs were pissed that he didn't take the early
release offered so he could get the story out about how they were
being mis-treated. Jane Fonda certainly didn't get the job done.

Did Bush skip his obligations to the Alabama Guard?  Maybe.  The war
was over and there was a lot of looseness and forgiveness at the time.
 Did we ever get to see Kerry's Navy records?  Nope, didn't think so.

Double standard.

Brad

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Cittadino said, "Dan Rather lies?  What lies?  He was criticized for
> poor documentation of the Bush National Guard story, but nobody ever showed
> that the underlying facts about Bush were wrong."
>
> I am disappointed that you as a lawyer demanding falsehoods and wrongful
> innuendo to be disproven.
>
> Like Bush I served in the Air Force.  I served on the same status as pilots.
> I associated with many National Guard, Reserve [like me] and Regular Air
> Force pilots.  Most of the pilots that I associated with flew the F-105 a
> newer cousin of the F-102 that Bush Flew.
>
> Both of these airplanes were referred to as cockpits on a smokestack.  Both
> airplanes had high failure rates.  I respected any pilot who flew them.  You
> should too.   It was more dangerous to fly the 102.  That is why they were
> assigned to two guard wings.  They had good A & P's trying to keep them
> flying.
>
> The end of their service happened near the end of Bush's service.  He
> volunteered to train on a new plane.  Because the Air Force had trouble
> keeping pilots who flew the 102 he was deemed critical to that aircraft.
> Shortly after he left active duty the wings were combined to one and as soon
> as Viet Nam started phasing down that last wing was grounded.
>
> All the garbage said about his service is garbage.  Yes he drank.  All the
> pilots of those aircraft, both 102's and 105's drank after they landed.  Do
> some research and see how many of those aircraft failed in flight.  Then see
> how many pilots did not get out of the planes.  The pilots needed to drink
> to calm down and get sleep.
>
> Bye the way, what branch of the U. S. Military did you serve in?
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
>
>
>
> Tootle wrote:
>>
>> Ben C is again citing the New York Times as authority.  And it is its
>> biased editorial staff no less.  I am sorry to disagree with Ben because I
>> advocate ethical conduct of politicians.  However, I have to believe that
>> citing the New York Times as a good source of information is egregious
>> hypocrisy.  The New York Times supported the Dan Rather lies. It is not an
>> honest information souce.
>>
>> An Attorney General or assistant attorney general is a political position.
>> An attorney general has a right to dismiss assistant attorney generals for
>> any reason.  Ben fails to cite the enabling legislation saying that a
>> politically appointed assistant attorney general can only be fired for
>> cause.  Ben has  access to the laws, he needs to post the law that says
>> assistant attorneys general can only be fired for specific causes?  Ben is
>> confusing career civil service with politically appointed jobs.  And, it
>> is obvious this is intentional deception.
>>
>> The Attorney General does not have to personally fire the assistants.  He
>> can use an intermediate assistant to do so. Again, show us the specific
>> law that says he cannot delegate an assistant to fire a subordinate
>> assistant.
>>
>> How about wrong doing by Obama, or his shady acceptance of contributions?
>> Just look at the sources of his internet contributions.  Has he denied or
>> vigorously stopped them.
>>
>> Again, there is a ethical problem of supporting intentional deception.
>> This is not mere puffing and discusssion.
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C-at-it-again...-tp19777306p19784592.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>