[Rhodes22-list] Ben C continues to disappoint

[Benjamin Cittadino]

Ed and Brad;


You guys are way off base on this.  

First, the "underlying facts" to which I referred are those which
demonstrate quite clearly that W never completed his required active service
in the Texas Air Guard.  

Second, how you spin that into some rediculous theory that I somehow don't
respect the bravery and skill it takes to be a fighter pilot is beyond me.

Third, I served as a line officer (not JAG) at sea in the US Navy, although
why you asked that question I have no idea.

Oh, and by the way, my oldest son is currently a navy  F/A 18 pilot headed
to the war zone as we speak. So Ed, KISS MY ROSIE RED............

Best wishes,

Ben C.



Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
> 
> 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
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C-at-it-again...-tp19777306p19785462.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.