[Rhodes22-list] Ben C continues to disappoint

Thu Oct 2 15:40:14 EDT 2008

Ben,

The "underlying facts" don't demonstrate anything quite clearly.  The
underlying speculation may lead reasonable people to believe your
theory.  I can give you the phone number to a an attorney if you would
like to hear an explanation of the difference. Did Bush finish his
Guard duty?  I don't know and I don't care.  Did Kerry?  I don't know
and don't care. They both served. There are questions about both of
their time in the service.  Neither is up for re-election.

Good luck to your son and we pray for a safe return. I salute his service.

We all mean that!

Brad

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Benjamin Cittadino
<bigben65 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>