PDA

View Full Version : Courts trying to give '04 election to Bush as well



Ross
09-17-2004, 04:36 PM
Florida State Law (103.021 - Nomination for presidential electors) says the following:
<ul type="square">
"(a) A minor party that is affiliated with a national party holding a national convention to nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the United States may have the names of its candidates for President and Vice President of the United States printed on the general election ballot by filing with the Department of State a certificate naming the candidates for President and Vice President and listing the required number of persons to serve as electors…. "
(b) A minor party that is not affiliated with a national party holding a national convention to nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the United States may have the names of its candidates for President and Vice President printed on the general election ballot if a petition is signed by 1 percent of the registered electors of this state, as shown by the compilation by the Department of State for the preceding general election."
[/list]
Nader was going to run initially as a Green Party candidate but was spurned so he turned to the Reform party to be his sponsor. But that "national" party, by the testimony of its own treasurer, has $181.18 in its bank account and changed its own bylaws in order to hold a conference call, numbering maybe 25 people, to name Nader as its candidate. So Nader is NOT affiliated with a "national party holding a national convention." So paragraph (b) clearly applies, which requires Nader to get roughly 39,000 signatures. Nader didn't get the signatures. So he's off the ballot right?

No, because the rule of law doesn't apply in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court today (overturning a lower court ruling) ordered that Nader be on the ballot anyway. Their reasoning? They argued that Florida law is "vague" and never spells out the criteria for what constitutes a national party. What bullshxx!!! The requirement for a national nominating convention is crystal clear. In what universe is a party with $181 to its name a "national party," and in what universe is a conference call a "national convention." It infuriates me that a state supreme court can get away with blatantly ignoring laws passed by its own state legislature.

I'm practicing so I have it down right - "All hail the emperor Bush!"

moblsv
09-17-2004, 05:33 PM
I think president Gore should look into this, oh wait, nevermind

highsea
09-17-2004, 06:51 PM
Bush doesn't need the courts to give him the election, Kerry is doing that all by himself (with some timely assistance from Dan Rather). /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

As far as Nader, it didn't keep him off the ballot in 2000, did it? But the law is the law. If Nader didn't get the required number of signatures, then he shouldn't be on the ballot. I seem to recall that he gathered more than enough signatures, but they were probably split between the Green party and the Reform party, which left an opening for a court challenge.

However, let's not neglect to mention who it was that sued to keep him off the ballots. Was it some sort of citizen watchdog group? A grass roots movement to protect the State of Florida from unscrupulous candidates? Nope. Of course it was the Democratic National Party, with Kerry's legal henchmen leading the charge.

Good thing it's the courts that interpret the laws, and not Kerry's team of trained bulldogs.

Ironic that the Dems, who like to portray themselves as the "party of the people", and all that crap, would fight so hard to take away the choices of the voters in Florida. So much for standing up for the rights of the voters.

-CM

eg8r
09-17-2004, 09:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In what universe is a party with $181 to its name a "national party," <hr /></blockquote> A broke one. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't understand the subject heading, what do you mean when you say "as well"? The the courts do anything before?

eg8r

eg8r
09-17-2004, 09:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ironic that the Dems, who like to portray themselves as the "party of the people", and all that crap, would fight so hard to take away the choices of the voters in Florida. So much for standing up for the rights of the voters.
<hr /></blockquote> Exactly.

eg8r

Ross
09-17-2004, 10:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Bush doesn't need the courts to give him the election, Kerry is doing that all by himself (with some timely assistance from Dan Rather). /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="blue">I agree that Kerry and the Dem party machine is doing a poor PR job. The Repubs are kicking our ass in that department. But Rather is no help. And having him on our side is like you having David Duke on your side. </font color>
As far as Nader, it didn't keep him off the ballot in 2000, did it? But the law is the law. If Nader didn't get the required number of signatures, then he shouldn't be on the ballot.

<font color="blue">That is the whole point of my post. The law is the law - and in this case it is pretty clear. </font color>

I seem to recall that he gathered more than enough signatures, but they were probably split between the Green party and the Reform party, which left an opening for a court challenge.

<font color="blue">I don't think this is correct. Nader decided a while back to not even try for the sigs in Florida. But I'm not sure about this. In any case, he didn't get the required sigs for the Reform party. </font color>

However, let's not neglect to mention who it was that sued to keep him off the ballots. Was it some sort of citizen watchdog group? A grass roots movement to protect the State of Florida from unscrupulous candidates? Nope. Of course it was the Democratic National Party, with Kerry's legal henchmen leading the charge.

<font color="blue">Yes, the Dems sued to keep him off the ballot because if he isn't on the ballot it increases Kerry's chances. By law, Nader should not be on the ballot, so I would expect them to object if it is their favor. I hope you aren't doing the "why are the Dems so cynical argument." The Repubs have fought to get Nader ON the ballot is all of the states - do you think they did this for any other reason than to increase Bush's chances of getting elected? It is simply hardball politics on both sides. As long as everyone is following the law, I don't blame either side. In fact I would accuse both sides of being naive if they didn't do everything within their legal power to get their candidate elected. I just don't like it when the courts blatantly ignore the law to favor Bush.</font color>

Good thing it's the courts that interpret the laws, and not Kerry's team of trained bulldogs.

<font color="blue">Now you are contradicting yourself. You said earlier that the law clearly says Nader should NOT be on the ballot. Kerry's team agreed with your and mine and every other reasonable person's interpretation of the law - bu the Florida Supreme Court blatantly ignored the law. Now you are saying that Kerry is the bad guy and the court is the good guy??? If Bush were screwed like this in court, honestly, would you be defending the courts over Bush's lawyers? </font color>

Ironic that the Dems, who like to portray themselves as the "party of the people", and all that crap, would fight so hard to take away the choices of the voters in Florida. So much for standing up for the rights of the voters.

<font color="blue">You know as well as I that if Nader on the ballot was hurting the Repubs and he didn't qualify for the ballot they would be challenging it in courts just like the Dems are doing now. </font color>
-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
09-18-2004, 06:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I don't understand the subject heading, what do you mean when you say "as well"? Did the courts do anything before?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

In 2000 the Florida Supreme Court voted to circumvent the law. Fortunately the United States Supreme Court chose to uphold the law, much to Ross's chagrin /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Troy
09-18-2004, 07:35 AM
The phrase "as well" is grossly over- used and erroneously used by numerous people, including news people. I believe it is a Brit expression originating with Monty Python. Very similar to saying "like" in every sentence. Rediculous !!!

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I don't understand the subject heading, what do you mean when you say "as well"?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

highsea
09-18-2004, 07:56 AM
Ross, I wasn't trying to contradict myself. If Nader didn't get the sigs, then the law should prevail, and he should be left off the ballot. I thought I was clear on that. If he gathered enough sigs, he should be on the ballot, even if he switched parties. But it's hard for me to accept the biased court argument, because this is the same court that ruled against GW in 2000.

As far as who sues who, remember, Perot tubed Bush Sr. against Clinton, and the Reps took the hit and went on. I can think of one other case where the Reps could've made a real court challenge, and didn't. It was when Ashcroft went up against the dead guy and lost, and rather than making a court case out of it, he gracefully conceded to the guy's widow, who wasn't even on the ballot.

Somehow I can't picture the Dems doing that. Heck, they even got together and changed the election laws in Mass. so that the Governor can't appoint a replacement if Kerry happens to win in November. Like they'd be missing anything anyway. How many Senate votes did Kerry participate in this year? I think it's around 7% and falling. Funny, by law, he shouldn't even be drawing a salary.

Sorry my friend, but from where I sit, the Dems are nothing but a bunch of ambulance chasers.

Moving on, if it's a choice between David Duke and Dan Rather, I think we'll take Duke. He can't do as much damage as Rather. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Rather was so relieved to have someone to stick up for him after his "experts" all bailed, he flew an 86 year old woman out to the CBS studios, just to say for the record that even though the memos were forgeries, and she never typed them, she thinks that her boss thought that the faked memos were really what he thought. Bahahaha. That made me laugh so hard I almost threw up. Rather is senile. Too bad, I used to respect the guy. He should talk to Lorne Michaels. They may have an opening on weekend update.

BTW, One of Kerry's 527's has offered $50,000 for a complete service record of Dubya's TANG time. Do you suppose they will accept the same standard of proof that CBS did? I could use the money.

-CM

Ross
09-18-2004, 10:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I don't understand the subject heading, what do you mean when you say "as well"? Did the courts do anything before?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

In 2000 the Florida Supreme Court voted to circumvent the law. Fortunately the United States Supreme Court chose to uphold the law, much to Ross's chagrin /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Actually I have never complained that the US Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. I thought there was enough ambiguity in the Supreme Court case that a reasonable person could rule either way (continuing the recount or just moving on), so conservative justices ruled in a way that would help Bush and moderate justices (there are no liberals one left) ruled in a way that would help Gore. The conservative justices outnumbered the moderate ones so the decision was to stop the recount and I accepted it. I didn't like the outcome, but I thought the procedure was fair.

However, I can read the law and tell Friday's state court ruling is pure BS. Interesting that the whole process was delayed so that the court could rule on late Friday afternoon. The absentee ballots go out today I think, so this prevents any time for an appeal I would guess. In any case the Dems have said they won't pursue it any further.

Ross
09-18-2004, 10:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> The phrase "as well" is grossly over- used and erroneously used by numerous people, including news people. I believe it is a Brit expression originating with Monty Python. Very similar to saying "like" in every sentence. Rediculous !!!

Troy
<hr /></blockquote>

??? What are you talking about???

From Meriam-Webster Dictionary:

Usage:
- as well 1 : in addition : ALSO &lt;there were other features as well&gt; 2 : to the same extent or degree : as much &lt;open as well to the poor as to the rich&gt; 3 : with equivalent, comparable, or more favorable effect &lt;might just as well have stayed home&gt;

Ross
09-18-2004, 11:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Ross, I wasn't trying to contradict myself. If Nader didn't get the sigs, then the law should prevail, and he should be left off the ballot. I thought I was clear on that. If he gathered enough sigs, he should be on the ballot, even if he switched parties.

<font color="blue">Highsea, you and I agree on the interpretation of the law - Nader did not qualify. But the court ignores the law and puts Nader on anyway and justifies it with flimsy arguments. Then you say you are glad that the court made the decision and not those evil Dem lawyers, even though the former ignored the law and the latter was correct? I just don't understand that reasoning. </font color>
But it's hard for me to accept the biased court argument, because this is the same court that ruled against GW in 2000.
<font color="blue">Yeah, I don't understand this either. I thought this court was fairly liberal, so I am surprised they would ignore the law in a way that would favor Bush. The only explanation I can think of is that they are put on the ballot whenever their terms expire with the question: Shall Justice _____ be retained in office?" Maybe some of them are afraid of losing their jobs. This is why judges should not face the threat of removal from office by vote if they make unpopular, but legally correct, decisions. </font color>

As far as who sues who, remember, Perot tubed Bush Sr. against Clinton, and the Reps took the hit and went on.
<font color="blue"> I don't recall Perot failing to meet any ballot qualification requirements? Did he? If he was truly ineligible and the Republicans didn't challenge it then they were fools, IMO. </font color>

I can think of one other case where the Reps could've made a real court challenge, and didn't. It was when Ashcroft went up against the dead guy and lost, and rather than making a court case out of it, he gracefully conceded to the guy's widow, who wasn't even on the ballot.
<font color="blue">Well I think that situation is a little different. I think Ashcroft still thought he might beat Carnahan. When he lost it would have looked pretty bad to then say she wasn't eligible. But if he did it just because he is an upstanding man, congrats to him.

You seem to want to see the Republicans as the "white hats" that don't use the legal system. But the Republicans filed lawsuits to stop the manual recounts of ballots in Florida in 2000, and lost, and then appealed, and lost. They filed suits to cut short the process when they were ahead. They did the exact same thing the Dems did. The only reason there were more lawsuits by the Dems was because Ms. Harris was making ruling after ruling in favor of the Republicans. It is the party that is getting screwed that complains, not the beneficiary.
</font color>

Somehow I can't picture the Dems doing that.


<font color="blue">So you are criticizing the Dems for something you imagine they would do? </font color>

...
-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
09-18-2004, 12:28 PM
Highsea says,
"Rather was so relieved to have someone to stick up for him after his "experts" all bailed, he flew an 86 year old woman out to the CBS studios, just to say for the record that even though the memos were forgeries, and she never typed them, she thinks that her boss thought that the faked memos were really what he thought. "






Knox is 86 years old, and completely comfortable in the eye of a storm. She spent more than two decades keeping pilots and officers in line at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Now, she wants to set the record straight about the memos that CBS News obtained.

Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.

“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”

Knox says the information in the four memos that CBS obtained is very familiar, but she doesn't believe the memos are authentic. She does, however, remember Killian being upset over Mr. Bush's failure to take a physical.

“Did or did not Lt. Bush take a physical as ordered by Col. Killian,” Rather asks Knox.
“The last time, no he didn’t,” says Knox. “It was a big no-no to not follow orders

Knox remembers Lt. Bush well, and saw him often as he showed up for weekend training in 1971 and 1972.

“He was always very gentlemanly. He called me by the name of his father’s secretary. He was always apologizing about that,” recalls Knox. “He couldn’t remember my name. I felt that his parents must have been wonderful to have produced somebody as nice as that.”

But did Lt. Bush get into the National Guard on the basis of preferential treatment?

“I'm going to say that he did,” says Knox. “I feel that he did, because there were a lot other boys in there in the same way."

Knox says that Killian started what she calls a "cover-your-back" file -- a personal file where he stored the memos about the problems with Mr. Bush's performance, his failure to take a physical, and the pressure Killian felt from upstairs.

She addressed one memo, and a reference to retired Gen. Staudt pushing for a positive officer training report on Lt. Bush.

"’Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it.’ Does that sound like Col. Killian? Is that the way it felt,” Rather asked Knox.

“That's absolutely the way he felt about that," says Knox.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml


Consider this statement.
“It was a big no-no to not follow orders."

Isnt disobeying a direct order by a superior a court-marshall offence? Why wasnt he arrested and thrown in jail instead of just being discharged? Is it for new recruits to pick and choose which orders they will obey?


She sounds pretty sure and believeable to me.


Q

Qtec
09-18-2004, 12:35 PM
Point 2.


Why wouldnt GW want to take a physical?

Q

highsea
09-18-2004, 12:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr><font color="blue">So you are criticizing the Dems for something you imagine they would do? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>I'm not criticizing or complimenting. I am just observing that the Dems, imo, would likely challenge the loss of a Senate seat if a dead rep beat a living dem.

Anyway, I hope the dems tactic backfires on them. They have already successfully knocked Nader off the ballot in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Virginia. It will be interesting to see how many voters in those States write in Nader anyway.

-CM

highsea
09-18-2004, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>She sounds pretty sure and believeable to me.
Q<hr /></blockquote> I'm sure she does. Lol. Only a couple problems. First, the memos are fake. Second, they directly contradict all of Killian's official reports, which we know are real. Third, all of the people that were around the TANG in 1972 (and are still living) disagree that Killian would have ever written such a memo.

So we should ignore all that in favor of a little old lady who thinks she remembers something her boss thought 35 years ago? Wouldn't it be simpler to just get out the Ouija Board?

While Mrs. Knox sounds like a nice lady, if she's the best Rather and CBS can come up with, they're in a heap of trouble.

Burkett, the author of the memos, is a long time democrat and has a personal grudge against the Bush family that goes back decades. This is nothing more than an amateurish attempt at character assassination, and Burkett should spend some time in one of Texas's conveniently located gray-bar motels for fraud. As Tom Bodett would say, "We'll leave the light on for you".

No matter, I still hope Rather sticks to his Gilligan defense. The longer he denies the truth, the stupider he looks.

-CM

Qtec
09-19-2004, 04:27 AM
Again,

"Isnt disobeying a direct order by a superior a court-marshall offence? Why wasnt he arrested and thrown in jail instead of just being discharged? Is it for new recruits to pick and choose which orders they will obey?
Why didnt he want to take his physical?


Q

Qtec
09-19-2004, 04:59 AM
(CBS/AP) An Internet writer considered the first to accuse CBS News of using fake documents in its report on President Bush's National Guard service is an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to Republican causes, a newspaper reported Saturday.

Harry W. MacDougald, 46, is affiliated with two prominent conservative legal groups and helped draft a petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, the Los Angeles Times said.

He confirmed his identify as the writer behind the Web posting, but declined to answer questions about his political background or explain how he knew so much about the documents so quickly, the newspaper said.

His posting, published on the conservative Web site www.freerepublic.com (http://www.freerepublic.com) hours after the CBS News broadcast on Sept. 8, concluded the records were forged. It based the conclusions on a technical analysis of spacing and font styles.



Hmmmmm.

Q

highsea
09-19-2004, 01:37 PM
Where is your evidence that Bush refused a direct order? The CBS memos? ROFL. As far as letting a flight medical lapse anyway, big deal. When you are ready to start flying, you just go get a medical. It takes about an hour. My medical is lapsed also, it doesn't mean I will never fly again.

If you are going to try to claim Bush was on drugs, and was afraid of getting busted, that doesn't wash. In 1972, drug testing wasn't even a part of flight medicals. Even today, it is only used in military and commercial medicals.

Bush wasn't actively flying, he was working for a Senate campaign, with permission from his superiors. There is no record that he was ordered to get his medical, let alone refused. He certainly wasn't disciplined, so it's more likely that his superiors were aware of his medical status, but were not too concerned about it.

The TANG was phasing out the F102 fleet, so Bush would have had to requalify in another AC anyway. The AANG had a shortage of AC, so Bush couldn't get any seat time from them while he was in Alabama. When you are dealing with high performance AC, time away from the seat degrades your performance quickly. This is one reason why Bush had to go back to jet trainers when he resumed flying.

The truth is, Bush more than completed his obligations as far as flight time and points accumulated. In fact, he was discharged 6 months early, because he had met his obligations.

next topic...

So the first guy to expose CBS's lies was a republican. So? Would you have expected it from a democrat? This is pretty funny. You seem to think the technical analysis should be ignored, because the fraud happened to be first pointed out by a republican.

Of course you ignore the fraud entirely, and attempt to misdirect the issue using Rather's Gilligan defense technique. Then you blame the reps for CBS's failings. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

What's even funnier is that Burkett, by his own admission, passed these memos to the DNC, on the specific instructions of Max Cleland. This was back in February.

This is not to say that the DNC was the source for CBS. We now know that Burkett sent the forgeries directly from his local Kinkos a few weeks before the CBS story. The fax headers show that. But the DNC had them for at least 6 months prior to the CBS story, and wouldn't touch them. What does that tell you?

I say it proves that the DNC knew about them, and Ben Barnes, who was part of the Rather episode on 60 Minutes just happens to be the co-chairman of the Kerry campaign. That means that the DNC knew that CBS was going to use the memos in their story, and didn't try to stop them.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the DNC was aware that the memos were phony, but they still let CBS discredit themselves. Simply put, they allowed their desire to smear Bush overshadow their ethics.

Then, when the story breaks, Terry McAuliffe tries to shift the blame to Karl Rove, when the statements by Burkett indicate that he (McAuliffe) already knew that Burkett was the source! Lol. What a wanker.

but...but...but... /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

-CM

bluewolf
09-20-2004, 06:47 AM
Regardless of which branch is being referred to (executive, legislative or judicial), very little surprises me. With the exception of some local govts, they are all a bunch of crooked politicians IMO. The ones at the state and federal level, who are not politicians perse, are bought. In fact, that are probably all bought.

JMO

Laura

eg8r
09-20-2004, 08:06 AM
Can anyone tell me what Q's post had to do with the thread?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
09-20-2004, 08:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Can anyone tell me what Q's post had to do with the thread?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Can anyone tell me what Q's post had to do with the truth? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
09-20-2004, 08:32 AM
If you tell me which post,maybe I could enlighten you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Qtec
09-20-2004, 09:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush wasn't actively flying, he was working for a Senate campaign, with permission from his superiors. There is no record that he was ordered to get his medical, let alone refused. He certainly wasn't disciplined, so it's more likely that his superiors were aware of his medical status, but were not too concerned about it.

The TANG was phasing out the F102 fleet, so Bush would have had to requalify in another AC anyway. The AANG had a shortage of AC, so Bush couldn't get any seat time from them while he was in Alabama. When you are dealing with high performance AC, time away from the seat degrades your performance quickly. This is one reason why Bush had to go back to jet trainers when he resumed flying.

The truth is, Bush more than completed his obligations as far as flight time and points accumulated. In fact, he was discharged 6 months early, because he had met his obligations.

next topic... <hr /></blockquote>

NYT article,
" Whatever precisely was drawing Mr. Bush away from flying, it was then, in the spring of 1972, that the Alabama job came along. He had worked for Jimmy Allison before - on a 1968 Senate campaign in Florida - but this would be his first full-time job in the family business, politics.

Still, there was the matter of his commitment to the Guard. Moving to Alabama meant taking a temporary leave from his Texas unit; Guard officials say it was not unusual for civilian officers to take jobs away from their home states. Mr. Bush did not wait to line up a spot with an Alabama unit before arriving in Montgomery in mid-May.

Mr. Bush first tried to join the 9921 Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, which was classified as a "standby reserve unit." Unlike his unit in Texas, the Alabama unit had no planes and its members were neither paid nor required to attend monthly drills.

In July, though, senior Guard officials rejected Mr. Bush's transfer, saying he had to continue with a "ready reserve unit," which requires monthly attendance. In that same period - the precise timing is not clear - he did something that brought his dwindling flying ambitions to a close: he failed to take the annual physical exam required of all pilots.

In his 1999 book, "A Charge to Keep," Mr. Bush did not mention the missed physical or the suspension. "I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard," he wrote, "and was no longer flying because the F-102 jet I had trained in was being replaced by a different fighter." In fact, when he missed his physical he had almost two years left in the Guard.

Later, an aide to Mr. Bush explained that he had missed his physical because he was waiting to get examined by his personal physician. But pilots were required to be examined by military doctors.



More recently the White House has said that he did not take the physical because Alabama units were not flying the F-102. But his second application to transfer to Alabama - after the rejected transfer in July - was filed in September 1972, at least two months after he had missed his physical.

Whatever the reason, on Sept. 5, Mr. Bush was notified that he was suspended from flying "for failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

By that time, still without an Alabama unit, he had not attended a required monthly drill for almost five months, according to records released by the White House. Under the law at the time, he could have been sent to Vietnam. But in the relatively relaxed world of the Guard, and with hardly anyone being called up for active duty anymore, officials took no action. He was free to stay in Montgomery and work on the Blount campaign"

Factcheck,

"Still Flying in 1974

Separately, The Associated Press said it had obtained new records showing that Bush's Houston unit continued to operate the F-102 Delta Dagger aircraft long after Bush stopped flying in April 1972.

The AP said the Pentagon released the records under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, after previously saying it could not find them.

The AP said the two dozen new pages of records show that Bush's Texas unit flew the F-102A until 1974, and also used the jets as part of an air defense drill during 1972, despite a suggestion by Bush's 2000 campaign that he had skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete.

The AP said the records also show that Bush ranked No. 22 in a class of 53 pilots when he finished his flight training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1969. (That seemed to conflict with what Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, was quoted by The Boston Globe as saying in 2000, when he said he would rank Bush "in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew.”)"

GW did what he could to make sure he NEVER saw any action. He prefered to protect Texas from Arkansas. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
09-20-2004, 12:05 PM
The one to which I replied.

It would be the one where you quoted CBS/AP newsource about the fake documents at CBS.