<html>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">Greetings:<br><br>
Some of you may have seen Bob Fogarty's letter to the <i>Lewiston Morning
Tribune</i> responding to an earlier one of mine on Bush's guard
duty. Since it takes a while for Jim Fisher to print letters, I
thought I would post it here.<br><br>
I would like to thank Bob Fogarty for correcting my error regarding
F-102s in Vietnam. I should have trusted my memory rather than
<i>The New Republic</i>. I thought I remembered that these jets were
flown out of Thai bases.<br><br>
If it is true that it was “points” rather than days served was the
criterion for Bush fulfilling his guard duty, it is then puzzling why the
White House kept defending his service in terms of drills attended.
<br><br>
After 1972 Bush could not have flown any plane because he did not show up
for his physical. A careful analysis at www. glcq.com/pti 961.htm
demonstrates that Bush should not have received an honorable discharge
for this egregious failure and affront to the taxpayers who paid for his
expensive training.<br><br>
Perhaps Fogarty missed the news reports that showed that there was
nothing irregular about Kerry’s medal awards. To call them “phony”
is to cast aspersions on millions of other US soldiers who sacrificed for
their medals.<br><br>
The man whom Kerry saved after pointing his boat into enemy fire is now
alive to testify as to Kerry’s courage. I also admire his courage in
protesting an unjust war.<br><br>
Fogarty says nothing about Bush’s claim that he showed up for duty in
Alabama. Where are the men in Alabama who can assure us that Bush was not
AWOL? For me the character issue is easily solved in Kerry’s
favor.<br><br>
Nick Gier, Moscow<br>
</font></html>