>Subject: An interesting story

>Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:06:19 -0600

>

>I enjoyed reading this from a friend.

>

>Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush

> > >

> > > Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military

>men

> > > and women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice

> > > anything, but military people see it right away.

> > >

> > > Watch: when President Bush leaves his helicopter or Air Force One,

>the

> > > honor guards salute and face him as he disembarks, then turn their

>faces

> > > toward him as he passes by. They continue to salute his back as he

>walks

> > > away. This kind of salute has not been seen in the previous eight

>years,

> > > though it is customary courtesy to the Commander-in-Chief.

> > >

> > > You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and face the President as

>they

> > > salute. They are not required to salute his back. They are only

>required

> > > to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire time. And that is

>

> > > what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. Our soldiers

>were

> > > forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not forced to respect

>

> > > him. ...From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not.

> > >

> > > Why is such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know

>how

> > > to bite his lower lip and he gets teary-eyed whenever he speaks!

> > >

> > >

> > > The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an

>

> > > insight. Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian

> > > Fellowship. He lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was

>attacked

> > > Sept. 11. His executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned

>and

> > > in the hospital when President Bush visited him. Our President spent

>

> > > time and prayed with Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he

>went to

> > > the foot of Brian's bed and saluted. He held his salute until Brian

>was

> > > able to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in

>return.

> > >

> > > The Commander-in-Chief never initiates a salute, except in the case

>of a

> > > Congressional Medal of Honor winner. The injured soldier did not

>have to

> > > return the salute. But he did, out of respect to his President - a

> > > Soldiers President.

> > >

> > > Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the

>right

> > > thing when nobody is looking. In this time of war and danger, I am

>so

> > > grateful to have a President whom the soldiers salute - fully."

> > >

> > > On Special Report with Brit Hume, at the close of the show when they

>

> > > normally have some funny video clip, they showed President Bush and

>the

> > > First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp David for

>the

> > > weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the way into

>the

> > > helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president is

>right

> > > behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered

> > > the>chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute.

> > >

> > > The Scottie the President was walking decided it wanted to squat

>right

> > > when he got to steps. The president pulled on its' leash, but the

> > > stubborn Scottie persisted in squatting. The President bent down and

>

> > > scooped up the pooch and entered Marine One. After he entered, the

> > > Marine cut his salute and returned to the position of attention.

> > >

> > > Moments later the president reemerged from the helicopter and out

>onto

> > > the steps. The Marine was standing at attention, head and eyes

>straight

> > > ahead. The president leaned over and tapped him on the left arm. The

>

> > > startled Marine turned his body toward the president and received

>his

> > > returned salute!

> > >

> > > I was so impressed by this true act of respect for our military

>people

> > > by our president! He really does get it. Most any other person of

>his

> > > stature would have just continued his journey, disregarding the

> > > neglected return salute. Not George W. Bush. He is earning the

>respect

> > > of the military community, not expecting it - as most would.

>

_________________________________________________________________

Join the world%E2s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

Michael,

Thanks for passing this on.

Art Bergquist

abergquis@cs.com

In a message dated 3/28/2002 8:56:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,

vfpmcp@hotmail.com writes:

> >Subject: An interesting story

> >Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:06:19 -0600

> >

> >I enjoyed reading this from a friend.

> >

> >Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush

> > > >

> > > > Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military

> >men

> > > > and women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice

> > > > anything, but military people see it right away.

> > > >

> > > > Watch: when President Bush leaves his helicopter or Air Force One,

> >the

> > > > honor guards salute and face him as he disembarks, then turn their

> >faces

> > > > toward him as he passes by. They continue to salute his back as he

> >walks

> > > > away. This kind of salute has not been seen in the previous eight

> >years,

> > > > though it is customary courtesy to the Commander-in-Chief.

> > > >

> > > > You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and face the President as

> >they

> > > > salute. They are not required to salute his back. They are only

> >required

> > > > to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire time. And that is

> >

> > > > what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. Our soldiers

> >were

> > > > forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not forced to respect

> >

> > > > him. ...From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not.

> > > >

> > > > Why is such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know

> >how

> > > > to bite his lower lip and he gets teary-eyed whenever he speaks!

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an

> >

> > > > insight. Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian

> > > > Fellowship. He lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was

> >attacked

> > > > Sept. 11. His executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned

> >and

> > > > in the hospital when President Bush visited him. Our President spent

> >

> > > > time and prayed with Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he

> >went to

> > > > the foot of Brian's bed and saluted. He held his salute until Brian

> >was

> > > > able to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in

> >return.

> > > >

> > > > The Commander-in-Chief never initiates a salute, except in the case

> >of a

> > > > Congressional Medal of Honor winner. The injured soldier did not

> >have to

> > > > return the salute. But he did, out of respect to his President - a

> > > > Soldiers President.

> > > >

> > > > Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the

> >right

> > > > thing when nobody is looking. In this time of war and danger, I am

> >so

> > > > grateful to have a President whom the soldiers salute - fully."

> > > >

> > > > On Special Report with Brit Hume, at the close of the show when they

> >

> > > > normally have some funny video clip, they showed President Bush and

> >the

> > > > First Lady on their way to Marine One to leave for Camp David for

> >the

> > > > weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the way into

> >the

> > > > helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president is

> >right

> > > > behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered

> > > > the>chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute.

> > > >

> > > > The Scottie the President was walking decided it wanted to squat

> >right

> > > > when he got to steps. The president pulled on its' leash, but the

> > > > stubborn Scottie persisted in squatting. The President bent down and

> >

> > > > scooped up the pooch and entered Marine One. After he entered, the

> > > > Marine cut his salute and returned to the position of attention.

> > > >

> > > > Moments later the president reemerged from the helicopter and out

> >onto

> > > > the steps. The Marine was standing at attention, head and eyes

> >straight

> > > > ahead. The president leaned over and tapped him on the left arm. The

> >

> > > > startled Marine turned his body toward the president and received

> >his

> > > > returned salute!

> > > >

> > > > I was so impressed by this true act of respect for our military

> >people

> > > > by our president! He really does get it. Most any other person of

> >his

> > > > stature would have just continued his journey, disregarding the

> > > > neglected return salute. Not George W. Bush. He is earning the

> >respect

> > > > of the military community, not expecting it - as most would.

> >

I was wondering how he got to be president.

Allen

-----Original Message-----

From: profox@leafe.com [mailto:profox@leafe.com]On Behalf Of Michael

Babcock

>Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:06:19 -0600

>

>I enjoyed reading this from a friend.

>

>Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush

Who? How Clinton got in there? He snuck in - IMO. But lets not talk about

that embarrassing part of our history ;-)

>I was wondering how he got to be president.

>Allen

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: profox@leafe.com [mailto:profox@leafe.com]On Behalf Of Michael

>Babcock

> >Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:06:19 -0600

> >

> >I enjoyed reading this from a friend.

> >

> >Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush

On Friday, March 29, 2002, at 12:19 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote:

> Who? How Clinton got in there? He snuck in - IMO.

Hmm... is that a typo? Surely you meant Bush, who lost the popular

vote.

I wonder what his campaign slogan will be in 4 years? Maybe

"Re-Appoint the President!" ?

___/

/

__/

/

____/

Ed Leafe

http://leafe.com/

http://foxcentral.net

>> I found it interesting that Gore's home state (where he was a

Senator?) overwhelmingly went for Bush. The people that knew the most

about Gore supported him the least. Bush was vice-versa - his state was

overwhelmingly in favor of him. The people that knew the most about Bush

supported him the most. I see a message in that. <<

What message is that? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet Gore was a

senator longer than Bush was governor of Texas.

The message I see is that Texas, on the whole, is a Republican

stronghold and Tennessee less so. No more and no less.

Why is Texas a Republican stronghold?

It may be still true today, maybe not, but for the longest time Texas

state government electors weren't paid. Therefore, only those who could

afford to run did run. Obviously, only the very rich could run, and the

very rich tend to be very conservative.

> Sort of like I was concerned about China pumping huge amounts of money

> into Clinton's campaign. Not that there was any conspiracy there (I

> haven't seen any conclusive proof). But, when a foreign power, of a

> conflicting philosophical viewpoint, supports one of our politicians

> so strongly it makes me wonder why? Does that politician embrace their

> philosophy and has just hidden it from us?

I assume you had these concerns about both

Reagan/Bush/Poindexter/North/Casey/McFarlane and Iran/Contra.

Reagan, after steadfastly saying that he would never make concessions to

terrorists, then denied such a thing when the story surfaced. Later on,

when the evidence was overwhelming, admitted that secret diplomatic

contacts had been going on for nearly 18 months. Oops! Robert McFarlane

had visited Khomeini on the sly with, among other things, a Bible

personally signed by Reagan.

This is a conspiracy that ** has ** been proven.

Bill Anderson

Nope. No typo. The original poster asked a question that sounded ambiguous

to me. But if the question were put to me as to how Bush got in there, I'd

be inclided to say "our good luck!"

But since you bring it up, I found it interesting that Gore's home state

(where he was a Senator?) overwhelmingly went for Bush. The people that

knew the most about Gore supported him the least. Bush was vice-versa - his

state was overwhelmingly in favor of him. The people that knew the most

about Bush supported him the most. I see a message in that. Sort of like I

was concerned about China pumping huge amounts of money into Clinton's

campaign. Not that there was any conspiracy there (I haven't seen any

conclusive proof). But, when a foreign power, of a conflicting

philosophical viewpoint, supports one of our politicians so strongly it

makes me wonder why? Does that politician embrace their philosophy and has

just hidden it from us?

As for the popular vote, there's somewhat of a fallacy there. What happened

in this last election in several states was the counting was stopped when

it was determined the remaining outstanding ballots couldn't possibly swing

the result. Added to this is the fact that most states are a all-or-nothing

type allotment of electoral votes (so they don't feel any need to get a

final accurate tally). Of course, everyone's attention was on Florida in

the end. As it turns out, Bush's lead actually increased substantially in

the final tally (some newspaper paid for the remainder of the effort to

tally the votes - and that was the result - although it wasn't publicized

very well).

Sounds like you don't like the concept of the electoral college. I don't

either. I think it was originally set up to help organize a widely

disbursed population when long distance communication took weeks to

accomplish. Some say it was set up to always give the appearance of a

'significant margin of victory' for the winner. Phooey <g>. I think we've

outgrown the need for the electoral college and we should get rid of it. I

think we'd save time and money without it. And I think it would certainly

give everyone more hopefulness that their vote would count. I know lots of

conservatives that live in liberal states that don't bother to vote - they

know it won't matter because of the all-or-nothing electoral votes and

being way outnumbered (and I know liberals in conservative states feeling

the same way).

>>Who? How Clinton got in there? He snuck in - IMO.

>

> Hmm... is that a typo? Surely you meant Bush, who lost the

> popular vote.

>

> I wonder what his campaign slogan will be in 4 years? Maybe

> "Re-Appoint the President!" ?

On Saturday, March 30, 2002, at 12:16 AM, Charlie Coleman wrote:

> Nope. No typo. The original poster asked a question that sounded

> ambiguous to me. But if the question were put to me as to how Bush got

> in there, I'd be inclided to say "our good luck!"

I still don't understand, after that lengthy explanation of why you

think Bush won fair and square, that you claim that Clinton's TWO

victories were not legitimate; that he "snuck in". I've heard that

stated a lot, and it doesn't sound like anything except sour grapes.

___/

/

__/

/

____/

Ed Leafe

http://leafe.com/

http://foxcentral.net

Well, the wink at the end of the first message was supposed to show I was

talking tongue-in-cheek about Clinton. A better tongue-in-cheek word would

have been 'tricked' or 'fooled' his way in. Something like that. Not that

he fooled the system, but that he fooled the people into voting for him

(and, of course, that's just my opinion <g>). He legitimately won the

voting process.

And I did not say Bush won fair and square. I merely pointed out the actual

end results of the popular vote aren't known. I mentioned the results of

the final voting results of Florida as a passing comment since I thought

most people didn't know about it. I imagine, we'll never know the results

of the popular votes unless we get rid of the electoral college. At that

point, every vote will be more likely to be counted.

>>Nope. No typo. The original poster asked a question that sounded

>>ambiguous to me. But if the question were put to me as to how Bush got in

>>there, I'd be inclided to say "our good luck!"

>

> I still don't understand, after that lengthy explanation of why

> you think Bush won fair and square, that you claim that Clinton's TWO

> victories were not legitimate; that he "snuck in". I've heard that stated

> a lot, and it doesn't sound like anything except sour grapes.

The Miami Herald paid to do the recount. AFAIK, no impartial recount of

any sort ever came out with Gore ahead.

-----Original Message-----

From: Charlie Coleman [mailto:charliegc@lakesatredrock.net]

Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:39 PM

To: Multiple recipients of ProFox

Subject: Re: [OT] Why and How the Military Salutes President Bush

I'll try to find the reference when I have time. The ones that 'paid' to

complete the recount was some newspaper in Florida. Supposedly, it was a

newspaper that had supported Gore. They quietly published the results

that

Bush's lead had increased in their final count.

-Charlie

> > As it turns out, Bush's lead actually increased substantially in

> > the final tally (some newspaper paid for the remainder of the effort

> > to tally the votes - and that was the result - although it wasn't

> > publicized very well).

>

>As I recall, the kind of recount each side had asked for would have

>resulted in the opponent's victory, and the complete count of overvotes

>and undervotes (i.e. a complete recount) would have given the state to

>Gore.

>

>-Jerry Wolper

> Consult10@aol.com