Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

"Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We
wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for
that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke
the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has
been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill

Clinton

adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641
stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George
W. Bush's military record.



Alleged? Something is alleged when it is represented as existing or as
being as described but not so proved. There's nothing alleged about
Clinton's draft-dodging.

Really? In that case, would you mind producing some proof that there was a
court proceeding that found Clinton guilty of violating some portion of the
Selective Service Act?

You know, my dictionary defines "allege" as "to declare or assert without
proof". If you have no proof, there's no other word you could use about the
object of your affections than allege. You can't turn him into a criminal just
because you don't like his politics or sex life.

By way of example, many of Bush's critics think he was an unprosecuted AWOL or
maybe even a deserter but, lacking proof and/or evidence of a successful
prosecution, many amongst them refrain from making unsubstantiated charges like
that. Don't you think it's time both Bush and Clinton got a vacation from
having mud thrown at them for stuff nobody has yet proved that they did? It's
unseemly to treat our presidents that way, even the ones we don't like.

George Z.