Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
from any branch of the government.


Another "vast right wing conspiracy" huh?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in
news
In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
history"?

Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
Bush story.


Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
Bush's transfer
to
Dannelly was rejected.

Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET
with

What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
"transfering" without orders?

Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in
order to perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping?
Geeze.

Who gave him permission to do so? Or are you claiming that you don't need
permission? What does "ET" stand for? My understanding was that Bush
transfered (without permission) for "civilian occupation" - IOW the
campaign in Alabama. Either way, you still need permission. BUsh had no
permission. If he did, produce the document. I produced a document
clearly stating that his transfer to air reserve was denied.


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

Chad Irby wrote in message .com...
In article ,
".impervious" wrote:

In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
: eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
: "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...

you call strategic bombing,

Blowing up empty training camps and an aspirin factory... with pretty
much zero results.

I guess you forgot about the VX traces the CIA found at the site.

doubling the overall counterterrorism budget,

...for domestic terrorism and "cyberterrorism"...

So you admit Clinton did something about domestic terrorism.

That's big of you to admit.

and tripling the counterterrorism budget specifically for the
FBI not doing anything?

...in an attempt to catch domestic terrorists like McVey... not to
mention Clarke's myopic focus on cyberterrorism for a few years.

Wrong.

Clinton specifically talked about al-Qaeda.

how about coming up with the original plan for
a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush scoffed at until 9/11?

How about it? A "plan" that was never implemented is just a piece of
paper. Much like the rest of the Clinton "efforts."

A plan which was up to the REPUBLICAN controlled Congress to act on.

They didn't.

how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
original WTC attack in '93, even though Clinton had only been in office
for *38 days* when it happened?

Since the FBI did that, with the help of an idiot terrorist who went and
tried to get his deposit back from the rental truck company...

So Clinton doesn't get credit for capturing the 1993 WTC bombers, but
Bush gets credit for capturing the 2000 USS Cole bombers?

You rightards are way beyond hope.

...and then did *nothing* else. They didn't catch the people who
financed it, and let one of the plotters get away. To Iraq, of course
(whatever happened to "Iraq has no ties to al-Qaeda?").

I suppose you have a cite for this, right?

Didn't think so.

there was no "fixing" the terror problem.

Not the way the Clinton/Clarke folks went about it.

Then why did Rumsfeld and Cheney praise Clinton for his actions?

Answer that, dumbass.

but had he listened to those in the know, 9/11 may not have happened.
and after it DID happen, we spent about 3 minutes in Afghanistan,
where we knew some of the culprits to be,

Hey - isn't that the place Clinton fired a bunch of cruise missiles at,
and didn't accomplish anything?

Really?

According to intelligence services worldwide, Clinton prevented the
planning of terrorist attacks with his strikes.

The place where we had at least two
different chances to kill Osama bin Laden, but Clinton and Clarke
decided not to?

For logical reasons.

Like not wanting to kill innocent civilians, and not trusting the
intelligence from foreign sources.

The place where we went in and removed the Taliban, which was directly
supporting al-Qaeda, *after* Clinton left office? The place we've been
in for a couple of years now (not "three minutes")?

You mean where the Taliban are back in business, and getting stronger
through the sale of opium?

The Taliban own Afghanistan, except in Kabal.

and moved on to Iraq, which had exactly zip to do with the
attack.

Other than sheltering al-Qaeda terrorists who took part in the *first*
WTC attack.

Lie.

And other nice folks, too (like Abbas, who died in custody
recently after being captured in Iraq, where he'd been living i comfort
for years).

US intelligence believe Saddam didn't know about him being in the
country.

Bush's intelligence.

our fearless leader at one point called Osama a "non-priority,"
a quote that he'll never be able to run from.

Funny... I can't find that quote. Maybe you're confusing Bush with
Clinton again?

Naturally you can't find the quote, you're a dumbass.

And a lying dumbass at that.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
-- 2001-09-13 GW Bush

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- 2002-03-13 GW Bush

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in
news
In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
for a drug test all "ancient history"?

Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
story.


Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's presence
at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately, Bush's transfer
to
Dannelly was rejected.

Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you have?

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:4064440a$1@bg2....

"David Hartung" wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
...and if he had, it would be in his records
(which have already been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense
Command, have a SIOP
comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.

The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear
tipped missile (AIM 27, I
believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked
with this weapon, then the
President would have had to be on PRP. Personally,
I believe that AIM 27s
had long since been withdrawn from service.


The weapon was the AIM-26A Falcon. Not sure if the ANG ever had that
weapon,
but they did have the AIR-2A Genie.

Yeah I know, the last model of the F89 that my Dad flew was the "J" and to
my knowledge, it's only weapon was the Genie.

"Tempest" wrote in message
om...
zepp wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Tempest" wrote in message
...

You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
his other actions and writings.

Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
he looks.

It's worked for him so far.

Too bad it's shot his credibility all to hell.

The nice thing about knowing what I believe, and about trying to deal in
truth, is that your opinion of my credibility means nothing.

"Tempest" wrote in message
om...
"David Hartung" wrote in message
.. .
"Tempest" wrote in message
...

You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
his other actions and writings.

Which have been thoroughly explained, and completely ignored by the
rightards.

Have they? I am aware that Clarke has attempted to explain away his stories,
but as I recall, some of his previous statements are in direct contradiction
to his book. Either he was lying then, or he is lying now. Please explain.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

In California it would be conspiracy, good for 20 years.

IOW, out in 6 months, right?

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:59:07 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.


They may have had the old Genie rockets ?

IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.

Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101;
purely
a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.



I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?

Not to my knowledge, perhaps you are thinking of the 106?

And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?

I'm interested from a purely clinical point of view- you know, like trying
to determine exactly what "Bush tried to steal the election" means in terms
of a psychosis.

Steve Swartz



"Tempest" wrote in message
...


Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:


...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Not all his records were released.

His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
next to impossible to erase.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
someone in the government to do him any favors.

Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
that would get you some prison time.

Let's be real here.

During Reagan/Bush Sr. we had Iran/Contra.

How many people went to prison over that?

It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
from any branch of the government.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748