Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

Republican Double Standard wrote:

"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.

You're wasting your time.

The rightards are so blinded by ideology, they refuse to belief even the
most glaring of facts.

There'll be mass rightard suicides when Kerry wins in November.

--
"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