Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

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

--
"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

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

Indeed, considering the consequences there's no way Clarke will be charged
with perjury.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

I knew it was going to happen.

Clinton's Penis has been replaced by Clarke's Perjury.

Just once I'd like to see a rightard stick to the subject of a thread.

--
"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

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

I knew it was going to happen.

If you knew what was going to happen you would quit posting, pest.

Clinton's Penis has been replaced by Clarke's Perjury.

Clinton's penis could not make Chelsea, so Webb Hubble had to pinch hit.

"qwerty" wrote in message
om...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week
or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his statements
under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the commission,
under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Brooks


Indeed, considering the consequences there's no way Clarke will be charged
with perjury.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"qwerty" wrote in message
om...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week
or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his statements
under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the commission,
under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Bring it on.

If Clarke felt there was a problem, he'd be all over the media with
clarifications.

Oh wait, isn't Rice doing that now?

I guess Bush has a problem.

--
"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

"Tempest" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"qwerty" wrote in message
om...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

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

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next
week
or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his
statements
under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the
commission,
under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Bring it on.

If Clarke felt there was a problem, he'd be all over the media with
clarifications.

Clarke is selling books.

Oh wait, isn't Rice doing that now?

Rice is an intellegent and articulate woman. Why do you hate strong women?

I guess Bush has a problem.

Bush had a problem.

Now Clarke will be an embarrassment to the Kerry campaign.