Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:

What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out
you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend
the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either
with the home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at
all. Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and
recordation of ET is also not uncommon.

Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not* equivalent:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military Service
Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6 n (4),
AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready
Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an
Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/cou...ial/index.html

Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"
--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

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

What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out
you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend
the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either
with the home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at
all. Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and
recordation of ET is also not uncommon.

Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not* equivalent:

You *are* dumber than a fencepost. For the last time, his performance of ET
is a separate issue from his denied transfer.

Another dingbat without a clue, trying to construct a conspiracy from things
he has no understanding of. Figures.

Brooks


http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military Service
Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6 n (4),
AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready
Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an
Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/cou...ial/index.html

Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"

Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out
you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend
the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either
with the home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at
all. Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and
recordation of ET is also not uncommon.

Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not* equivalent:

You *are* dumber than a fencepost. For the last time, his performance of ET
is a separate issue from his denied transfer.

Another dingbat without a clue, trying to construct a conspiracy from things
he has no understanding of. Figures.

Another ad homimen attack, the sure sign you don't know what you're
talking about.

You've been given cites to back up everyone's position, and yet you've
failed to provide one.

Now who are we to believe?

Hint, it's not you.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military Service
Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6 n (4),
AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready
Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an
Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/cou...ial/index.html

Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"

--
"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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


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

What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was
all definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to
find out you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off
the hook a bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who
can't attend the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be
performed either with the home unit or another unit (as in this
case). Not uncommon at all. Unfortunately, in my experience,
screwing up the tracking and recordation of ET is also not
uncommon.

Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not*
equivalent:

You *are* dumber than a fencepost. For the last time, his performance
of ET is a separate issue from his denied transfer.

Then produce documentation.

Another dingbat without a clue, trying to construct a conspiracy from
things he has no understanding of. Figures.

Another name-calling rightard who hasn't got a shred of evidence to
support his argument and figures that if he yells enough and calls people
enough names they will miraculously forget about actual evidence that
refutes his argument.

Brooks

I will give you credit for at least not snipping the lines below. But you
still ignored them. And you chose to call me names instead of producing
the slightest shred of evidence to refute them. It's the corollary to
Godwin's law. The first party to call names loses the argument.


http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph
30-6 n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a
specific Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for
assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/cou...ial/index.html

Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"






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

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
.4...

Climb back in your hole idiot and leave the military newsgroups.