the AWOL status of Bush is a relevant election issue

(WalterM140) wrote in
:

[snip]

Don't call it AWOL then. Just don't call it an honorable way to act.

You are saying there's something dishono(u)rable about it.
We say you nay.

Happy?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Between January 20, 1993, and January 20, 2001, every US service member
served under a commander-in-chief who had left the country to avoid
military
service in time of war.

Clinton's not running.


Again, you miss the point. The folks that are screaming about Bush's Guard
service during Vietnam are the same forks that said Clinton's draft dodging
was not an issue. To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite.



The point, for me, is that the Bush campaign has impugned Senator Kerry's
service when they cannot account for two years of Bush's service.


The Bush campaign has not impugned Senator Kerry's service.

"Brooks Gregory" wrote in message
.. .

I wonder where John Edwards was during the Viet Nam war. With a DOB
of 1953, he certainly was old enough to have served. Why didn't he?


Like Cheney, he had other plans.

(WalterM140) wrote in
:

Between January 20, 1993, and January 20, 2001, every US service
member served under a commander-in-chief who had left the country to
avoid military service in time of war.

Clinton's not running.

The point, for me, is that the Bush campaign has impugned Senator
Kerry's service when they cannot account for two years of Bush's
service.

The Air Force can't or won't in a form that would satisfy
your ambitions.
Hardly Bush's fault.
So you're left blowing smoke.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

the AWOL status of Bush is a relevant election issue

It's not an issue because he was never awol. See
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm for an analysis of everything that
is on the record or even mildly substantiated about his six and
one-half years in the Air Guard and reserves.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

the AWOL status of Bush is a relevant election issue

No.
He wasn't AWOL.


There is at least a 16 month gap in his service.

Walt

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:15:27 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

the AWOL status of Bush is a relevant election issue

No.
He wasn't AWOL.


There is at least a 16 month gap in his service.

In short, because you are unable to come with records that support
your theories you claim there's a 16 month gap?
You agenda is showing.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/12/2004 6:15 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

the AWOL status of Bush is a relevant election issue

No.
He wasn't AWOL.


There is at least a 16 month gap in his service.

Walt

Were you as tough on Clinton for dodging the draft by signing up for ROTC then
leaving the country to avoid going?

Are you being as tough on Kerry for missing something like 2/3 of the Senate
votes since he started running? Will you be just as hard on Edwards who has
missed even more?


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
the AWOL status of Bush is a relevant election issue

No.
He wasn't AWOL.


There is at least a 16 month gap in his service.

Then show us where competent autrhority declared him AWOL.

It sure was in 2000 wasn't it?


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory