Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

I am fascinated by the trolls on this newsgroup. It seems that all the
really nutty stuff is anti-Bush. What does that say about the present
Democratic candidate? (The same one who moans about the "Republican
attack machine".)

The problem is that all of the worst stuff about Kerry is the stuff he's
actually saying and doing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(Tammy) wrote:


So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that the
GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released positive
information to the press and saved the negative information until
after he left the White House.

There are three things to keep in mind.

1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
poster child for anti-GOP views.

He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current administration
after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being effectively
demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a dedicated paper
pusher. That's reason enough.

2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
(amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
position.

They gave other people that responsibility, and as soon as they got rid
of him, put someone else into the job.

Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.

No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
during the worst terror attacks in history.

3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
bit of the details.

....with some creative writing.

That contradicts other reports.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?

Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.

Take it to court and quit babling, lun.

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.

--
"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
om...
In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own
foreign
policy group outside the government and how much jail time did
they
do?

About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
assassinating US Congressmen did.

Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.

...and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy
to
kill members of the US Government.

I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
opportunity.

What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?

Actually, yes, if you thought it was a credible threat.

If you knew "hundreds" of people like that, you need a new set of
friends.

Try again.

Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.

Under what obligation was Kerry to report it?

Well, besides the obvious *moral* one, the obligation of any citizen who
knows of someone planning on murdering someone. If they had succeeded,
he would have been an accessory before the fact.

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

"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.

The ANG would have folded on apeal, as all aviation is politics.

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
.4...
"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:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Let's be real here.

If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
about four years back.


Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance

Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
(i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.

but Bush AWOL

Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.


Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.

Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?

Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.

Any of them. The progress report from the CO you refer to is nullified by
his performance of ET, much of which is documented (amazingly enough,
giventhe intervening thirty year period). That transfer request you keep
trotting out is a big ol' red herring--meaningless. He has never claimed to
have received the transfer, and the reason he instead went the ET route is
because he was not approved for the transfer. There is NOTHING there for him
to be convicted *of*, by any courts martial board.

Interestingly enough, you snipped away Robert Reich's alleged "proof" that
the drug testing program kicked off in April 1972 this time--what's wrong,
you found out there is no reputable supporting evidence for that claim and
now just wish that particular topic went away? As I said befo "I went
through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the initiation
of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another alluded to
1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug testing results in
the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?" Apparently you can't.

And you must have missed:

"Now, I am guessing you are going to be much more antagonistic to the
application of "could have", "maybe", etc., to your little buddy JFKII.
Let's see... he "could have" pulled some quick ones to get those PH's for
non-lost-duty "wounds" so he could get his butt out of Vietnam early (real
early), "maybe" he pulled some strings to get his early release from active
duty, and "maybe" he did none of his *own* reserve committment (he did have
one, you may recall--where is the documentation showing he preformed *any*
reserve duty, even the obligatory annual appearance/update of files?)...
Hey, he's guilty until proven innocent, right? Good for the goose, good for
the gander?"

It sucks when your own rules are used against your man, huh?

Brooks

"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 a
unit at that location. That dental record *does* prove he was in a duty
status at the time; when coupled with the subsequent statement from the
retired contractor who recalls eating lunch with him during other drill
periods at the same location, relegates the "he never showed up" mantra to
the garbage heap.

Brooks


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

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

: In article ,
: (Tammy) wrote:
:
:
:: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
:: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
:: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
:: until after he left the White House.
::
:: There are three things to keep in mind.
::
:: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
:: poster child for anti-GOP views.
:
: He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
: administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
: effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
: dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.

he resigned because nobody would listen.

:: 2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
:: (amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
:: anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
:: he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
:: coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
:: position.
:
: They gave other people that responsibility, and as soon as they got
: rid of him, put someone else into the job.

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
who had the job, for the same reason.

:: Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
:: that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.
:
: No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
: understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
: during the worst terror attacks in history.

you moron... even the Bush Administration will tell you that they are
following Clarke's plan (minus Iraq) to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat
nearly to the letter - the one he wrote during the Clinton
Administration.

:: 3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
:: Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
:: matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
:: office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
:: bit of the details.
:
: ...with some creative writing.
:
: That contradicts other reports.


--
in other news, Bush has called Kerry a liar on public television. also,
Don King said Kerry had funny hair, and Jay Leno said Kerry had a big
chin.