Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

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

: In article ,
: "Submariner" wrote:
:
:: It follows the "too stupid to be..." theme that Dubya has lived by.
:: Can't you just picture a definitive biography of GWB, with the
:: chapters titled as following?
:: Too stupid to be a preppy
:: Too stupid to be an Eli
:: Too stupid to be an ANG pilot
:: Too stupid to be an oil company exec
:: Too stupid to be a ...
:: Too stupid to be president.
:
: But, somehow, this "stupid" man is running a massive, deeply
: complicated conspiracy to take over the world, according to the same
: folks.

no, there is no massive, deeply complicated conspiracy - but what there
is is not being coordinated by Bush. Karl Rove calls the shots.

: On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
: eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
: "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...

you call strategic bombing, doubling the overall counterterrorism
budget, and tripling the counterterrorism budget specifically for the
FBI not doing anything? how about coming up with the original plan for
a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush scoffed at until 9/11?
how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
original WTC attack in '93, even though Clinton had only been in office
for *38 days* when it happened?

there was no "fixing" the terror problem. but had he listened to those
in the know, 9/11 may not have happened. and after it DID happen, we
spent about 3 minutes in Afghanistan, where we knew some of the culprits
to be, and moved on to Iraq, which had exactly zip to do with the
attack. our fearless leader at one point called Osama a "non-priority,"
a quote that he'll never be able to run from.

--
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.

"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?

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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"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.

I personally know of several national guardsmen who were convicted of
being AWOL or desertion during the vietnam era. They should hire you as
their lawyer. Who knew that you could just walk away from your duty, not
be seen by anyone except a dentist for 12 months, and then claim it was
"ET" and all is well.

For an active duty guardsman to go on reserve duty, they need to have it
approved by personel headquarters. Bush's request was denied on the basis
of his having active duty days remaining. But hey - you just say "it's a
red herring" and it's all good. I mean, why would anyone need the
approval of their superiors before bailing their duty for a year? At
least some people have tried to argue that he eventually did get transfer
approval - although there is no documentation for it. You're the first
I've heard claim that active duty guardsmen can just disapprear without
approval and it's all good.


--
"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 article ,
on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:07:09 GMT,
Josh Halpern attempted to say .....



Robey Price wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
confessed the following:



He didn't get permission.



OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
his points.



His request was denied.



But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
72 while in AL.



He left TX anyway.



True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
humor in this...or not]

Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...


This is one of the points that passes belief. I knew a lot of NG people
at that time who simply travelled back to wherever to drill. Sometimes
across most of the country.


And I also know of some who perform drill in the state they live in.
And one who performed drill and annual training outside the US.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:59:07 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....


"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.


They may have had the old Genie rockets ?

IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.

Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101; purely
a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.



I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"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?

GW was court martialled?

In article ,
".impervious" wrote:

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

: 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 happen to a
: dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.

he resigned because nobody would listen.

....after eight years of nobody in the Clinton administration listening,
apparently. He also claimed that Condoleeza Rice didn't seem to know
who al-Qaeda was, but public comments by Clarke *and* Rice before 2004
show quite nicely that he was full of it.

: 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...

When you're a lifeling bureaucrat, and you get demoted, it's shorthand
for "you're fired."

and so did the NEXT guy who had the job, for the same reason.

That he couldn't do the job, either.

:: 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.

Funny, that's not what they're saying, and they actually have Clarke to
prove it (from his own comments before he wrote the book). *Public*
comments.

There's another funny thing. Clarke says he's been a Republican, except
that for the last several years, he's been giving thousands of dollars
per *year* to Democratic politicians, and none to Republicans.

Another of those "says one thing, actually did the opposite" things from
Clarke...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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


"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.

I personally know of several national guardsmen who were convicted of
being AWOL

Where is the transcript of GW's military court proceding.

zepp wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Tempest" wrote in message
...

You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
his other actions and writings.

Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
he looks.

It's worked for him so far.

Too bad it's shot his credibility all to hell.

In article ,
".impervious" wrote:

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

: On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
: eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
: "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...

you call strategic bombing,

Blowing up empty training camps and an aspirin factory... with pretty
much zero results.

doubling the overall counterterrorism budget,

....for domestic terrorism and "cyberterrorism"...

and tripling the counterterrorism budget specifically for the
FBI not doing anything?

....in an attempt to catch domestic terrorists like McVey... not to
mention Clarke's myopic focus on cyberterrorism for a few years.

how about coming up with the original plan for
a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush scoffed at until 9/11?

How about it? A "plan" that was never implemented is just a piece of
paper. Much like the rest of the Clinton "efforts."

how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
original WTC attack in '93, even though Clinton had only been in office
for *38 days* when it happened?

Since the FBI did that, with the help of an idiot terrorist who went and
tried to get his deposit back from the rental truck company...

....and then did *nothing* else. They didn't catch the people who
financed it, and let one of the plotters get away. To Iraq, of course
(whatever happened to "Iraq has no ties to al-Qaeda?").

there was no "fixing" the terror problem.

Not the way the Clinton/Clarke folks went about it.

but had he listened to those in the know, 9/11 may not have happened.
and after it DID happen, we spent about 3 minutes in Afghanistan,
where we knew some of the culprits to be,

Hey - isn't that the place Clinton fired a bunch of cruise missiles at,
and didn't accomplish anything? The place where we had at least two
different chances to kill Osama bin Laden, but Clinton and Clarke
decided not to?

The place where we went in and removed the Taliban, which was directly
supporting al-Qaeda, *after* Clinton left office? The place we've been
in for a couple of years now (not "three minutes")?

and moved on to Iraq, which had exactly zip to do with the
attack.

Other than sheltering al-Qaeda terrorists who took part in the *first*
WTC attack. And other nice folks, too (like Abbas, who died in custody
recently after being captured in Iraq, where he'd been living i comfort
for years).

our fearless leader at one point called Osama a "non-priority,"
a quote that he'll never be able to run from.

Funny... I can't find that quote. Maybe you're confusing Bush with
Clinton again?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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