Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
2 posted on
01/24/2004 12:36:42 PM PST by
backhoe
(--30--)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Saved for election time; it will need to be debunked AGAIN.
3 posted on
01/24/2004 12:36:57 PM PST by
Peach
(The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Weasley Clark is CERTIFIABLE...just like his idol, Michael Moore.
4 posted on
01/24/2004 12:37:43 PM PST by
Ann Archy
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
5 posted on
01/24/2004 12:38:47 PM PST by
WinOne4TheGipper
(The Democrats: an innovative bunch. Every time you think they've hit bottom, they find new lows.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I knew the day I heard this AWOL stuff that it had to be BS. There's no way a media that hates GWB would keep silent the way it did.
And indeed the Times, one of the most blatently liberal, if not THE most blatently liberal publication around, debunks the myth.
Michael Moore is once again revealed for the Big Fat liar he is.
6 posted on
01/24/2004 12:40:23 PM PST by
Cubs Fan
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bookmarked for future reference.
7 posted on
01/24/2004 12:40:23 PM PST by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I like how morons jump up and down and scream "There's no record of it". 1971 through 1973 are the worst years to search for military records because the high number of returning troops from Vietnam overloaded the admin system. Plenty of paper got lost then.
8 posted on
01/24/2004 12:43:55 PM PST by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(Proud member of the right wing extremist Neanderthals.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
It's called "SUTA" - Substitute Unit Training Assembly. National guardsmen SUTA drills *all the time*. It's a mechanism that was put into place because the Guard understands that being a civilian and a soldier at the same time sometimes produces conflicts.
I can't think of a single guardsman I know who hasn't SUTAed a drill before - including myself.
10 posted on
01/24/2004 12:45:33 PM PST by
bolobaby
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Funny how the story debunking this myth is not as well traveled as the urban myth that crats keep citing as fact.
11 posted on
01/24/2004 12:46:09 PM PST by
Montfort
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bookmarked for the edification of the union kooks and loons at my workplace.
Who am I kidding? They would believe that Bush eats babies for breakfast if the AFL-CIO told them to.
24 posted on
01/24/2004 12:55:11 PM PST by
petuniasevan
(America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country - George W. Bush)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Turnipseed? Indeed!
25 posted on
01/24/2004 12:55:51 PM PST by
latrans
.
28 posted on
01/24/2004 12:56:59 PM PST by
Mo1
(Join the dollar a day crowd now!)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bump for use against liberal swine.
33 posted on
01/24/2004 1:01:28 PM PST by
Poser
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bump
36 posted on
01/24/2004 1:04:50 PM PST by
Genyous
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Thanks, saved for later
42 posted on
01/24/2004 1:10:43 PM PST by
IrishCatholic
(Liberals are proof that public education has failed.)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark suggested during New Hampshire's presidential debate Thursday night that the facts of whether Bush ran out on his National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 are in dispute. "The facts are in dispute" is another cowardly phrase that democrats love to use. All it takes is one looney out there to make an unsubstantiated negative assertion, or more cowardly still, say they saw it on the internet and "the facts are in dispute." Ninety-nine million people can understand a set of facts, but, if one crazy partisan denies them, then, "the facts are in dispute."
Call me crazy, but what that phrase means to me is that there is a genuine difference of opinion with substantial backing and evidence for each side of an issue.
It would be slanderous to say that it was Wesley Clark and not Michael Jackson who molested a young boy. I know that this statement is patently false. But, someone cruising the internet could take the phrase (marked in bold) and write in to his local paper. "Hey, it says on the internet that it was Wesley Clark and not Michael Jackson who molested a young boy.
Then, George Bush could tell Tim Russert that, although he doesn't really know what happened in the case of the molested boy, the facts are in dispute. One group says that the perpetrator is Michael Jackson. Another says it's Wesley Clark. A third says the boy was molested by someone else. A fourth says he wasn't molested at all.
This type of attack is what passes, in the democrat party, as honest discourse. That spinning sound is not merely caused by the democrats' massaging the truth. It is also caused by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, spinning in their graves.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Peter Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the story is "unsupported by the facts" I saw the Peter Jennings' exchange with Wesley Clark, and I must say that I was perplexed. Jennings, a liberal who has bashed Bush in the past, is now defending Bush??? Props to Jennings.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Wait...Is this Newsmax? Are they actually quoting the NY Times as a credible source?
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Military paperwork is infamously bad. The Navy discharged me... while I was serving in good standing in the Reserves. Came as a shock, I can tell you. Took a year to get the paperwork squared away again.
Beyond that, drill rescheds are the norm in the air reserves, not the exception.
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Does anyone know what is the exact date of the original NYT article, and on what page? Precise documentation will make our case stronger.
64 posted on
01/24/2004 1:55:47 PM PST by
DeweyCA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson