White House Strikes Back at Critics (over slurs re: military service record by Kerry&gang))

Yahoo! News ^ | 2/3/04 | Terence Hunt - AP

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me .. even temporary AWOL does not get you an "Honorable Discharge". Puhleeeeeeze! And .. Bush did not DISOBEY ORDERS. You're too ignorant about this subject to even argue about it.

And .. you have exposed yourself as a liberal troll because of your smarmy statement about Karl Rove .. a statement which is so 180 degrees from the truth.

Go peddle your junk at DU .. where lies are appreciated.

[Greenback_dollar]

Not to upset your rant at SVLew but not everyone here likes Karl Rove. He's a smarmy little miscreant who keeps opening his mouth at the wrong times. Although he is a political genius, he just rubs me the wrong way.

And just because the issue of GW's National Gaurd service keeps popping up should be fuel to the fire. And the way to put out that fire is for the Whitehouse to actually come out and dismiss the charges with solid evidence.

[Indie]

Can you imagine what Patton would say about Kerry?

Perhaps: "That ** doesn't have the ** of a stuffed ** and he should be ** his ** with a ** driving up his ** unless of course he's too ** ** to ** a ** in which case I'll make a ** soldier out of his sorry ** until he cries like a ** asking for his ** ** ** ** teddy bear. And further more he can ** ** ** my sorry ** ** and keep his ** mouth shut about our Commander in Chief before I shove a ** up his ** ** and make him cry for me to stop ** ** ** ** up his ** ** **." [end quote]

[sinclair]

“And the way to put out that fire is for the Whitehouse to actually come out and dismiss the charges with solid evidence.“

So what you are saying is if I should accuse President Bush of murder the administration should have to prove me a liar by producing solid evidence refuting my claim? Sheesh... some people really should think before they type.

[GailA]

The writer is correct, if you caN make hard choices as a senator then you can't make them as a president.

[CyberAnt]

"smarmy little miscreant"

That statement is character assination .. not "I don't care for Karl Rove.

Take your "smarmy" little statements back over to DU - they love that stuff.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Is there a chance that any of Kerry's "wounds" were self inflicted?

[GailA]

Wouldn't be the first time a soldier did it to escape combat.

[SVLew]

Thanks for the information--the thread you recommended was good.

[SVLew]

Since WHEN does disliking Karl Rove make me a troll--I know plenty of other conservatives (like me) who think Rove's budget-busting, illegal immigration boosting, corporate butt-kissing advice to W. has been bad. What I want is for everyone to step away from W. and let him speak for himself--he'd have a much better chance of WINNING in November!

What I think is that you accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you about "Saint Rove" of being a troll...it sure looks like that.

[eyespysomething]

A decade ago, however, Kerry rose in the Senate on two separate occasions to decry presidential candidates who used their military service record as a qualification for the highest office.

On Feb. 27, 1992, Kerry defended then presidential candidate Bill Clinton against an attack by his Democratic rival Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.). As the primary season unfolded, Kerrey, who lost part of his leg in Vietnam, had peppered Clinton with uncomfortable questions about whether the Arkansan had evaded the draft.

Kerry hit back at his Senate colleague, saying: “I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way… What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be re-fighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.”


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/campaign2002/1001533/posts?page=1

[CyberAnt]

I could care less if you like Rove or not. Personally, I don't know anything about him except that he's done a very good job of executing the President's plans.

You see .. where you all miss the point is assuming that Rove is running things. BIG mistake. Anyone who knows the President will tell you emphatically that President Bush is definitely in charge.

How many times do you people have to be confronted with the truth before you will believe it ..?? I find it amazing how easily you believe all the constant lies about Rove, and refuse to believe the truth .. even when it is presented to you over and over and over.

The liberals hate Rove because he's taken all their issues away from them. I'd be mad too. But to call Rove names and say he's running things .. that's just plain IGNORANT!

President Bush did not earn a MASTERS IN BUSINESS FROM HARVARD by allowing people like Rove to RUN him. The President earned his MBA from Harvard because he is a strong leader - who leads! And .. the first thing MBA students learn is to focus on a short list of things they would like to accomplish. All Rove is doing is laying out the strategic plans for President Bush to accomplish those goals. But .. Rove is not feeding the President with the ideas or goals .. Rove is only implementing what the President wants.

If you're going to argue a point .. be sure you arm yourself with the truth, and not the lies from the liberals .. the same lies they have been saying for years and years and years.

[Greenback_dollar]

Look, the documents out there concerning Bush's service in the National Guard are either missing, incomplete or vague. That's a fact. Bush has not, nor have his representatives, actually addressed that issue directly. Having Scott McClellan attack Kerry simply for bringing up Bush's record does not address the underlying issue.

[Greenback_dollar]

I am offended! I have never spent time on DU, nor would I.

However, as an educated conservative who can form independent thoughts, I recognize that some folks who visit here cannot. I hate Karl Rove with a passion that rivals your hatred of Hillary.

[CyberAnt]

ROFLOL!

First of all, I seriously question that you are "educated", since you have found it necessary to get in concert with SVLew in order to tag-team your attack. This doesn't show that you're "educated", it shows that IT TAKES TWO OF YOU TO TAKE ON MY TRUTH.

Secondly, if you want to "hate" Karl Rove, be my guest. But calling him names does not show that you're "educated". Really educated people do not have to stoop to name calling, regardless of their personal opinion of a person.

And .. thirdly, the very fact that you would choose the name of "Hillary" as the person I "hate", proves to me beyond a shadow of doubt that you are NOT conservative. I don't waste my time hating Hillary. She's not even worth thinking about. She's just power hungry (truth). That makes her very dangerous because she seeks power with no thought of the consequences.

[sinclair]

Honorable Discharge. What more documentation do you or anybody else need?

[CFC__VRWC]

Look, the documents out there concerning Bush's service in the National Guard are either missing, incomplete or vague.

There have been many posts on FR from folks who were active duty or in the Guard during and right after the Vietnam war, where they have all said, for various reasons, that the record keeping in those years was quite sloppy, so it's very plausible that the President's miltary records have gaps in them. Another factor to consider - the National Military Personnel Center (NMPC) in St. Louis, where all military personnel files are archived, suffered a fire some years ago (after the Vietnam era) that destroyed literally millions of records - these are gone forever. Another possible reason that the President's records are incomplete.

My point is that President Bush's record may never be able to be completely verified for perfectly innocuous reasons, with no nefarious motives that you seem all too eager to ascribe to either the Presdident or to Karl Rove.