Posted on 09/10/2004 2:43:31 PM PDT by MineralMan
"George" wrote in message news:bval4s$q1t$0@pita.alt.net... > > wrote in message > news:4018481b.419671937@news.supernews.com... > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:27:57 GMT, "Brooks Gregory" > > > > where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk > > Because you *are* a lying, JERK! > > Bush was not AWOL.... > > My final words on the accusation that George W. Bush was Absent Without > Leave while he was a member of the Air National Guard. After this, you may > debate among yourselves, but I will not be participating any more. Why? > It's a useless waste of time trying to enlighten you leftist dullards > because your minds are ALREADY made up and ou don't want the truth to get in > the way of your ranting. > > Liberals take it as gospel that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The > story was first published (as far as I can tell), in a Boston Globe and/or > Washington Post article from 1999. Both the New York Times and the > National Guard Association Magazine have debunked the essential elements of > the accusation. The now defunct George Magazine also casts doubt on the > original articles. > > But heaven forefend the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty > in our society. > > There are numerous anti-Bush websites purporting to "HAVE EVIDENCE" that > Bush was AWOL. One poster "Toto" ("scarecrow@wicked.witch > ) likes to refer to an anonymous Buzzflash document > purporting to claim, using what any reasonable person would call "hearsasy" > that records existed to prove that Bush was AWOL but were somehow suppressed > when he was governor. Further, "Toto" seems to think that by assuming the > conclusion (Bush was AWOL) as the premise, that this is all that is > necessary to make the case that Bush was AWOL. Sorry, Totto, you are not > only not in Kansas any more, you're not even on this planet because a > circulus in demonstrando argument proves absolutely nothing -- except that > you are a fool. And there is NO evidence that this anonymous letter was > ever sent -- to anybody. I'm willing to bet it's simply fabricated. > > Other posters rely upon "timelines" based upon Bush's service records, from > these websites, that purport to show a period where Bush is absent without > leave. However, one such online "timeline" includes this disclaimer: > > "NOTE: We are not familiar with military procedures or Bush's record and > cannot vouch for the accuracy of this table. All we did was take the > elements in the piece, and organize it so that the timeline may be better > understood. (A critical review of some elements is available here.) This > presentation is intended as a starting point for discussion." > > So. The creators of the timeline WILL NOT vouch for it's accuracy, yet you > all take it as gospel that Bush was AWOL during that time period. > > In fact, NONE of these timelines can point to dates when Bush was AWOL or > where there is a record supporting it, nor can they point to a record that > shows any entry documenting unauthorized absense. In fact, they can't > point to ANY adverse records about Bush's service, other than one that > showed he missed his flight physical. > > These Bush-hating websites, it appears are long on invective but very short > of demonstratable, confirmable, reliable facts. > > So, here's how it works in the real world with rational, intelligent, people > (which you AWOL believers are not). > > You have made the claim that Bush was AWOL. The burden of proof is on you > to prove that Bush was AWOL. You simply can't wave your hands and be taken > seriously unless you can prove it. Without proof, you join the ranks of > Usenet kooks who rant about mysterious mind control rays. That is to say, > you are useless idiots. > > When asked to prove your accusation, some of you only rely upon the original > Boston Globe article and the narrative it contains. Other of you, rely upon > web sites written to bolster this argument. I don't think many of you have > even bothered to read ALL the service record documents released and online > via the Freedom of Information Act. Because if you did, you'd find a BIG > FAT NOTHING. > > Some of you have tried linguistics or sophistry to twist words in to proving > your argument, regardless whether or not the actual record and facts support > your verbal gymnastics. Sorry, boys and girls, REALITY trumps pretty words > and "logic" based upon wishful thinking. Reality also trumps the use of > fallacy (circulus in demonstrando, tu quoque, shifting the burden of proof, > straw men/red herrings), etc., that you liberals love to use so much. Here > is a clue, boys and girls -- your clever fallacies, faulty logic, invented > facts, and internal prejudices simply fail when confronted with the factual > record. > > But the greatest idiocy is that some of you have read the documents and have > tried to advance an argument that the LACK of records for the period of time > in question is proof that he was AWOL. Lack of ANY evidence is not > evidence to support your claims -- it simply means that there is no > evidence, either way. > > Here is the bottom line on Bush being AWOL: There are no records that show > that he was not present when he should have been -- with one exception: He > was late for his flight physical and was grounded. > > This fact is important: The fact that he WAS grounded is proof that his > father DID NOT INTERFERE with his military career. It is proof that his > commanding officer was not afraid to write him up, and that the DoD was not > afraid to concur. It means that the other fiction you rely on -- that Bush's > father protected him is DEMONSTRATEDLY FALSE. So why didn't his commander > press an AWOL charge? > > You know the answer as well as I: He had no grounds to do so. > > As to what the record actually shows: It shows an Honorable Discharge, not > dishonorable or "general" which a charge of AWOL would have generated upon > conviction. It shows the record of a mediocre officer -- one whose career > would not rise to general officer rank. > > But it does not show that most important evidence: A charge of being Absent > Without Leave. There is not even a HINT of such in the record. > > Without positive evidence that Bush was AWOL, evidence that can ONLY come > from his servcie record to remain credible, you have no case. You have > nothing. > > Bush was not AWOL. > >
George, I don't know if you have any military background or not, but if you do and you looked at those documents, you could very easily discover the obvious forgeries, alterations and lack of authenticating seals.
If you want, go back to them and check out these things. One chronological listing that is typed, except for a couple of handwritten entries. Wouldn't you think the guy making those entries would at the very least know the military date format? On another, look at the address of the Capitan. Do you really thing official military or National Guard business would be conducted using an officer's HOME ADDRESS? On another you will note the address as being PO Box 34567, gosh isn't that imaginative? And, check out the ZIP Code versus the city. Not even close. And check all the documents to see if you can see any of the 3 required authenticating seals. I bought those documents from the great Marty Heldt web site. Only 1 record actually has all three authenticating seals and marks and it has nothing at all to do with the charges being made.
This is an uban legend that a couple of guys are making a lot of money off of. It was there well before the election of 2000 and had absolutely no bearing at all on the election and will probably have even less now that it has all been proven a lie.
The people that fall for this are a bunch of juvenille jerks that would not know their ass from a bass fiddle when it comes to military matters. But, it makes them feel like they are somebody amongst their playmates and that's all they can claim as the major accomplishment in their miserable lives.
As for this comment: > > where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk
If this little jerk wasn't such a frightened little bastard, so afraid of his shadow he uses a phony name, he could avail him/her self of an opportunity to find out where I come off with it. -- In politics, it's a very simple concept. If you don't vote, you don't count.
Brooks Gregory
Notice the date and the reference to the address and zip code. I think these are the same memos. This Marty guy is all over a Google search.
Here's the link. Sorry!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y39Sb.5962239%24be.974637%40news.easynews.com
I don't see the documents there. Only the references to the phrases you mentioned.
My Eyes! My Eyes! Paragraphs are our friends.....
"ugh post a link man. or at least tell me what to search for."
Sorry. In my haste....
Link is in a message.
Also, obscenities really don't belong here.
Here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y39Sb.5962239%24be.974637%40news.easynews.com
29 January 2004
George, I don't know if you have any military background or not, but if you do and you looked at those documents, you could very easily discover the obvious forgeries, alterations and lack of authenticating seals. If you want, go back to them and check out these things. One chronological listing that is typed, except for a couple of handwritten entries. Wouldn't you think the guy making those entries would at the very least know the military date format? On another, look at the address of the Capitan. Do you really thing official military or National Guard business would be conducted using an officer's HOME ADDRESS? On another you will note the address as being PO Box 34567, gosh isn't that imaginative? And, check out the ZIP Code versus the city. Not even close. And check all the documents to see if you can see any of the 3 required authenticating seals. I bought those documents from the great Marty Heldt web site. Only 1 record actually has all three authenticating seals and marks and it has nothing at all to do with the charges being made. This is an uban legend that a couple of guys are making a lot of money off of. It was there well before the election of 2000 and had absolutely no bearing at all on the election and will probably have even less now that it has all been proven a lie. The people that fall for this are a bunch of juvenille jerks that would not know their ass from a bass fiddle when it comes to military matters. But, it makes them feel like they are somebody amongst their playmates and that's all they can claim as the major accomplishment in their miserable lives.
What, exactly, are you trying to say and about what? Please link to documents, not discussions.
Thanks
MineralMan, you need to explain this better.
This is the results of a Google search for the PO Box number mentioned in the CBS forged documents. It seems to show that people were talking about a document which used this same phony Post Office box in January of 2004. This might explain where the CBS memos came from, and that they had been shopped around by the forgers back in January. There is an email address of a Brooks Gregory in the post, he may have more info. This should be looked at closely.
Very intersting, but I think they are referring to Bush request for a transfer to Alabama.
brooksgregory@sbctelco.com is not a valid email address. I tried it.
Yes, but this needs following. I'm going to do some searching on the Marty Veldt thing and see what I can come up with. I smell a nasty hoax here.
Could you at least copy the link for us. I'm a bit nuts from trying to follow all these threads.
This is really important. Let's get out there and find these things.
This is a very good find!
>>This is really important. Let's get out there and find these things.<<
Why? so far, all I see is a guy referring to a document with the same 34567 address. I have yet to see a document.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.