Replies

Baloney.

I told you.

I DID THIS! (I signed out many reservists for weekend duty that the CO never knew were on the shipyard. Since YOU are the one claiming he wasn't present, that he was the one AWOL, prove his absence. Prove his coverup - since the rest of "W's" records show he WAS credited with full duty that year.

The Base CO DOES NOT personally sign reservists in and out on duty weekends. Who knows his record? His OWN commanding officer who IS RESPONSIBLE for "W's" training and pay and the status of command, or the CO of a base where "W" served time for one for two weekends while-out-of-state?

Find out who this guy is, what HIS agenda is, and who and when and why he was interviewed, and WHO the reporter was who supposedly took his statement, and "maybe" then you'll find out what was really said. Find out what he does for a living now, and who pays his salary.

THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM RESTS ON MAKING "W" LOOK BAD FOR MISSING TWO WEEKENDS IN ALABAMA BASED ON THIS ONE (incorrect) STATEMENT! (While Gore and Kerry and McCain exploit their duty in Vietnam...)

You don't think "that" little interface changes the democrat tactics, given how the NY Times (and others) routinely exaggerate and lie for their national democrat candidates?

Since YOU are the one claiming he wasn't present, that he was the one AWOL, prove his absence. Prove his coverup - since the rest of "W's" records show he WAS credited with full duty that year.

If I claimed he wasn't present, I take it back. I will claim that there is no documented proof he was present. Your assumption that he was is based on your own experience, granted, but your only documented "proof" is the statement of an ex-girlfriend.

The Base CO DOES NOT personally sign reservists in and out on duty weekends. Who knows his record? His OWN commanding officer who IS RESPONSIBLE for "W's" training and pay and the status of command, or the CO of a base where "W" served time for one for two weekends while-out-of-state?

According to the original Boston Globe article, "Bush was directed to report to Turnipseed, the unit's commander." You would know better than I if that really means reporting to HIM. Geez, no offense, but have you not even read the articles and documents i'm referring to?

Find out who this guy is, what HIS agenda is, and who and when and why he was interviewed, and WHO the reporter was who supposedly took his statement, and "maybe" then you'll find out what was really said. Find out what he does for a living now, and who pays his salary.

That's Retired General William Turnipseed I quoted earlier, and his administrative officer at the time backs up his statement. He passed away recently, but since the only references to him I can find deal with this subject, it doesn't seem as if he was some big political insider. I can accept that he might be mistaken, though I still say his explanation is plausible. I think this is Turnipseed's obit.

THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM RESTS ON MAKING "W" LOOK BAD FOR MISSING TWO WEEKENDS IN ALABAMA BASED ON THIS ONE (incorrect) STATEMENT! (While Gore and Kerry and McCain exploit their duty in Vietnam...)

Better to exploit an honorable past (at least with Kerry and McCain), than deny a dishonorable one, i'd say. McCain in particular can exploit his duty in Vietnam all he wants - you may not like him now, but I think that it's undeniable that his past is remarkable.

Even if you find proof of Bush doing his time in Alabama, there's plenty of other stuff that makes W. look bad. From a Washington Post article:

Former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives Ben Barnes said under oath today that he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War at the behest of a Houston businessman close to the Bush family.

You don't think "that" little interface changes the democrat tactics, given how the NY Times (and others) routinely exaggerate and lie for their national democrat candidates?

Now you're making excuses. Other media is doing a fine job of balancing the NY Times out, as they routinely sweep under the rugs damaging stories about Bush's past. I'm not saying one can't overcome their past, but you're defending, at the very least, Bush's special treatment in the National Guard. While his father and others were for the Vietnam War, they had no intention of sending their sons to fight it.