Replies

This document from your references (For 1973 (?) - and why is it relevent at all in your crusade I don't know ?) has the "NO" used properly as a "header" to the "9" for April 73 duty days.

Thanks for the link and finally we can agree on something. I think I ignored that document because it didn't seem relevant to what you're calling my "crusade." If any article used that document to make their case, then you can dismiss it. Most articles, however, didn't.

You have shown me nothing to back up your claims.

In my #209, I give you the sequence of documents as I see it. They do show Bush wasn't in TX from May 1972-April 1973. There are no document to show that he did his time in AL. You can't back up your claims either.

Are you going to claim "Barnes" statement is somehow relevent and "truthful" without any backup or evidence that it was actually somehow "evil" or "reprehensible", while claiming Bush is flat out lying when he says he (Bush) was on active duty in Alabama?

I'm saying that it was in Barnes' interest to tell the truth on the matter, and Bush's interest to lie. Who said "evil"? I am tempted by "reprehensible," if I understand you correctly here.

It is explicitly in Barnes' (a democrat attacking Bush!) interest to lie, lie again, and lie repeatedly. As the democrat WRITER of the original letter EMPHASIZED in his repition of the baseline lie about being AWOL, they USE these lies about these TWO WEEKENDS thirty years ago to continue their propaganda against Bush.

The democrats have offered NOTHING but lies (positive lies about the Clintons' records - particularly Hillary's records and "achievements" since 1990 - and negative lies about Bush's records and achievements) in EVERY spin cycle since since Clinton's FIRST run for governor in the 1980's.

I repeat: Where do you get your "evidence" Bush is lying here?

The documents DO NOT show "0" service in 1972! The ONE document shows weekend duty in a short period in 1973 - which is outside of the two months in question!

These "documents" DO NOT establish your point.

Rather they establish MY POINT that he served properly, that he requested permission to serve in AL, and that he was credited (at the end of his active service in the Reserves with MORE duty days "in the line of fire" (in danger of crashing and getting killed - than Gore had in his 5 months of newspaper service at an air base behind the lines!

If there were ANY question of his service, you have hidden it.