Replies

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.

It is explicitly in Barnes' (a democrat attacking Bush!) interest to lie, lie again, and lie repeatedly.

I was under the impression that Barnes and Bush are friends. From the Washington Post article it sounds as if Barnes didn't want to confess, but was required to, as he was UNDER OATH - some people still take that seriously. Since he hasn't been in politics for a long time, it seems unlikely that it would be in Barnes' interest to lie anyway.

Here's the crux of my "crusade":

The documents online show that Bush was not in Texas from May 1972-April 1973 - 12 months, a year. They do not show that Bush did his time in Alabama. If there was a document that showed that, you can bet that Bush would have brought it out during the campaign, to put this question to rest once and for all. Also, if there was a document that showed that, you can bet that few would be willing to make a case against Bush with such obvious misrepresentation by such a conspicuous absence. Since the documents are not to be found (granted they could have been lost), you cannot prove that Bush did the time in Alabama, making your certainty only based on you being unable to imagine Bush lying about it. That means that he MAY really have done nothing in the National Guard for an entire year, which appears to be highly unusual at the very least, if not worse.