Replies

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.

What do you mean they show he WASN'T in Tx from May '72 to May '73?

If he (Bush) WASN'T serving IN Texas AS A MEMBER in good standing through the ENTIRE peiod of the summer (May '72 through Sept 15 '72) BEFORE he left for Al in October ....

HOW did he permission from his CO to serve in AL in Oct and Nov? If he were deliquent, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM for a full year, his CO would NOT have given permission to serve in AL.

Further, if he were delinquent as you claim, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM for a full year, his final service record would not have given him credit for "active days training" for the 1972 "year." His record DID give him credit training that year, so Bush WASN'T delinquet.

If he had been "skipping" training for 1972, WHY would he have applied in writing to go to Alabama AND SKIP MORE TRAINING? H**l, asking to go to Alabama would remind his CO that he (Bush) HAD been mising, and would have "opened" his records for disciplinary actions. A student who is "skipping" class and truant DOESN'T ask their teacher for a note to go on a special field trip; The fact that Bush asked means he WAS serving accurately, and that he (Bush) wanted to keep his record clean.

The documents expicitly DO NOT show his absense. YOU are (falsely and malaciously) claiming exactly what they DON'T show.

Show me (freedom of records act or whatever - and I'll pay for the FOIA costs! ) that the 1972 records show no duty. The SINGLE record you have provided is for a single quarter IN mid-1973 and COULDN'T show any duty in '72.

That (May 1973 training summary) record you cite is as irrelevent to establishing Bush's record as a May 2003 pay stub is about establishing whether I was paid in Oct 2002.

You claim Bush must establish his record: If Bush fought as dirty and with as much effort as the democrats do in pushing their lies, he'd have used the Clinton's record of treason and deceit against Gore.

He didn't sttop that low - ever.

But Gore (Gore's friends in the press) used a thirty year-old driving offense against him!

And the same occurred many, many other times where the democrats lied, and Bush ignored the lies.