BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:18 PM

Like exactly what has he done right, bb???

Katrina???

Medicaid Perscription Tax Give_away to the dug companies???

No child left unrecruited???

Help me here... Just where is the good news???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:14 PM

500

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:12 PM

All the evidence in the world won't change a "true believer"... That is why they are "true beleivers"... Onc one surrenders the capacity for independent thought and become a worshiper it's too late to get them back...

The three of them are very much haters of George Bush... But they more than that... They are anti-Bush-cultists...

They will never ever see any right in anything that Bush has done or will do...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:37 PM

Well, Don, you are correct... All the evidence in the world won't change a "true believer"... That is why they are "true beleivers"... Onc one surrenders the capacity for independent thought and become a worshiper it's too late to get them back...

The three of them are very much worshipers of George Bush... But they more than that... They are Bush-cultists...

They will never ever see any wrong in anything that Bush has done or will do...

Bush could bomb the UK and T would find some reason why that's was fine...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:15 PM

A little short on creativity today, BB?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM

I could sit here all day and supply you with all kinds of material, but I'm sure that you would not accept any of it if it doesn't support your faith against Bush (quite touching, really).

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:02 PM

Correction.

The documents are .PDF files. You don't need to save them. Place your cursor on the document and it will turn into a small magnifying glass icon with a "+" in it. Just click and the document will increase in size. Still difficult to read (like lousy Xerox copies), but readable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:01 PM

What would you regard as evidence, {Bobert, Don, TIA, et al} ? I suspect that it would include only those things that support your beliefs. Anything else is "bad journalism."

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 12:51 PM

What would you regard as evidence, Teribus? I suspect that it would include only those things that support your beliefs. Anything else is "bad journalism." But let's look at some documents, okay? They are in one of the links I posted just above.

Which, I notice, you quote back at me very selectively. I am used to this sort of tactic. It is a favorite of evangelists, quoting Bible verses out of context in an effort to provide Scriptural support for some cockamamie theological idea of their own particular sect that they're trying to peddle.

Just one example of the erroneous conclusions you draw from your selections:   "If he's not flying he does not have to take a flying medical." Whether flying or not, the AIR National Guard regulations require that he take the annual physical. He didn't. So he was officially grounded.

Well, one more: just because he was only one of a number of goof-offs doesn't let him off the hook for being a goof-off. As a matter of fact, it appears that being a goof-off was the story of Bush's life up until he decided to enter politics and his life became a whole lot more public.

Click on the :MORE YET link ("Dan Rather is Right") and scroll down about two-thirds of the way to a paragraph that begins "The quick back story." The words and phrases in blue are links to documents backing up what the author says. The documents are copies of the originals (in your mind, does that invalidated them? Since I don't have them in my possession, I can hardly supply you with those) and they are not very good copies and a bit difficult to read, but it's not impossible. Right click on the document, click on "save picture," then blow up the copy in whatever folder you save it to).

I could sit here all day and supply you with all kinds of material, but I'm sure that you would not accept any of it if it doesn't support your faith in Bush (quite touching, really), but my first guitar student of the day is due to arrive in less than half an hour, and after that, I have a real life to live. Which includes a bit of political action in the three-dimensional world later today.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jan 08 - 01:16 AM

Don, you seem to have a weird idea of what constitutes evidence. For all the "cut-n-paste" articles and links, what you are presenting is opinion, contradictory opinion at that.

Mind you that should come as no surprise coming from someone who selectively does not acknowledge the principle of presumption of innocence until "proven" guilty. That proof having to be beyond all reasonable doubt.

Remember how Bobert told us how "loose" and "flexible" the ANG is. or was.

"There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," - R Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Albert C. Lloyd Jr., former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief.

"Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

Now both of those retired ANG officers were talking of the conditions and circumstances in the ANG at the time GWB was serving in the Guard.

The following, taken from your first cut-n-paste article is simply rank bad journalism, deliberately couched to misrepresent and mislead:

"But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty." - Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.

After reading that - Hands up how many would draw the conclusion that at on at least two occasions Lt.G.W.Bush was given a written warning because we was not meeting training commitments? But that was not the case was it Don? And you can tell that just by looking at the dates. May 1968!!! The man was in basic training at that time, he'd just joined the Air National Guard, he was serving full time so how in the name of hell could he be not be meeting his training requirements. Mid-1973!!! When he transferred from active to reserve. Truth of the matter is Mr. Robinson is quoting the small print on a standard form and deliberately presenting it for something that it most definitely is not.

What ANG units flew out of Montgomery Alabama Don? What were they equipped with? I'll give you one hint, there were no units in the whole of the Alabama ANG flying F-102A's. So perhaps you could suggest what GWB could have flown while on transfer to the Alabama ANG? Oh, if he's not flying he does not have to take a flying medical.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 10:10 PM

Okay, Teribus, you asked for it.

Bush fell short on duty at Guard
Records show pledges unmet
September 8, 2004

This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.

Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not ''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: ''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush ''took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. ''There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. ''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said.

After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that obligation in two successive fiscal years.

Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb, who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. ''I see no evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that document, he should have fulfilled his obligation."

The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.

Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970, after five additional months of specialized training in F-102 fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron.

In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months.

Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.

####

Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe
By Walter V. Robinson and Francie Latour, Globe Staff, 2/12/2004

President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.

Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, for the second day in a row, refused yesterday to answer questions about Bush's failure to take the physical and appeared to retreat from Bush's promise Sunday to make public all of his military records. Asked at a midday press briefing if all of Bush's records would be released, McClellan said, "We'd have to see if there is any new information in that."

Late yesterday, assistant White House press secretary Erin Healy said the White House does not have records about the flight physical. "At this point, we've shared everything we have," Healy said. A spokesman for the National Guard Bureau said if there are records about any inquiry into Bush's flight status, they would most likely be in Bush's personnel file, stored in a military records facility in Colorado.

For military aviators, the annual flight physical is a line they must cross to retain coveted flying status. Flight surgeons who conduct the examinations have the power to remove pilots from flying duty.

The new questions about Bush's service arose a day after the White House disclosed attendance and payroll records that appeared to show that Bush sporadically attended Guard drills between May 1972 and May 1973 -- even though his superiors at the time said that Bush did not appear at their units in that period.

Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.

Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.

"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.

Bush joined the Texas Air Guard in May 1968 after intercession by friends of his father, who was then a Houston congressman. He was quickly commissioned, spent a year in flight school in Georgia and then six months learning to fly an F-102 fighter-interceptor at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. From June 1970 until April 1972, he flew frequently.

His last flight physical was in May 1971.

The following April, just before his next physical was due, Bush moved temporarily to Alabama to work on a Republican US Senate race, and was given permission to attend Guard drills at a Montgomery Air Guard base. But he did not appear for his May 1972 physical, and he performed no duty at all until late October 1972, according to Guard records that became public this week.

A Sept. 29, 1972, order sent to Bush by the National Guard Bureau, the defense department agency which oversees the Guard, noted that Bush had been verbally suspended from flying on Aug. 1. The written order made it official: "Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

The order required Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing and also said: "The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." After that, the commander had two options -- to convene the Evaluation Board to review Bush's suspension or forward a detailed report on his case up the chain of command.

Either way, officials said yesterday, there should have been a record of the investigation.

The issue of Bush's suspension has been clouded in mystery since it first arose during the 2000 campaign. Dan Bartlett, a Bush campaign aide who is now White House communications director, said then that Bush didn't take the physical because his family physician was in Houston and he was in Alabama. But the examination is supposed to be done by a flight surgeon, and could have been done at the base in Montgomery.

It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.

Weaver said it is entirely possible that Killian -- who, according to Bush's biography was also a friend -- concluded that Bush had lost interest in flying, at a time when Weaver said there were numerous active duty pilots with combat experience eager to get flying billets in Guard units.

Weaver, after looking over Bush's light duty load between May 1972 and May 1973, said he doubted that Bush would have been proficient enough to return to the F-102 cockpit. "I would not have let him near the airplane," Weaver said. If there was evidence that Bush's interest in the Guard had waned, Weaver said, then it would have been acceptable for Bush's commanders to "cut their losses" and grant him an early release rather than retain a guard pilot who could no longer fly.

McGinnis said he, too, thought it possible that Bush's superiors considered him a liability, so they decided "to get him off the books, make his father happy, and hope no one would notice."

But McGinnis said there should have been an investigation and a report. "If it didn't happen, that shows how far they were willing to stretch the rules to accommodate" then-Lieutenant Bush.

In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush put no limitations on what information would be released to the public. On several occasions, Bush offered broad assurances that he was willing to open his entire military record, as Senator John McCain and retired General Wesley K. Clark had done previously. Asked by the show's host, Tim Russert, if he would authorize the release of "everything to settle this," Bush's response was emphatic: "Yes, absolutely."

At yesterday's press briefing, McClellan accused those who continue to question the president's National Guard service of "gutter politics" and "trolling for trash" in a political campaign season.

Asked if the same was true in 1992 when Bush's father criticized Governor Bill Clinton for not releasing his military records, stoking the controversy around Clinton's active avoidance of the Vietnam War draft by calling him "Slick Willie," McLellan replied, "I think that you expect the garbage can to be thrown at you in the 11th hour of a campaign, but not nine months before Election Day."

The sensitivity of questions about the president's military service was on display on Capitol Hill yesterday. In an unusually rancorous response, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell took Ohio Democratic Representative Sherrod Brown to task at a House International Relations Committee hearing for saying that Bush "may have been AWOL."

"Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president, because you don't know what you're talking about," the former Joint Chiefs chairman and Vietnam veteran said. "If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine. But let's not go there."

Sacha Pfeiffer, Bryan Bender, and Michael Rezendes of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

#####

MORE

MORE YET

SHALL I GO ON?

Plenty more where these came from.

Have a rainbow day, Teribus.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 08:11 PM

Just drink the cool-aid, T... You'll be much happier then... I promise...

B;)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM

So Don, "The evidence is there,". Is it Don? That's odd because you seem to be very reticent about bringing any of it forward.

According to you Don, "There has been considerable testimony from his flying mates in the Texas Air National Guard about his attendance and behavior, and also from officers he served under. And there is a considerable amount of documentation."

Indeed there is Don, amongst that pile of documentation, the following evaluations:

The 1969 - 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

The 1970 - 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further."

The 1971 - 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

Lt.G.W.Bush was considered to be in the top 5% passing out of OTU, some achievement flying an aircraft as difficult to pilot as the F-102A.

Another thing you will find in that pile of paperwork is the fact that in terms of qualifying points he accrued three times the minimum number required for six years of service.

Now Michael Moore wouldn't mention any of that would he Don? Can't understand why, he does investigate things and write and produce his docufictionaries from a purely objective point of view doesn't he? Hell as like and you all know it. Michael Moore writes and produces what Michael Moore does for one reason and one reason only - To make money for Michael Moore. He knows that he is shooting fish in a barrel because clowns like you and Bobert will slaver over every morsel gulping down every tidbit, purely because it is what you want to believe - only thing is Don none of it stands up to any sort of examination.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:35 PM

"The most painful thing in the life of Teribus/BB/Homey is that "


I am glad to know that it is now permissable to make up statements about what OTHERS think and have them taken as fact. I will be sure to apply that to my future comments here, when I tell you all what Bobert et al are thinking and find painful.


And I have seen no response to my comments that Bobert is ( at least) as much a "true believer" as those he tries to tar with his brush.

And I am still waiting to find out what is the allowable source for THE truth "according to Bobert". Or is it only his ( sorry , "His") pronouncements that are to be taken as gospel?


All hail uber-Bobert!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:30 PM

It scares me how large the population of that land is...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 04:15 PM

Yes, Don... I understand that T is the Mayor of la-la land...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 02:19 PM

Teribus, you keep repeating the same things. Endless repetition doesn't make it true, no matter how much you want it to be. The evidence is there, and if you go through some of the material I recommended, you will note that the word about Bush's service--or lack thereof--was around well before Michael Moore brought it up.

There has been considerable testimony from his flying mates in the Texas Air National Guard about his attendance and behavior, and also from officers he served under. And there is a considerable amount of documentation. But when investigative reporters went back to find more documentation, they found that Bush's records had been purged.

Interesting! My father served in World War I (that's World War One), and his military records are still available.

Sorry, Teribus, but you reside in la-la land.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:58 PM

I argue with a brick wall. Foolish me!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 01:17 AM

Don I fully realise that if I go on any search engine and enter "Bush" and "National Guard" I will indeed find articles that support the Bobert line by the ton. Mostly bloggs and newspaper articles. But I've never been a subscriber to the "Never mind the quality, feel the width" arguement. If something is a lie, it remains a lie no matter how many times it is repeated.

Now just to refresh your memory this is what Bobert claimed and clearly stated:

"***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard..."

"Yes, he was AWOL... He can't provide one single piecs of eveidence that he wasn't... He did not report to Texas for an anual physical that is required ny all pilots to stay qualifeid to fly... There is no evidence that he had that physical anywhere... There is no evidence he ever returened ot complete his stint..."

The simple fact that he was honourably discharged from the Air National Guard belies what Bobert states above. The categoric statement of him having been AWOL is a lie. But one thing all your google entries does serve to provide proof of is this - there was never any mention of this pre-Moore and pre-McAuliffe. Although to give Moore his due he dubbed Bush a "deserter", it was McAuliffe who introduced the AWOL label. As Homey stated in the legal systems of both the US and the UK the burden of proof is on the accuser, and the accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty. But I see from both your contributions and Bobert's to this thread that you both now seem perfectly OK in demanding that somebody proves a negative. The other thing I see from both your contributions is that you do not have one shred of "evidence" that could be counted as such in any court to back up your statements.

By the bye Bobert, GWB got the money to pay for his 2% share in the Texas Rangers from the proceeds of his sale of Harkin Energy Stock. As to George Soros Bobert well here is how GWB got involved with HArkin Energy:

"Harken Energy, a firm partly owned by Soros, did business with George W. Bush in 1986 by buying his oil company, Spectrum 7."

You see Bobert, neither GHWB or his friends, or his friends wives, their tennis partners or their pet tortoises bought and gave GWB Harkin Energy.

For more on George Soros Bobert look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros


Thanks for your reply Dianavan, I had no idea that the education system in British Columbia was so corrupt and that those employed in it were so venal.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:59 PM

teribus - In my job, I don't give grades, period! I know of teachers who favour the children of the wealthy but it is usually principals who pander to the rich. If you favour their children, donations are more frequent. In an underfunded educational system, the rich know that they can buy their child's school if necessary.

Next question?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:07 PM

You're blaming Michael Moore, Teribus? It is to laugh!!

Try pulling up Google and putting "Bush" and "National Guard" into the search boxes. You will find yourself looking at a more than substantial list of things to read that give the lie to the nonsense you're trying to peddle. And I'm not talking about "MoveOn" or "Mother Jones" here. Nor am I talking about the other end of the spectrum, "Fox News Service," which, apparently, is where you get most of your information.

You're a great one for cutting-and-pasting lengthy quotes resulting in intimidatingly long posts, apparently under the impression that you can refute something you don't like by burying it under sheer volume. If it comes to that, I can do that, too. But I won't waste everyone's time and all that band space to post a bunch of stuff here that can be found by anyone, simple by Googling it. It's all out there. Have at it, folks! "Bush" and "National Guard." Plenty to read. You might start with the articles in The Boston Globe. Read both sides of the argument and make up your own minds.

Invoking the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is a dodge, Homey, as, of course, you know. That's a legal principle, not necessarily a fact of reality. A person can be guilty as sin, but if that person is not charged for whatever reason (bribery, powerful friends or relatives, etc.) or not enough evidence can be gathered to make a case, it does not change the fact that the person is actually guilty. There is plenty of evidence, attested to by other pilots and the officers who where acquainted with Bush's record, and had Bush been brought to court-maritial, it is more than likely that he would not now be president and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The fact that Bush's father was a senator at the time is what got him into the Guard in the first place, ahead of a lot of other people who didn't have powerful fathers, and subsequently rendered him immune from the consequences of his irresponsibility.

That's been the story of George W. Bush all his life. Privileged rich kid

You guy's attempts to defend the indefensible are getting to be a bit pathetic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:15 AM

No, Old Homey Dickey, bottom line is that in America you are innocent as along as you have loads of cash...

I bet you think that O.J. didn't kill his wife...

LOL... Speakin' of THC... You either could use some or you've had your fill, I don't know... What I do know is that you a dillusional... As is Captain T-Bird...

BTW, who is this George Soros feller you keep blabbering about??? I've heard the name but don't really have a clue who his is... I don't remember him from the 60's... He wasn't one of tthe Chicago 7... He wasn't a a SOC, SNNC, SDS, SCLC or Black Panther organizer or I would have known about him... But you say he is some kinda socialist leftest professional??? Hmmmmmm??? Must have started real late...

(Maybe one of them Gray Panthers, Bobertz???)

Nevermind... If I don't know the guy I can't comment on his professional socialist left-ism...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Homey
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 08:20 AM

Bottom line is in America you are innocent until proven guilty.

Bobert, due to his THC induced state of mind, would like to believe otherwise but in the real world, charges must be proven, not disproven.

He dreams up numbers like 56,000 dead or will die and can't explain the basis for this number. One percent in Haiti have all the wealth? Where did that come from?

He is much more adept at promulgating propaganda numbers from other, more professional socialist leftists like George Soros.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:36 AM

A question for you Dianavan, that was sort of asked earlier. As a teacher do you give favourable grades to pupils because their parents are rich? Do you know any teacher who does?

Oh, Bobert, all I know about the Air National Guard is what I have read about them and what I have asked them. During the period that GWB served in the ANG, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. That would mean Bobert that you could fulfil your yearly obligation to the Air National Guard in six weeks. Today that minimum requirement is one week-end a month and two weeks every year.

It's interesting the observation made by Bobert about the ANG:

"Especially the Air Nationmal Guard where you aren't expected to take two weeks off every summer and go play war at a US military base... The Air National Guard was a lot looser than that... It was just above honor system after you got trained... Very flexible... Not like the real military at all... Do you know that???"

Key words out of that lot are "looser" than the US Military, more "flexible" that the US Military.

The AWOL story - the mythical produce of, anti-Bush film-maker Michael Moore and Terry McAuliffe, erstwhile chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

No questions arise at all about Lt. G.W.Bush prior to 1972. Evaluations on his performance being as follows:

The 1969 - 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

The 1970 - 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further."

The 1971 - 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

"In 1972 Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual." - Source - retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

So in 1972 Bush stopped flying, one possible logical reason for that being that at that time the Alabama Air National Guard had no fighter squadrons equipped with the Delta Dagger Delta F-102A, which was starting to be taken out of service with US Air Force and Air Guard Units (IIRC by 1974 they had all been phased out). From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his yearly requirement (50 points, remember ANG, loose and flexible).

Then, in 1973, Lt.G.W.Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, in June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Having done that he put in his application for early release from service. This request was granted and he was given permission to go.

Lt.G.W.Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service. He was by no means the only ANG member who was treated in this way, he was by no means a member of a select elite who were treated this way, there were many members of the ANG who applied for early discharge and had their requests granted. Don't ask Michael Moore or Terry McAuliffe to bring that to your attention - it would spoil their fairytale.

On the flying medical thing Don, you only take a flying medical if you are actually assigned to flying duties. The Alabama ANG had nothing for Lt.G.W.Bush to fly, the type of aircraft that he was qualified as being "air combat capable" in was being phased out and he had less than eighteen months left to serve. That Don is insufficient time to retrain on another aircraft type, which in all probability would have been a F-4 Phantom. Completely different kettle of fish to a single-seat F-102, the F-4 being a twin-seat all weather interceptor (Pilot flies the aircraft, the navigator, or observer (in RN Fleet Air Arm parlance), fights the aircraft. It is perfectly understandable given the circumstances, that the loose and flexible ANG, that Bobert was at pains to describe, was so accommodating to a young pilot who had accumulated the necessary points to complete his service and who had other things to do than warm the seat of a chair behind a desk in a Reserve Guard Unit.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:15 PM

Who cares what teribus, bb or Homey think they know. By now they have no credibility except with each other. For some reason these guys cling to George Bush like he's some kind of hero.

Go ahead, have him as a hero but don't expect anyone else to embrace your needs.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:14 PM

Well, if Shrub was, in fact, a draft dodger during Vietnam, he had lots of company. And, IMO, if he was it was one of the few things he's ever done that indicated even a rudimentary intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:35 PM

The most painful thing in the life of Teribus/BB/Homey is that Bobert was correct years ago, has been proven correct by history, and voluminous investigations, and by plain common sense. It just flippin eats them alive, so they try to ease their minds and convince themselves that they could not possibly have been wrong by clinging to little technicalites and requiring ginormous term-papers from Bobert. It's really pathetic. History will be the judge, and that scares the bullies shitless. Keep it coming boys. And Bobert - don't spend so much time on it that you neglect the important stuff in your own life. You have already won - despite anything they might post IN CAPITALS.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 10:34 PM

"Hand on heart do you know of any such charges or any such court martial proceedings ever having taken place?"

Of course no charges were brought, for the reasons already stated. The fact is that George W. Bush was Absent Without Official Leave. That is, he did not show up when he was obligated to appear. He shirked his obligations to the Guard, as has been attested to by many who were in the Guard when he was supposed to have been.

The fact that he was not charged does not alter the fact that he was Absent Without Official Leave. The reason he was not charged? Who his father was. Bush had a PhD degree:   "Papa has Dough." Or power and influence.

Rather than letting Bush off the hook, that compounds the irresponsible nature of his alleged military service in the Guard.

You're weaseling, Teribus, and it won't wash!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM

Bull, T.... Pure unalterated bull... I mean, 100% bull... The kinda bull that keeps cows up dreamin' at night!!!

First of all your defense of Bush is that, if I get it right, that it ain't AWOL unless you get caught... That is bull-plus... Absent Without Leave is juts that... You, apparently, have no understanding about what "The Guard" was during Vietnam, do you??? Especially the Air Nationmal Guard where you aren't expected to take two weeks off every summer and go play war at a US military base... The Air National Guard was a lot looser than that... It was just above honor system after you got trained... Very flexible... Not like the real military at all... Do you know that???

And yes, it is perfectly fiesable for a secretary to remember stuff, especially when at the time she may have thought that this guy was gettin' a pass because his father was well connected... I rememeber each and every one of my classmates who were killed in Vietnam... It was a time when people were paying close attention to stuff... I can't much tell you what I did from month to month or year to year in the 80's but from 1964 until the end of the Vietnam War I can recall pretty much happened month by month and where I was and what I was doing... Most people who were effected by the events of the 60's, maybe you T being the exception, have very good abilities to pull up what happened and when...

Bush didn't sign up to complete points... He signed up for a period of time... He didn't do the time... That is what is referred to as AWOL...

Maybe its diffferent where you were but that was the reality here in the US ... I knew lots of Guardsmen... Because there was a draft they were Guardsman for one reason: Vietnam and thought is was safer there... And it was...

Bush went into the Guard to avoid Vietnam... 99% of kids went into the Guard to aviod Vietnam...

You need to recheck your requirments for satisfactory completeion of one Guard duty... You have it completely wrong...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:38 PM

Simple enough question Don, to state that GWB went AWOL from the Air National Guard (Which is what Bobert did state) there has to have been a charge brought and court martial proceedings must have been instituted against Lt. G. W. Bush.

Now, to invoke as you did, "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!!"

Hand on heart do you know of any such charges or any such court martial proceedings ever having taken place?

I know of none. On the other hand, it is a matter of public record that Lt. G. W. Bush received an Honourable Discharge from the Air National Guard, that would not be the case if he had even been AWOL.

I have no idea of whether or not you ever served in the armed forces, I did and no matter whether it be US or UK armed forces they do tend to take, Absent from place of Duty/Absent With Out Leave/Desertion, very seriously, mainly because they have to.

You keep harping on about a secretary who is supposed to have typed a routine letter obviously some time back in 1972 then being asked about it some time in 2000 and she has total recall of it?? She must have been grossly under-employed, while possessing at the same time an amazingly retentive memory. Did the eager researcher/reporter/journalist ask her the content of the letter she typed immediately prior to that letter or the one after to check her memory? I find the following logic a bit difficult to swallow:

That the absence of any original document that "proves" GWB did indeed go AWOL is automatically explained as a cover-up and that this explanation must be accepted without reservation. While obviously forged documents that support the belief that he did not fulfil his obligations to the Air National Guard are to be accepted as gospel truth. When the document is clearly shown to be forgery, a secretary is trotted out and we are expected to believe that she recalls the content of a letter she typed 28 years previously - Did she keep the carbon copy? Is that what you're going to tell us next.

Lt. G. W. Bush total points accumulated in a period of service from May 1968 to July 1973 was 951, the number required for six years service was 300, he applied like many others for early discharge and his request like those of many others was granted.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:28 PM

Well, you notice the conspiciuos absence of the Mudcat Axis of Evil, T, b 'n H... They are huddled up thinkin' their next strategic move to make chicken salad outta chicken sh*t... Well, the next installment from them oughtta be very entertainin', to say the least but...

...it wouldn't surprise me if Bill Clinton's name comes up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM

Ha! A marvelous pledge, Don... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:09 PM

And the guy right behind him will be me!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:40 PM

If anyone can come up with what Bobert asks for--the George Bush/Horatio Alger story--verifiable by impeccable sources--I will put on a clown suit and push a peanut with my nose along the Interstate Highway system from here (Seattle) to Washington, D. C. and apologized personally to George W. Bush on national television.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:19 PM

Quite right, Don, and thanks fir the assist but...

... T could take any one of the assertions I made about Bush and each one of them would come down to this...

The reason that Bush wasn't pulled up before the Secuirty Exchange Commission over his taking $700,000 outta a failing Harkin Energy is the same reason why he wasn't held accountable to the Texas Air National Guard... Daddy made a couple calls and that was it...

Yo, T... No matter how misdirected you are you are bright enough to provide the Peanut Gallery with George's employment history and where he got the money to buy the Texas Rnagers or Harkin... How about enligthening those of us who seem no be be able to connect the dots here without it coming back to the same ol', "He got it from his daddy..." I mean, are you sitting on some cache of info where George buckled down, went to work and pulled him self up by his bootstraps??? Man, that would make some interesting reading so if you know something that the rest of the world doesn't, please share it with us, thank you...

Oh, I hate to leave yer buds out. T-zer So to T's 2 buds, if you have a Horatio Alger/George Bush story you'd like to share, jump in...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:11 PM

Homey - Iran seems to be considered a threat by politicians but not by security intelligence agencies. The threat is mainly politically and not supported by evidence.

Thats why I am very sure that Clinton and Obama are simply Republicrats. They will say or do anything to get elected and have offered no real answer to any perceived threat. They were duped into supporting the invasion of Iraq and they will be duped into believing that other Nations are threats (regardless of proof).

If America wants change, they are going to have to come up with something better than Clinton or Obama or there will be no significant change. Voting for a woman or an African-American will not change the corporate agenda or the foreign policy of the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:04 PM

"The most striking and telling piece of 'evidence' that Lt. G. W. Bush was never AWOL is the plain, simple, hard, chiselled-in-granite fact that he was never accused or charged with having been AWOL throughout the entire period of his service."

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!!

Other Air National Guard pilots who were with Bush at the time (that is, at the times he bothered to show up) have said that he was very sporadic in his attendance, and several officers wrote him up for not showing up. You ignore the fact that the secretary who typed up the document, a copy of which Dan Rather referred to in the infamous 60 Minutes broadcast, said that even though Rather didn't have the original, the informtion was accurate. And it is an incontrovertible fact that Bush did not show up for the required physical and was grounded as a result. But by that time, he had stopped bothering to show up at all.

The reason Bush got into the Air National Guard in the first place--in order to avoid the possibility of being drafted and sent to Vietnam--and jumped ahead of some 500 applicants--was because Papa Had Influence. And then, the little weasel couldn't be bothered to meet that obligation.

These are facts know to one hell of a lot of people.

Sorry, Teribus, but your "plain, simple, hard, chiselled-in-granite fact" is not chiselled in granite at all, it's chiselled in Silly Putty. If he wasn't charged, it was for the same reason he jumped the line to get into the guard in the first place. Family power and privilege.

I'm astounded at the lenghts of nincompoopery some people will go to in an effort to deny well-established facts and try to defend quite probably the worst president and one of the most corrupt regimes this country has ever had.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

Well, T-zer... You're living a fairy-land... You still don't get it, do you, about the way things really were for rich American males during the Vietnam years???

I bet you still believe in the Easter bunny, too...

There is a significant body of evidence, including witnesses who were there, that point to Bush having ducked out... Dan Rather provided alot of it tho seein' as things were heating up on Bush, his handlers found a way to get some phony documents into the fray to throw CBS off the trail...

You can Google it up and find the folks who were there who purdy much are in aggreement that Bush didn't finish his commitment... This thread isn't strictly about that... I think we allready had a thread on that one time... Go read it...

And pleeeeeeeze don't pull your righteously indignant act that I brought this up and therefor you have the right to fillibuster this thread into the ground with acadmic little exercises 'cause the only folks who buy that deadend argumment are you and yer two buds, Old Dickey Homey and bb...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM

"Yes, he was AWOL... He can't provide one single piecs of eveidence that he wasn't..." (Bobert)

Wait a minute Bobert are you saying that ex-military personnel on leaving their respective services have to prove that they were never AWOL?

The most striking and telling piece of "evidence" that Lt. G. W. Bush was never AWOL is the plain, simple, hard, chiselled-in-granite fact that he was never accused or charged with having been AWOL throughout the entire period of his service.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM

Huh???

Just say no to drugs, Homey...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Homey
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 09:12 AM

If George Soros told Bobert to spread the propaganda he financed about 650,000 dead Iraqis, he would jump at the chance.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:44 AM

LOL, T-zer...

I guess you favor a "democracy" that keeps the voters in the dark as to the pasts of the various candidates???

Hey, we collectively spent $40,000,000 of taxpayers money trying to find dirt on Clinton... Then when the dirt on Bush was right there (and free) we collectively spent $Millions on PR campaigns to sanitize Bush's past???

Talk about gold plated hypocrisy??? Not to mention a complete waste of my hard earned tax dollars... You don't pay US taxes so maybe it doesn't bother you but it burns my boney hillbilly butt... I'm out here working 6 days a week and paying taxes and *this* is the way they get spent??? Harassin' one prwesident and defnding anothers???

Beam me up, Scotty... There is no intellegent life down here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:11 AM

"On every allegation that I have put forward millions and millions of taxpayers dollars have been spent in covering up the truth about George Bush's past..." - Bobert.

Well not wishing to state the obvious Bobert - But - Why don't you do yourself and your country a big favour and stop making those allegations - Think of the taxpayers dollars you'll save.

Sort of along the same lines as the response that Bono got at a concert - He started to slowly clap his hands and shouted to the audience, "Every time I clap my hands a child in Africa dies" - Somebody in the audience shouted back, "Then stop clapping y' prat".

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 02:21 AM

Oh, the fantasy has changed to, "bought for him by his daddy and his daddy's friend", now has it Bobert? What's wrong? You are shifting your ground, can't you find the "evidence" to support your earlier statement?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Homey
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 10:04 PM

"that doesn't chenage the ***fact*** that Bush was convicted, does it???"

To Bobert, pleading guilty to a a Class D misdemeanor and paying a $150 fine is "CONVICTED" If it is someone on death row like Tookie, of course Bobert will rush to his defense without any mention of the fact that he is a convicted murderer. Dope smokers gotta stick together y'know.

Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge

November 2, 2000

WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.
Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush admits that he was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

Late Thursday evening, following a campaign rally in this tightly contested Midwestern state, Bush--with his wife, Laura, at his side -- told reporters news accounts of the incident were accurate, that he had been drinking in a bar with Australian tennis pro John Newcombe and others.

"I'm not proud of that. I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." Bush said he was not jailed after the arrest. "I told the guy (the arresting officer) I had been drinking, what do I need to do? He said, 'here's the fine.' I paid the fine."

Bush said the timing of the initial news report, just days before Americans elect a new president, was "interesting." When asked where the story may have originated, he said, "I've got my suspicions."

Campaign aides of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore and officials with the Democratic National Committee both said they first learned of the arrest from news reports Thursday and said it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter.

Gore spokesman Chris Lehane said the vice president learned of the story while flying from Chicago to a campaign event in El Paso, Texas.

Kevin Kelly, news director of WPXT, a Fox television affiliate station in Portland, Maine, said his station broke the story after one of its reporters learned of the arrest while covering an unrelated matter at the local courthouse.

"Somebody made a reference to it," Kelly said. The reporter followed up with phone calls, including one to the Maine Department of Secretary of State. Kelly said the department responded with a fax that detailed the 1976 arrest. Kelly said the reporter also talked to the arresting officer, who verified the incident.

Kennebunkport Police told CNN on Thursday night that the charge against Bush -- operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor -- was a Class D misdemeanor.

Karen Hughes, Bush's spokeswomen said the 54-year-old Texas governor, who has been open about his past drinking problems, had not publicly disclosed the arrest because not even his 18-year-old twin daughters were aware of it. He has said he gave up drinking the day after his 40th birthday.

At a campaign appearance Tuesday at a charity center in San Jose, California, that helps people deal with addictions, Bush said, "I was able to share with some of the men and women here that I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then.

"And it wasn't because of a government program, by the way -- in my particular case, because I had a higher call."

Hughes told reporters that on the night of the arrest, Bush had been at a bar in Kennebunkport with three friends and his sister, Dora. After he left, she said, he was pulled over by police about a mile away from his parents' home -- apparently because he was driving so slowly.

Hughes said Bush now believes drinking and driving is wrong and has acknowledged, as he did at the time, that what he did that night was a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:39 PM

Thanks, Don...

On every allegation that I have put forward millions and millions of taxpayers dollars have been spent in covering up the truth about George Bush's past...

Yes, he was AWOL... He can't provide one single piecs of eveidence that he wasn't... He did not report to Texas for an anual physical that is required ny all pilots to stay qualifeid to fly... There is no evidence that he had that physical anywhere... There is no evidence he ever returened ot complete his stint...

Yeah, politically well healed folks during those times could buy a honorable discharge of their kids like you or I buying a cup of coffee at the local cofee shop...

If you take every asserion that I made and examine it you'll find the thruth...

Bush did totally screw up both the Teaxs Rangers and Harkin Energy, both which were bought for him by his daddy and his daddy's friend...

He didn't buy them... He had bnever had a real paying job with which to have the income to buy them...

I have challenged the "Three Stooges" to provide us with Bush's resume' to explain where he actually worked and got that kinda dough but that doesn't fit into the "Three Stooges" mindset so they just conviently just ignore that question???

Hmmmmmm???

Yeah, it might be worth continuing a debate with them but they are brain-dead believers who cannot allow themselves to acceot that Bush ain't, ahhhhhhh, friggin' God Allmighty...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:13 PM

The secretary who typed the document in the first place stated—in an interview on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks after the hatchet job on Dan Rather—that the document Rather had been given, and accepted in good faith on the assumption that CBS staff had researched and authenticated it as they customarily do with such documents, was not the original document that she typed. It was a copy. Rather, known for being dubious of the Bush administration, had been set up.

BUT—she also said that the contents of the document that Rather was given was accurate. It was what the Alabama Air National Guard general had dictated to her and it was what she had typed, even though Rather did not have the original document.

Among other things, Bush had been grounded because he failed to show up for a periodic physical exam required of all Air National Guard pilots.

I saw the show and I heard the woman say it. As did (according to the show's ratings) millions of other people.

Any attempts to whitewash Bush on this matter is pure puffery and excuse-making.   Bush was what military slang refers to as a "gold-brick."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:46 PM

"Arguin' with "true believers" is like arguin' with a brick... No, it isn't... The brick has more capacity to reason things out..."


And you, uber-Bobert, have demonstrated that you are far more a "true believer" than we are- You have shown yourself to be anti-Bush even when he does what you say you wanted him to do.

And I would far rather shout the truth than repeatedly tell false statements and insist that everyone think them true because YOU said so- If you have no evidence, just state it as an OPINION, instead of making it a "Bobert Fact".

"my opiniopn that Bush is the worst presdient ever" is the one statement you have made here that I see no need for you to provide support for - It IS your opinion. You should know better than us: Please stop telling US what our opinions are, unless we state them.

Still waiting on what source YOU will allow as telling the "truth"...
Or does that change depending on what you want the truth to be?

Can you please give an example of a publication that you might consider accurate? Be specific, we want to know who you think has the only claim on truth.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:18 PM

Hahaha... You guys crack me up...

This is going no where... If George Bush told you "three stooges" to jump off the cliff you'd be fightin' each other as to who had the priveldge to jump first...

Arguin' with "true believers" is like arguin' with a brick... No, it isn't... The brick has more capacity to reason things out...

Bye...

B

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 02:51 PM

So, Bobert, you NOW ( yelling, since you seem to ignore anything else)
claim that the Wall Street Journal is not to be believed.

Can you please give an example of a publication that you might consider accurate? Be specific, we want to know who you think has the only claim on truth.