teribus, do you care to address the actual point of my first and second posts, which were:

"and if he did, why would he not simply present that (answer) when queried and put the whole issue to rest? when politicians dodge questions it is usually because there's something they don't want us to know and this is true of dems and repubs."

and:

"my point was that the FACT that bush does not address the question would "tend to indicate" that there may be something he would not like us to know."

or would you rather criticize my writing preferences, go on about how your or anyone's military experience gives their answer here more credibility (which i don't believe it does) or continue to assert the logically deficient idea that since no one was prosecuted therefore no crime was commited?