Nice one chaps, can't attack the evidence, can't attack the logic, so attack the person making the comments that blows your arguements to smithereens.

Quite amused at TIA's up-take on what I said in response to some thing Ebbie said earlier in this thread regarding "influence" and assignments in the forces:

"Teribus seems to be making the following syllogism:

Several British Royals were prosecuted for going AWOL.
An American President has never been prosecuted.
Therefore, the American President did not go AWOL."

Go back and read what was written you muppet!!

Three of the current "Royals" have served in the British armed forces - none have been prosecuted for going AWOL - all were treated in exactly the same manner as their colleagues while serving.

Prince Andrew - served as a front-line helicopter pilot during the Falklands War.

Prince Edward - joined the Royal Marines, when it was patently obvious that he was not physically capable of completing his training, pressure was brought to bear to "allow" him to finish his training and pass-out on the understanding that he would then resign his commission. The Royal Marines refused point blank to cave in to that pressure and he was withdrawn from training.

FACT - Was there any charge of being absent without leave ever raised with repect to Lt. George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard? - NO.

FACT - Did Lt. George W. Bush apply for early release from his six year term of engagement, after having been "in" for five years, four months and five days? - YES

FACT - Was that request put through official channels and was it approved? - YES, his remaining time was spent in a reserve unit of the ANG. Were such requests uncommon and were such request normally denied? - NO

Now as much as you all want to deny the above, wishful thinking on your part does not, and will not, alter any of the above - Live with it, don't lie about it.

A very Merry Christamas and a happy and prosperous New Year tae ain and a'.