Bush Campaign Lawyer Quits Over Ties to Ad Group

[Rooster71]

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A top lawyer for President Bush's re-election campaign resigned on Wednesday after disclosing he provided legal advice to a group that accusing Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry of lying about his Vietnam War record.

Benjamin Ginsberg was the second person working for the Bush campaign to be linked to the group, called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Bush's campaign insists it has no relationship with the group and has denied Kerry's charge the president's re-election team is using such "front groups."

"I have decided to resign as national counsel to your campaign to ensure that the giving of legal advice to decorated military veterans, which was entirely within the boundaries of the law, doesn't distract from the real issues upon which you and the country should be focusing," Ginsberg wrote in a letter to Bush. A copy was released by the Bush campaign.

The fierce dispute over Kerry's record in Vietnam, where he was decorated for bravery, has dominated recent campaigning for the neck-and-neck race for the Nov. 2 presidential election.

Ginsberg served as the Bush campaign's long-time chief outside counsel. He disclosed on Tuesday that he also gave legal advice to the Swift Boat group, which has attacked Kerry's record in television commercials and a book.

Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said the disclosure provided "another piece of the mounting evidence of the ties between the Bush campaign and this group."

But Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said: "There has been no coordination at any time."

No coordination is allowed between independently funded groups like the Swift Boat group and a party whose aims or candidate the group supports.

As a young Navy lieutenant commanding a gunboat in Vietnam, Kerry was decorated five times for valor and sustaining combat wounds. He still carries shrapnel in his leg from one of those wounds.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
As a young Navy lieutenant commanding a gunboat in Vietnam, Kerry was decorated five times for valor and sustaining combat wounds. He still carries shrapnel in his leg from one of those wounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What relevance does that have to the rest of this article LOL.

Frankly, this is a non-issue. There was no wrongdoing here and its unforunate he feels obligated to resign to try to prevent distraction from the real issues.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a young Navy lieutenant commanding a gunboat in Vietnam, Kerry was decorated five times for valor and sustaining combat wounds. He still carries shrapnel in his leg from one of those wounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What relevance does that have to the rest of this article LOL.

Frankly, this is a non-issue. There was no wrongdoing here and its unforunate he feels obligated to resign to try to prevent distraction from the real issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is relevant. The article is stating the decorated record which the anti-Kerry campaign is trying to smear.

It IS an issue. In case you don't know, the Bush campaign has denied any involvement with the Swift Boat Vets. In any case, it is illegal.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is relevant. The article is stating the decorated record which the anti-Kerry campaign is trying to smear.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Wow what a stretch. The article is about the lawyer resigning. Kerry's decorations have no relevance.

[ QUOTE ]
It IS an issue. In case you don't know, the Bush campaign has denied any involvement with the Swift Boat Vets. In any case, it is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Collusion is what is is illegal. Nothing Ginsberg did was illegal. The group went to an acknowledged expert on McCain-Feingold to get his opinion on the legality of their ad. He gave said advice. Tell me why this illegal.

PS Putting the word "IS" in caps doesnt automatically make your statement true. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
It IS an issue. In case you don't know, the Bush campaign has denied any involvement with the Swift Boat Vets. In any case, it is illegal.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is illegal, please explain how what the Swift Boat Vets are doing differs from what MoveOn.org is doing?

Bubbagump

[CORed]

It is not raising money and running attack adds that is illegal. It is coordination with the candidate's campaign. It would seem that at least two people have worked for both Bush's campaign and the swift boat veterans.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It is coordination with the candidate's campaign. It would seem that at least two people have worked for both Bush's campaign and the swift boat veterans.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this prove coordination?

[cardcounter0]

If having key members of your campaign also advising another group is not evidence of coordination, then what on God's green earth could possibly prove coordination?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"He still carries shrapnel in his leg from one of those wounds."

I think according to the Not-So-Swift Vets, Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted (he must have stuck that shrapnel in his leg), bloodless, and never required any hospitalization. (Shrapnel in the leg? Walk it off, as my old football coach used to say.)

So has any one heard the not-so-serious wounds lies from the not-so-swift vets?

[Bubbagump]

[ QUOTE ]
It is coordination with the candidate's campaign. It would seem that at least two people have worked for both Bush's campaign and the swift boat veterans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This lawyer having the president and the Swift Boat Vets as clients represents a clear conflict of interest no doubt about it. Hence the resignation of said lawyer. But this does not prove that the Bush campaign was actively coordinating with the Vets. And if you think that it does, why haven't charges been pressed against some or all of the parties involved?

Bubbagump

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If having key members of your campaign also advising another group is not evidence of coordination, then what on God's green earth could possibly prove coordination?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets talk about those two key members. One was Colonel(ret.) Ken Cordier. He was a member of Bush's veterans affairs steering committee. I wouldnt call that a "key member." The Bush campaign said they were not informed that he was in the ad. We have no reason to believe that isnt true.

The second was the lawyer that the article was about. It is absolutely not illegal for him to advise the SBVFT on legal matters and be the chief outside counsel for Bush. Even Joe Sandler agrees with that.

[ QUOTE ]
I think according to the Not-So-Swift Vets, Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted (he must have stuck that shrapnel in his leg), bloodless, and never required any hospitalization. (Shrapnel in the leg? Walk it off, as my old football coach used to say.)

So has any one heard the not-so-serious wounds lies from the not-so-swift vets?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well all Kerry has to do is release the medical reports that detail his Purple Heart wounds and that would instantly clear that issue up. As for self inflicted wounds, please. We both know exactly how you could get a self inflicted wound involving shrapnel. Again, not that his wounds have anything to do with this particular article.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This lawyer having the president and the Swift Boat Vets as clients represents a clear conflict of interest no doubt about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know we are on the same side on this issue but you are wrong on this facet. As long as the advice is strictly related legal advice, there is no conflict.

EDIT:

Read this article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84MBCFG0.html)

[cardcounter0]

You avoided the whole question.

What could possibly be considered proof of collusion? Everything can be simply explained away if you want to stretch, twist, turn, ignore, distort, and assume enough.

[Bubbagump]

You may be right here, I am not a lawyer. But, it definately looks bad having that lawyer working with both groups. And the publics perception of politics being what it is these days, the Bush administration would never be able to dispute that there wasn't something improper going on if that lawyer remained with the administration.

Bubbagump

[vulturesrow]

I certainly concede collusion is hard to prove. Substantive proof is going to have to be something like taped conversations, eyewitness accounts of illegal strategy sessions etc.

I have not distorted or stretched anything. I merely pointed out these incidents dont provide anything in the way of proof regarding coordination. The only assumption I operate under is that they are innocent of the crime until they are proven guilty.

[vulturesrow]

Bubba,

Certainly, perception is often reality. That being said, I think a worse perception is given by the lawyer resigning, when he was pretty clearly not guilty of any wrongdoing.

[Bubbagump]

I don't know. I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

[cardcounter0]

"taped conversations":
Hmmm... are you sure they were talking about what you say they were talking about? How do we know the tapes aren't doctored? Maybe it was someone doing a voice imitation. What exactly did they say? What is the definition of the word 'is'? Maybe you just misunderstood what they said. They were just talking hypothetically about it. On and on and on and on .....

"eyewitness accounts of illegal strategy sessions":
Yeah, right. Who are these eyewitnesses? Can they prove they were even there? Who says? Didn't they once steal an apple in the 2nd grade? Those people are liars, have always been liars, and will always be liars. I have 22 other eyewitness who say that what they say they saw never happened .....

Come on it is an easy enough question:

What would be adequate proof of something to the people who still think Bin Laden and Saddam slept together with WMDs under their bed all the while talking to Kerry the communist on the phone?

[Bubbagump]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. So you tell us, what proof do you have the the Bush administration is coordinating with the Swift Boat Vets?

Bubbagump

[cardcounter0]

Well, as we are discussing here if you can follow along, it is not possible to prove anything to a Bush Supporters satisfaction.

Unless that anything happens to be Saddam's WMDs, that is accepted as fact despite any credible evidence. But anything else, especially if it involves a possible problem with Bush, even Moses coming down from the mountain with stone tablets wouldn't be proof enough, those stone tablets can be forged, you know.

So what type of evidence would you suggest to prove collusion between these two groups?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is relevant. The article is stating the decorated record which the anti-Kerry campaign is trying to smear.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Wow what a stretch. The article is about the lawyer resigning. Kerry's decorations have no relevance.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
How can you say the decorations have no relevance? The purpose of the smear group for which the attorney was working is to say that the medals are fraudulent!

When your candidate was AWOL, drunk and snorting coke at some unknown location during his service, I guess many facts would be irrelevant to you.

[Cyrus]

"What proof do you have the the Bush administration is coordinating with the Swift Boat Vets?"

Proof, no. What about strong circumstantial evidence?

How does the fact strike you that the Swift Boat VT admitted yesterday that their listed address is a PO box held by Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of House Republican leader Dick Army's PAC, the Majority Leader's Fund?

Isn't it pertinent at all when an election lawyer for President Bush has been advising the veterans group running TV ads against Kerry? note that he has tacitly admitted his role in this and, in order to prevent further embarassment to GWB, Benjamin Ginsberg resigned (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/19/politics/main637003.shtml) Wednesday from Bush's campaign.

And what about the adviser to the Bush campaign, a retired Air Force colonel, who appeared in person (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html) in the anti-Kerry TV ads? Doesn't he count for anything?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it pertinent at all when an election lawyer for President Bush has been advising the veterans group running TV ads against Kerry?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is up to you. Do you think it is pertinent that two attorneys working for the Democrats at the convention (Harold Ickes and Bill Richardson) also advise several liberal 527 groups?

[vulturesrow]

Lets not forget Robert Bauer or Joe Sandler. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Dont much here the NY Times bemoaning those lawyers do you?

[cardcounter0]

I don't know. What Vets have they tried to smear?

[trippin bily]

why is it the decotated veterans that support Kerry are called " band of brothers " or are assumed to be telling the truth...and the decorated veterans that support Bush are called " not so swift vets " ( cardcounter) or " smear groups " ( rooster) and are assumed to be lying?

[trippin bily]

cardcounter are you as outraged by groups such as move on.org as you are the anti kerry group ?

[cardcounter0]

No I am probably more upset with moveon.org

I think smear groups probably hurt their cause more than they help it among thinking individuals, so since I would prefer a more liberal administration, moveon.org actually hurts more than Swift Vets.

Wait a minute ... I said among thinking individuals. It seems society today would believe the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is flat if it was broadcast on Fox News enough times, so scratch that ... Swift Vets are obviously more dangerous.

What Combat Vets has moveon.org tried to smear recently?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
What Combat Vets has moveon.org tried to smear recently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Moveon has supported Kerry and Kerry has smeared all Vietnam combat Vets with his fallacious testimony before Congress they are guilty by association.

[cardcounter0]

Do you have any proof of this association, or proof of this support, or even proof that Kerry smeared combat Vets?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
why is it the decotated veterans that support Kerry are called " band of brothers " or are assumed to be telling the truth...and the decorated veterans that support Bush are called " not so swift vets " ( cardcounter) or " smear groups " ( rooster) and are assumed to be lying?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. For starters, the Swift Vets have made statements that contradict all written facts from the time in question. Besides, I have not seen the Swift Vets provide any support of Bush other than smearing Kerry. Hence the term "smear group".

When official facts contradict what someone says and that person(s) has a motive, it can be safely assumed they are lying.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Combat Vets has moveon.org tried to smear recently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Moveon has supported Kerry and Kerry has smeared all Vietnam combat Vets with his fallacious testimony before Congress they are guilty by association.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is an insane statement. I have read the entire transcript of Kerry's testimony. Your reasoning might work if used on someone who is totally oblivious to all facts. However, Kerry did not "smear" any veterans he served with. He simply recounted what he saw and was involved with.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
When official facts contradict what someone says and that person(s) has a motive, it can be safely assumed they are lying.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, if you had any honor these words would come back to haunt you.

Just for a little taste let us take the words of baby boy Kerry when he testified to congress about "all vets in Nam (including himself) comitting war crimes"! Is the Congressional Record official enough for you?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When official facts contradict what someone says and that person(s) has a motive, it can be safely assumed they are lying.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, if you had any honor these words would come back to haunt you.

Just for a little taste let us take the words of baby boy Kerry when he testified to congress about "all vets in Nam (including himself) comitting war crimes"! Is the Congressional Record official enough for you?

[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, please provide the source and the context in which that quote appears. If that is even a real quote, I don't see how he is berating anyone. Again, he is simply recounting experiences from his service in Vietnam and pointing out that many acts that occurred were violations of the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, you are twisting the point (very weakly, I might add) of the entire conversation. The point is that the Swift Boat Vets cannot back up anything they say. When Bush supporters like yourself defend them by pointing out statements made by Kerry that may be offensive to Swift Boat Vets, it makes their motive even more suspicious.

[cardcounter0]

"all vets in Nam (including himself) comitting war crimes"

Please provide link or quote where Kerry says All Vets in Nam committed war crimes.

[nothumb]

Hey Wake Up,

Kerry's testimony to Congress has often been misrepresented, including by SBVFT. They recently ran an ad claiming to show Kerry accusing all vets of war crimes, when he had prefaced his statement by saying it was a recounting of statements he heard from other vets at another conference.

I think, with this in mind as well as their other actions, SBVFT can accurately be called a 'smear group.' One thing they do not do - that moveon.org and others do - is provide ideas about what positive changes could be made, or what policies they actually support. I think failing to even state what one would support or propose an alternative is one of the first and best examples of being an attack dog, not a political participant.

NT

[elwoodblues]

If you provide a reputable source for this quote (and in context the quote suggests what it sounds like), I won't vote for Kerry. I won't vote for Bush either, but Kerry will not get my vote.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
However, Kerry did not "smear" any veterans he served with.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when Kerry recounts what he saw it is factual but when someone else saw something entirely different their account is a smear? OK, I got it!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
when he had prefaced his statement by saying it was a recounting of statements he heard from other vets at another conference.


[/ QUOTE ]

this I understand, what I do not understand is any difference between representing what others said as being factual and stating it in the first person. Not too hard to seek out recent statements by Kerry (in the last 60 days) where he admitted to setting fire to a village with his own personal Zippo.

[Wake up CALL]

Here is the transcript for Kerrys' 1971 Congressional testimony. Read it for yourself and make your own judgement. Remember he says "WE" not they.

Turncoat Kerry Testifies (http://www.urich.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html)

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, Kerry did not "smear" any veterans he served with.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when Kerry recounts what he saw it is factual but when someone else saw something entirely different their account is a smear? OK, I got it!

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, nice twist of logic there. Please show me where these veterans came out and said they didn't burn villages, etc.

The main reason Swift Boat Vets are a smear group is the crap they say about Kerry not earning his medals. Official records contradict Swift Boat vets.

When people try to harp on Kerry's statements to Congress saying that he villified the people he served with, it's like these people are trying to explain why the Swift Boat Vets are pissed at Kerry and want revenge. Which, in turn, reveals their motive for wanting to smear Kerry.

Kerry's statements to Congress and how he earned his medals are two totally different issues. How he earned his medals is a matter of official record. The last time I checked, the United States has something that's called the "right to free speech." If the Not-so-Swifties didn't like what he said to Congress they should just say so, instead of waiting 35 years and launching a smear campaign saying that his medals are fraudulent.

[vulturesrow]

Well since you think official records are the end all and be all then you should believe that Bush wasnt AWOL (honorable discharge and payroll records) as some have claimed. That is by far the most ridiculous argument I ahve seen yet. You cant even get a democrat to say that the Swiftees even deserve to tell their story. What do you say about the diary entry where Kerry writes that they hadnt seen enemy fire yet, 9 DAYS after his first Purple Heart award..?

Once again the discussion has been completely hijacked. So lets return. First off, to claim that there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest the Bush campaign was collaborating with the SBVFT is simply not true. The problem is that the left operates under the assumption that any one on the right is automatically guilty and then has to prove he isnt. Sorry that isnt the way the system works in the United States.

HEre is what you have. One guy who appeared in a Swift Boat ad who was on one of Bush's advisory committees. Bush's campaign said they had no knowledge of this and removed the guy from the campaign. You have no reason to believe there is collaboration unless you are operating under the assumption that everything Bush says isnt true.

LEts look at Ginsberg. He gave legal advice to the SBVFT. They came to him for advice and he gave it. That in no way suggest collaboration. Let me give you some quotes from the Democrats Holy Screed, the NY Times and some from the AP dispatch.

From the AP:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the [Democratic National Committee] and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once

In addition to the [Federal Elections Commission's] coordination rules, attorneys are ethically bound to maintain attorney-client confidentiality, Sandler said. They could lose their law license if they violate that, he said

From the Holy Writ (NYT):
The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Mr. Ginsberg said his role was no different from Mr. Bauer's

So basically Ginsberg did nothing wrong unless you are operating under the assumption that he must be a liar because he works for the right and thus isnt telling the truth when he says all he did was give the SBVFT legal advice.

[cardcounter0]

"The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive"

Those damm commies! Get out the vote drive? Since when do we allow such subverive activities in the US? Is this what George Bush protected the borders of Texas for?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Well since you think official records are the end all and be all then you should believe that Bush wasnt AWOL (honorable discharge and payroll records) as some have claimed. That is by far the most ridiculous argument I ahve seen yet. You cant even get a democrat to say that the Swiftees even deserve to tell their story. What do you say about the diary entry where Kerry writes that they hadnt seen enemy fire yet, 9 DAYS after his first Purple Heart award..?

Once again the discussion has been completely hijacked. So lets return. First off, to claim that there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest the Bush campaign was collaborating with the SBVFT is simply not true. The problem is that the left operates under the assumption that any one on the right is automatically guilty and then has to prove he isnt. Sorry that isnt the way the system works in the United States.

HEre is what you have. One guy who appeared in a Swift Boat ad who was on one of Bush's advisory committees. Bush's campaign said they had no knowledge of this and removed the guy from the campaign. You have no reason to believe there is collaboration unless you are operating under the assumption that everything Bush says isnt true.

LEts look at Ginsberg. He gave legal advice to the SBVFT. They came to him for advice and he gave it. That in no way suggest collaboration. Let me give you some quotes from the Democrats Holy Screed, the NY Times and some from the AP dispatch.

From the AP:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the [Democratic National Committee] and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once

In addition to the [Federal Elections Commission's] coordination rules, attorneys are ethically bound to maintain attorney-client confidentiality, Sandler said. They could lose their law license if they violate that, he said

From the Holy Writ (NYT):
The campaign of Senator John Kerry shares a lawyer, Robert Bauer, with America Coming Together, a liberal group that is organizing a huge multimillion-dollar get-out-the-vote drive that is far more ambitious than the Swift boat group's activities. Mr. Ginsberg said his role was no different from Mr. Bauer's

So basically Ginsberg did nothing wrong unless you are operating under the assumption that he must be a liar because he works for the right and thus isnt telling the truth when he says all he did was give the SBVFT legal advice.

[/ QUOTE ]
After your first non-truth (about Bush not being AWOL), your post lost all credibility. Contrary to what Limbaugh and Hannity say, Bush has not yet released all of his military records and there are still gaps in his service for which cannot be accounted. Where did you find this "fact" about Kerry's diary? Or is it undocumented like the other "data" you use?

You are doing a very poor job of proving your point, since you cannot stay on topic or even answer a question completely.

This is your most interesting quote "the problem is that the left operates under the assumption that any one on the right is automatically guilty and then has to prove he isnt. Sorry that isnt the way the system works in the United States." Correct, that's not the way the system works in the United States. That quote sounds like something that would be spouted from the mouth of the fat, loudmouth, hypocritical dopehead Rush Limbaugh.

As long as we are dealing in political stereotypes, one could say that the right exists solely to benefit the wealthly and achieve their political means by telling lies and calling anyone who disagrees with them Godless, unpatriotic, immoral, America-hating degenerates.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we are dealing in political stereotypes, one could say that the right exists solely to benefit the wealthly and achieve their political means by telling lies and calling anyone who disagrees with them Godless, unpatriotic, immoral, America-hating degenerates.


[/ QUOTE ]
Amen to that brother! You Godless, unpatriotic, immoral, America-hating degenerate. /images/graemlins/smile.gif



Jimbo

[Jimbo]

On a more serious note what really scares me about the current state of affairs in America are posters such as yourself, Cyrus and Jokerswild. Facts can stare you in the face yet you either ignore them, twist them or deny them in a (hopefully) fruitless attempt to scare and fool yourself and others.

Jimbo

[elwoodblues]

I've read it. Nowhere does he suggests that he is talking about "all vets" as you suggest. He tells the panel up front to whom he refers. Maybe I'm missing it. Could you point to the part where he talks about "all vets in Nam comitting war crimes?"

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
After your first non-truth (about Bush not being AWOL), your post lost all credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ill probably lose some sleep tonight knowing you think I lost credibility. Damn.

[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to what Limbaugh and Hannity say, Bush has not yet released all of his military records and there are still gaps in his service for which cannot be accounted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I cite Limbaugh or Kerry? I enjoy both their shows but I hardly take it as gospel. I didnt say all his records had been released. I was just using your standard of proof of official records as the end all be all. Bush has an honorable discharge and according to your line of reasoning that should be enough. Here is an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp.) which you probably will probably find some ad hominen attack against. I dont really care. Since Bush has an honorable discharge and that is official record, it should satisfy your standards of proof.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you find this "fact" about Kerry's diary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well one place it appears in is Kerry's own book lol.

[ QUOTE ]
You are doing a very poor job of proving your point, since you cannot stay on topic or even answer a question completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

More laughs. I started this topic, it got turned into something completely different and I attempted to bring it back. Please, which questions would you like me to answer? I wasnt aware I was doing an interview here.

[ QUOTE ]
This is your most interesting quote "the problem is that the left operates under the assumption that any one on the right is automatically guilty and then has to prove he isnt. Sorry that isnt the way the system works in the United States." Correct, that's not the way the system works in the United States. That quote sounds like something that would be spouted from the mouth of the fat, loudmouth, hypocritical dopehead Rush Limbaugh.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I phrased that awkwardly. The point I was trying to make is that the only way these accusations of collaboration have any validity is if you are operating under the assumption that they have to prove themselves not guilty. They dont. No substantive proof has been offered.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we are dealing in political stereotypes, one could say that the right exists solely to benefit the wealthly and achieve their political means by telling lies and calling anyone who disagrees with them Godless, unpatriotic, immoral, America-hating degenerates.


[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies. I generally try to avoid dealing in stereotypes, but I'll be the first to admit that I slip at times. Let me reword. In this particular case, the Bush opponents appear to assuming guilt without much in the way of proof.

[jokerswild]

Bush's records do conclusively prove that he was AWOL. Bush says that the records are incomplete. This flip flops. One day they say that they are found, the next day they say that they are lost. The recprds released by the Bush Administration show a greater than 90 gap in serviice. That isn't just AWOL. That's desertion.

[andyfox]

"Facts can stare you in the face yet you either ignore them, twist them or deny them"

Heck, if they do that, they should run for president. I can discern no qualification to be president that either Bush or Kerry have other than a great ability to do precisely that.

[jokerswild]

Posting your interpretation of facts doesn't make them true. Perhaps a special prosecutor is needed to investigate. Lawyers frequently break the law.

[vulturesrow]

You obviously have no concept of how Guard service works. Did you bother to read the article I linked? Probably not. It lays it all out quite nicely.

Regarding your second post, it isnt just my interpretation of the facts. Its also the interpretation of the left wing lawyers, who have almost identical circumstances.

[ QUOTE ]
Lawyers frequently break the law

[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored], look at the Clintons.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the transcript for Kerrys' 1971 Congressional testimony. Read it for yourself and make your own judgement. Remember he says "WE" not they.

Turncoat Kerry Testifies (http://www.urich.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

That it not a transcript. That is a highly edited version. I have only posted the link to the full transcript about 3 times over the last couple of days.

Here it is again
http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

I asked if anyone could, without taking his words out of context, show that Kerry betrayed or dishonored his fellow veterans in this statement. So far, no one has replied to this challenge.

He uses the word we to refer a group of veterans whose opinion he is representing, not ALL veterans. Congress did not have time to hear from everyone of them, so they chose John Kerry to speak on there behalf. He explicitly says that he does not speak for ALL veterans.

[jokerswild]

No, I know that Bush's commanders permitted him to make up the days he obviously missed in Alabama at the end of his service in Texas.

You obviously, make excuses for a coward and traitor.
Perhaps you were a coward and traitor too.

The Clintons may lie, but we had peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton. That's a far cry from what we have today.

A special prosecutor is needed. Your heros betrayed a covert CIA agent. This truly does classify as treason.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I know that Bush's commanders permitted him to make up the days he obviously missed in Alabama at the end of his service in Texas

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that huh? Pretty tight with Bush's commanding officer from the guard are you?

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously, make excuses for a coward and traitor.
Perhaps you were a coward and traitor too.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am dong my part for my country. Sorry to disapoint you.

[ QUOTE ]
The Clintons may lie, but we had peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton. That's a far cry from what we have today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really I guess us going into Kosovo under Clinton was my imagination. Sorry about that.

[ QUOTE ]
A special prosecutor is needed. Your heros betrayed a covert CIA agent. This truly does classify as treason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow not only are you in with Bush's CO, you know who my heros are..I guess you arent as dumb as you seem. Then again, could anyone be that dumb. But no covert agent was betrayed..give me a break. You really do live in liberal la la land.

[Cyrus]

"I'll probably lose some sleep tonight knowing you think I lost credibility. Damn."

You lost your credibility when you claimed that Dubya's permission for road-paving, mining and drilling in federal forestland was mean to protect the environment!..

So I will leave you to ponder the irony of your other claim, that "liberals live in la la land".

Baby, oh baby, that land is your land!... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You lost your credibility when you claimed that Dubya's permission for road-paving, mining and drilling in federal forestland was mean to protect the environment!..

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I never claimed that. Nice try though.

[Cyrus]

Cyrus > "You lost your credibility when you claimed that Dubya's permission for road-paving, mining and drilling in federal forestland was meant to protect the environment!.."

Vulturesrow > "Actually I never claimed that. Nice try though."

Hah! What do you think this is, amateur night?

You (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=950082&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) claimed "I just don't see allowing roads being put in as a major threat to the environment. I think people should have a way to interact with the environment too and roads would facilitate that.

You (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=950123&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) stated "The point wasn't so much that [road paving] would cause major increase in GDP, rather to illustrate one of the positive effects of allowing roads."

You (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=950902&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1) also stated "I think public land should be put to better use than being some vast tree museum that has absolutely no utility other than just being there. In this particular case, I support the party opinion." (Note, please, that one of the justifications, given by the Prez and his "party", was that road paving will be "good for the environment"...)

Sir, I don't think that was a nice try.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
On a more serious note what really scares me about the current state of affairs in America are posters such as yourself, Cyrus and Jokerswild. Facts can stare you in the face yet you either ignore them, twist them or deny them in a (hopefully) fruitless attempt to scare and fool yourself and others.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]
Your post sounds really nice. It is just like something from a conservative propagandist like Limbaugh or Hannity, damning and convincing, but devoid of truth and facts.

[vulturesrow]

Cyrus,

You can attempt to twist my words as you wish. How does me saying I think roads in the wilderness will cause little or no damage and allow people greater access to enjoy the environment translate to "I think that Bush rescinded the order for the purpose of protecting the environment." Its not what I said and its not what I meant. Sorry if you had trouble understanding what I wrote, I'll try to use smaller words next time.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After your first non-truth (about Bush not being AWOL), your post lost all credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ill probably lose some sleep tonight knowing you think I lost credibility. Damn.

[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to what Limbaugh and Hannity say, Bush has not yet released all of his military records and there are still gaps in his service for which cannot be accounted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I cite Limbaugh or Kerry? I enjoy both their shows but I hardly take it as gospel. I didnt say all his records had been released. I was just using your standard of proof of official records as the end all be all. Bush has an honorable discharge and according to your line of reasoning that should be enough. Here is an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp.) which you probably will probably find some ad hominen attack against. I dont really care. Since Bush has an honorable discharge and that is official record, it should satisfy your standards of proof.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you find this "fact" about Kerry's diary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well one place it appears in is Kerry's own book lol.

[ QUOTE ]
You are doing a very poor job of proving your point, since you cannot stay on topic or even answer a question completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

More laughs. I started this topic, it got turned into something completely different and I attempted to bring it back. Please, which questions would you like me to answer? I wasnt aware I was doing an interview here.

[ QUOTE ]
This is your most interesting quote "the problem is that the left operates under the assumption that any one on the right is automatically guilty and then has to prove he isnt. Sorry that isnt the way the system works in the United States." Correct, that's not the way the system works in the United States. That quote sounds like something that would be spouted from the mouth of the fat, loudmouth, hypocritical dopehead Rush Limbaugh.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I phrased that awkwardly. The point I was trying to make is that the only way these accusations of collaboration have any validity is if you are operating under the assumption that they have to prove themselves not guilty. They dont. No substantive proof has been offered.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we are dealing in political stereotypes, one could say that the right exists solely to benefit the wealthly and achieve their political means by telling lies and calling anyone who disagrees with them Godless, unpatriotic, immoral, America-hating degenerates.


[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies. I generally try to avoid dealing in stereotypes, but I'll be the first to admit that I slip at times. Let me reword. In this particular case, the Bush opponents appear to assuming guilt without much in the way of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny how things can be twisted around. Please let me try to follow your line of reasoning:
1) Official records show that Bush received an honorable discharge, therefore he wasn't AWOL. Any arguments that Bush was AWOL have no merit.
2) Official records show that John Kerry was awarded numerous medals including three purple hearts, but since a shadow group (Swift Boat Vets) say that these aren't valid, the shadow group's accusations have merit.
If you can't see the difference in the existing levels of proof between #1 and #2 above, I don't know what to say.

Notice I said "your line of reasoning". I believe you mentioned earlier that payroll records prove Bush wasn't AWOL. To the best of my knowledge, these payroll records have never been shown. I have read several articles that state Bush was not paid for the period in question. Anyway, an "honorable discharge" doesn't mean much. I have personally known people who were discharged "honorably" due to alcoholism. I'm not in any way saying that was why Bush was discharged. I am just saying that, from what I have seen, you really have to do some crazy things to be dishonorably discharged.

To illustrate your burden of proof, I remember from another thread you said that since Max Cleland did not receive his wounds from enemy attack, then the wounds were self-inflicted. This is an interesting way to look at things. But with that type of reasoning, I can easily see why you vote Republican.

[cardcounter0]

Dole got his first Purple Heart medal when he threw a gernade, it hit some tree branches, and bounced back at him. The resulting explosion caused minor injury -- and DOLE GETS A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND PURPLE HEART.
/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
On a more serious note what really scares me about the current state of affairs in America are posters such as yourself, Cyrus and Jokerswild. Facts can stare you in the face yet you either ignore them, twist them or deny them in a (hopefully) fruitless attempt to scare and fool yourself and others.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

If and when you post a fact, I promise I'll look at it.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I know that Bush's commanders permitted him to make up the days he obviously missed in Alabama at the end of his service in Texas

[/ QUOTE ]

You know that huh? Pretty tight with Bush's commanding officer from the guard are you?

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously, make excuses for a coward and traitor.
Perhaps you were a coward and traitor too.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am dong my part for my country. Sorry to disapoint you.

[ QUOTE ]
The Clintons may lie, but we had peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton. That's a far cry from what we have today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really I guess us going into Kosovo under Clinton was my imagination. Sorry about that.

[ QUOTE ]
A special prosecutor is needed. Your heros betrayed a covert CIA agent. This truly does classify as treason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow not only are you in with Bush's CO, you know who my heros are..I guess you arent as dumb as you seem. Then again, could anyone be that dumb. But no covert agent was betrayed..give me a break. You really do live in liberal la la land.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another post by vulturesow that is totally devoid of facts and full of insinuation, innuendo and some name-calling.

My favorite part is "no, I am doing my part for my country." Just how are you "doing your part for your country?" Unless you are currently in the military (and you are referring to your service), I don't think your posts qualify as patriotic PSA's.

This is what chaps my ass the most about the right. In addition to fiscal and economic policies that just plain don't work, they justify their actions and beliefs as "supporting their country". What's even worse is how they hold on to their strongest voter base, the religious right. Just harp on "morals" and "character" (even though most Republican candidates do not even come close to meeting the moral and character standards they espouse) and say you will be "pro-life" and "anti-gay", and you're in!

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how things can be twisted around. Please let me try to follow your line of reasoning:
1) Official records show that Bush received an honorable discharge, therefore he wasn't AWOL. Any arguments that Bush was AWOL have no merit.
2) Official records show that John Kerry was awarded numerous medals including three purple hearts, but since a shadow group (Swift Boat Vets) say that these aren't valid, the shadow group's accusations have merit.
If you can't see the difference in the existing levels of proof between #1 and #2 above, I don't know what to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely see the difference. My point was that you dont or at least didnt seem to at the time. You specifically used the the point of Kerry's medals being on official record as a standard of proof. I merely pointed out that Bush's honorable discharge paperwork is the same thing and thus no one can make a case for him being AWOL. If you do say that Bush's honorable discharge isnt proof of him not being AWOL, than you cant say Kerry's citations are a closed case because of the official records. I know it may be scary, but we are arguing the same point here. Which standard of proof are you willing to use Rooster..we can either say official paper work is good enough, in which case Bush wasnt AWOL and Kerry deserved all his medal or we can say well that is evidence to support it, but it isnt the be all and end all. Funny thing is, when this whole thing started with Bush's AWOL charges from the DNC his paperwork wasnt good enough.. But now that the shoe is on the other foot suddenly the official paperwork is good enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice I said "your line of reasoning". I believe you mentioned earlier that payroll records prove Bush wasn't AWOL. To the best of my knowledge, these payroll records have never been shown. I have read several articles that state Bush was not paid for the period in question. Anyway, an "honorable discharge" doesn't mean much. I have personally known people who were discharged "honorably" due to alcoholism. I'm not in any way saying that was why Bush was discharged. I am just saying that, from what I have seen, you really have to do some crazy things to be dishonorably discharged.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above regarding line of reasoning. Again you and I are actually on the same page on this one. Whatever personal misgivings you or I may have about the respective situations, I think we both agree the standard of proof should be the same. Agreed?

Bush's payroll records were actually released. I dont know if you read the article I linked, but if not, please do. It does a much better job that I could of explaining the whole deal. Try to read it with an open mind. If you dont agree so be it, but at least read it.

Regarding honorable discharge. Basically it means that you did your job, didnt bring any discredit on the service, and didnt do anything grossly wrong. Dont you think going AWOL would violate this? There are other levels of discharge than just honorable or dishonorable, not to mention there are two categories of said levels. I know for a fact that being AWOL or deserting are taken very seriously in the military and it wouldnt be something Bush would be able to just slide out of.

[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate your burden of proof, I remember from another thread you said that since Max Cleland did not receive his wounds from enemy attack, then the wounds were self-inflicted. This is an interesting way to look at things. But with that type of reasoning, I can easily see why you vote Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I said because he picked up the grenade it was self inflicted. Not really relevant to this I dont think, but I try to address all the points when someone responds to me. I vote Republican because I believe the Republican party has the best positions on issues in America. Whether that indicates faulty reasoning or not is a matter of opinion. I might actually be persuaded to vote Libertarian if they could put forward a candidate that was strong enough to win. Unfortunately that probably wont ever happen.

[vulturesrow]

Rooster,


[ QUOTE ]
Another post by vulturesow that is totally devoid of facts and full of insinuation, innuendo and some name-calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically I responded in kind to the poster I was responding to. Would like you to break which parts of my post are innuendo, which are insinuation, and why there are no facts in the post? I do apologize for the insult tossing, even though you seem to engage in it on a fairly regular basis.

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite part is "no, I am doing my part for my country." Just how are you "doing your part for your country?" Unless you are currently in the military (and you are referring to your service), I don't think your posts qualify as patriotic PSA's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am in the military and yes that was specifically what I was referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
This is what chaps my ass the most about the right. In addition to fiscal and economic policies that just plain don't work, they justify their actions and beliefs as "supporting their country". What's even worse is how they hold on to their strongest voter base, the religious right. Just harp on "morals" and "character" (even though most Republican candidates do not even come close to meeting the moral and character standards they espouse) and say you will be "pro-life" and "anti-gay", and you're in!

[/ QUOTE ]

So Dems dont believe their actions support their country and they dont take positions on issues to hold on to their strongest voting base? You are basically saying you hate the right because they believe that what they are doing is best for their country and they take positions on the issues that are in line with what their voters want. Ok.

[cardcounter0]

You seem to think Bush's honorable discharge is proof he wasn't AWOL during his shortened service.

Bush's supervision was moved to a special operation in Colorado, a "bad boy" section, for people who missed too many of their service commitments.

Also Bush's commanders permitted him to MAKE UP days he missed in Alabama, so wasn't he AWOL during those missed days? I don't think any one has stepped forward and said "I gave him permission to miss those days". In fact, the White House has been trying to use some smoke and mirrors to say he was paid during those days -- which if he was, wouldn't that be fraud?

Do you think Dole self-inflicted his wounds because he knew he would be running for the senate some day?

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how things can be twisted around. Please let me try to follow your line of reasoning:
1) Official records show that Bush received an honorable discharge, therefore he wasn't AWOL. Any arguments that Bush was AWOL have no merit.
2) Official records show that John Kerry was awarded numerous medals including three purple hearts, but since a shadow group (Swift Boat Vets) say that these aren't valid, the shadow group's accusations have merit.
If you can't see the difference in the existing levels of proof between #1 and #2 above, I don't know what to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely see the difference. My point was that you dont or at least didnt seem to at the time. You specifically used the the point of Kerry's medals being on official record as a standard of proof. I merely pointed out that Bush's honorable discharge paperwork is the same thing and thus no one can make a case for him being AWOL. If you do say that Bush's honorable discharge isnt proof of him not being AWOL, than you cant say Kerry's citations are a closed case because of the official records. I know it may be scary, but we are arguing the same point here. Which standard of proof are you willing to use Rooster..we can either say official paper work is good enough, in which case Bush wasnt AWOL and Kerry deserved all his medal or we can say well that is evidence to support it, but it isnt the be all and end all. Funny thing is, when this whole thing started with Bush's AWOL charges from the DNC his paperwork wasnt good enough.. But now that the shoe is on the other foot suddenly the official paperwork is good enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice I said "your line of reasoning". I believe you mentioned earlier that payroll records prove Bush wasn't AWOL. To the best of my knowledge, these payroll records have never been shown. I have read several articles that state Bush was not paid for the period in question. Anyway, an "honorable discharge" doesn't mean much. I have personally known people who were discharged "honorably" due to alcoholism. I'm not in any way saying that was why Bush was discharged. I am just saying that, from what I have seen, you really have to do some crazy things to be dishonorably discharged.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above regarding line of reasoning. Again you and I are actually on the same page on this one. Whatever personal misgivings you or I may have about the respective situations, I think we both agree the standard of proof should be the same. Agreed?

Bush's payroll records were actually released. I dont know if you read the article I linked, but if not, please do. It does a much better job that I could of explaining the whole deal. Try to read it with an open mind. If you dont agree so be it, but at least read it.

Regarding honorable discharge. Basically it means that you did your job, didnt bring any discredit on the service, and didnt do anything grossly wrong. Dont you think going AWOL would violate this? There are other levels of discharge than just honorable or dishonorable, not to mention there are two categories of said levels. I know for a fact that being AWOL or deserting are taken very seriously in the military and it wouldnt be something Bush would be able to just slide out of.

[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate your burden of proof, I remember from another thread you said that since Max Cleland did not receive his wounds from enemy attack, then the wounds were self-inflicted. This is an interesting way to look at things. But with that type of reasoning, I can easily see why you vote Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I said because he picked up the grenade it was self inflicted. Not really relevant to this I dont think, but I try to address all the points when someone responds to me. I vote Republican because I believe the Republican party has the best positions on issues in America. Whether that indicates faulty reasoning or not is a matter of opinion. I might actually be persuaded to vote Libertarian if they could put forward a candidate that was strong enough to win. Unfortunately that probably wont ever happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point. But it is my belief that the proof supporting Kerry's war wounds are much stronger than proof supporting Bush's AWOL/not AWOL situation.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Rooster,


[ QUOTE ]
Another post by vulturesow that is totally devoid of facts and full of insinuation, innuendo and some name-calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically I responded in kind to the poster I was responding to. Would like you to break which parts of my post are innuendo, which are insinuation, and why there are no facts in the post? I do apologize for the insult tossing, even though you seem to engage in it on a fairly regular basis.

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite part is "no, I am doing my part for my country." Just how are you "doing your part for your country?" Unless you are currently in the military (and you are referring to your service), I don't think your posts qualify as patriotic PSA's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I am in the military and yes that was specifically what I was referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
This is what chaps my ass the most about the right. In addition to fiscal and economic policies that just plain don't work, they justify their actions and beliefs as "supporting their country". What's even worse is how they hold on to their strongest voter base, the religious right. Just harp on "morals" and "character" (even though most Republican candidates do not even come close to meeting the moral and character standards they espouse) and say you will be "pro-life" and "anti-gay", and you're in!

[/ QUOTE ]

So Dems dont believe their actions support their country and they dont take positions on issues to hold on to their strongest voting base? You are basically saying you hate the right because they believe that what they are doing is best for their country and they take positions on the issues that are in line with what their voters want. Ok.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry about the military service misunderstanding, I was referring to your posts and not trying to put down your service. My insult-tossing is in good fun and is directed towards your political beliefs and not you personally.

Yes, each party takes sides based on what their party believes. However, I believe that Republicans use "moral issues" such as abortion and gay rights to stay in office when a large percentage of their supporters vote based solely on the issues and would probably be against the Republican stance on many other issues, primarily economic and budget issues.

Personally, I don't believe in abortion and I couldn't care less about gay rights. Both issues should probably be up to individual states, IMO. But I would never vote on any candidate based upon "character" or "moral" issues like those listed above. For example, the elder Bush continually harped on "family values." There will never be a president who can affect my own personal values or make me feel more "moral".

A President's job is to preside over Congress and legislation, national defense, foreign policy and domestic policy. I believe any president should favor legislation that helps to maintain or increase the average American's standard of living. This includes keeping jobs from going overseas, pushing for a fair tax code and helping to keep citizens safe. Pushing for "family values" and moral issues is not the job of any President, there are plenty of church and community leaders who can better perform those duties (more selectively and more efficiently).

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's supervision was moved to a special operation in Colorado, a "bad boy" section, for people who missed too many of their service commitments.


[/ QUOTE ]

In what alternate reality was President Bush ever assigned to a guard unit in Colorado? A litte proof or link will suffice.

[ QUOTE ]
Also Bush's commanders permitted him to MAKE UP days he missed in Alabama, so wasn't he AWOL during those missed days?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to offer a little help AWOL stands for absent without leave. You must be declared AWOL, not just be absent. It may be difficult for you to understand but please make an honest attempt.

[cardcounter0]

Here is the document threatening reassignment due to poor attendance.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif

Here is the document grounding him for not showing up for physical
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

Here is his annual report. "UNOBSERVED" marked in every catagory.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif

/images/graemlins/grin.gifWHAT A PROUD SERVICE RECORD OF OUR LEADER!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the document threatening reassignment due to poor attendance.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

First you state unequivocally that he was reassigned, now you seem to say he was threatened? So you are backpedaling like your poster boy Kerry huh? Not surprising, birds of a feather and all.

I'll help you again, if you find the original documnet online of the partial that you linked to it will show that articles A through I show the document to have an entirely different meaning.

With this last post you have shown yourself to be either so stupid or intentionally decietful that you are not worth the time it takes to reason with you. I will offer no more responses to your lies and innuendo.

[cardcounter0]

Hey, here is a back pedal for you -- Show proof Bush served at anytime in Alabama. Physically, not payroll records. Picture of him there, Eyewitness who served with him, Commander who remembers him, anything. $10,000 reward for ya!

Turn up FOX NEWS real loud, don't let any of that reality from outside sink in.

Chant to yourself: "We will beat Hillary in 2008, We will beat Hillary in 2008, We will beat Hillary in 2008 ...."
/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the document threatening reassignment due to poor attendance.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif

Here is the document grounding him for not showing up for physical
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

Here is his annual report. "UNOBSERVED" marked in every catagory.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif

/images/graemlins/grin.gifWHAT A PROUD SERVICE RECORD OF OUR LEADER!

[/ QUOTE ]

I explained the medical thing and the not observed report in the Max Cleland thread.

The document "threatening reassignment" is not doing that at all. It is a standard form delineating the obligations and penalties for not fulfilling said obligations of his ANG service LOL. I guarantee every guy in Bush's unit had the same letter in their record. Notice this is the 2nd page is the only one that is shown...wonder why the first page is missing....maybe because it shows what I just said?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry about the military service misunderstanding, I was referring to your posts and not trying to put down your service. My insult-tossing is in good fun and is directed towards your political beliefs and not you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken, I never took it as such.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, each party takes sides based on what their party believes. However, I believe that Republicans use "moral issues" such as abortion and gay rights to stay in office when a large percentage of their supporters vote based solely on the issues and would probably be against the Republican stance on many other issues, primarily economic and budget issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, there is more to the Republican party plaform that abortion or gay rights. Unfortunately, as a whole the party doesnt always do the best job of sticking to those. That being said, I dont think you can write off these "moral" issues so quickly, but we could generate quite an interesting discussion on this and I dont want to dwell too much on it. I do understand your points and I actually agree with some of them to a point. I have to say there is one where you are plain wrong /images/graemlins/wink.gif (outsourcing) But we definitely arent as far apart as you might think /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I do appreciate you taking the time to write this post to put into more rational terms your rationale and thoughts.

[cardcounter0]

Doesn't really matter does it? When his annual report is filled out with "not observed" checked for every box, it is because the CO "didn't feel like" filling it out. Too hard for him to check the other boxes. Meaningless.

He has reports showing unobserved, he missed his physical and got grounded. But that is all just, well, there must be some type of justification.

Like I have said many times before, any proof is useless.

Even another Vet came forward today and said that Kerry was under fire when he got his Bronze Star. Still believe the SWIFTIES? Of course.

You might want to do a little research. How Bush & Family pulled tremendous strings to get him in the guard. How Bush ignored two direct orders to report. How Bush just reassigned himself here and there. The number of days he was missing. The strings that were pulled to get him off early. The purging of his military records. But nevermind, that is just all official proof, doesn't matter.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't really matter does it? When his annual report is filled out with "not observed" checked for every box, it is because the CO "didn't feel like" filling it out. Too hard for him to check the other boxes. Meaningless.


[/ QUOTE ]

It absolutely does matter. And you know what, maybe he put those marks because he didnt observe Bush..so what? I dont deny that Bush wasnt there much his last year. He still earned the points he needed though. Thats how the Guard works. It doesnt make him AWOL.

[ QUOTE ]
He has reports showing unobserved, he missed his physical and got grounded. But that is all just, well, there must be some type of justification

[/ QUOTE ]

One unobserved report, one missed flight physical (trust me it happens all the time), all out of almost 6 years of service.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I have said many times before, any proof is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. The problem is that you only offer up stuff that doesnt prove anything. And you were completely wrong about one of the documents you offered up as "proof".

[ QUOTE ]
Even another Vet came forward today and said that Kerry was under fire when he got his Bronze Star. Still believe the SWIFTIES? Of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive never said whether I believe them completely or not. I do believe they deserve to be heard. I think they raise some points that are tough for Kerry to refute. But it is pretty ignorant of you to assume that I believe everything they said.

[ QUOTE ]
You might want to do a little research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done plenty.

[ QUOTE ]
How Bush & Family pulled tremendous strings to get him in the guard

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? I thought we were talking about an AWOL charge here? Try to stay on point.

[ QUOTE ]
How Bush ignored two direct orders to report

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Can you give me some sources? Kinda hard to fail to report and then serve for almost 6 years.

[ QUOTE ]
How Bush just reassigned himself here and there

[/ QUOTE ]

He got reassigned once and asking for and receiving reassignment in the Guard is very common.

[ QUOTE ]
The number of days he was missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah his last year he missed a bunch of days. He still had the points to complete his service. He met the standard. Therefore, not AWOL.

[ QUOTE ]
The strings that were pulled to get him off early

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, he didnt get off that early..secondly, that was very common at that time. Again, no bearing on whether he was AWOL or not.

[ QUOTE ]
The purging of his military records.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source for that?

[ QUOTE ]
But nevermind, that is just all official proof, doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have yet to provid official proof. you have some documents taken out of context or completely misrepresented. You have some stuff that has nothing to do with whether Bush was AWOL or not. Hardly constitutes official proof.