TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Democrats accuse Bush of lying about his Air National Guard service
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Democrats accuse Bush of lying about his Air National Guard service
Democrats accuse Bush of lying about his Air National Guard service
WASHINGTON (AP) � Democrats pounced on the latest revelations about President Bush's Air National Guard service Wednesday, saying newly released records show Bush shirked his duty and lied about it.
Bush's spokesmen said the records back up the president's assertion that he fulfilled all of his Vietnam-era military obligations and served honorably.
Meanwhile, the Texas Air National Guard released 128 pages of records on Bush's service from 1968 to 1973, all of which had been previously released by the White House. Two Texas officials said in sworn affidavits that the records were all the Texas Guard had on Bush's service.
CBS reported Wednesday night that it had obtained personal files from one of Bush's Texas commanders saying Bush discussed with him how to avoid drills during 1972. The report on 60 Minutes said the files were from the personal records of Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984.
In the memos, Killian complained of pressure from higher-ups to give Bush positive evaluations and said Bush talked about how to avoid taking a physical exam in 1972, when Bush eventually skipped six months of training and lost his pilot's wings for missing the exam.
With national security and the war on terrorism looming large on voters' minds, supporters of Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry are attacking each candidate's Vietnam War records. Republicans have accused Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, of fabricating the events which led to his five medals. Democrats point to gaps in Bush's stateside Air National Guard service in 1972 and 1973 to say Bush shirked his duty.
The Defense Department on Tuesday released more than two dozen pages of records about Bush and his former Texas unit. They showed Bush flew for 336 hours in military jets after his flight training and ranked in the middle of his class.
The latest records do not shed any light on key questions about Bush's service: whether or where he trained in late 1972 and early 1973, why he skipped a required medical exam and whether he was investigated or punished for skipping the exam and six months' worth of training in 1972.
Pentagon officials said they discovered the documents released Tuesday while performing a more comprehensive search "out of an abundance of caution" in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press.
The newly released records also showed that while Bush says he was in Alabama training with another Guard unit in 1972, his home unit in Texas was participating in the air defense of the southern United States by keeping two jet fighters constantly ready for launch within five minutes' notice.
Democrats said that meant Bush passed on a chance to defend his country. Bush flew the F-102A jets his unit kept on alert but was grounded in August 1972 because of the missed medical check.
"When his unit was placed on a 24-hour alert mission to protect our country from surprise attack, why did George Bush not report for duty?" Democratic National Committee head Terry McAuliffe said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday.
McAuliffe also suggested Bush lied when he said he had released all available records and had fulfilled his Guard obligations.
"Either George Bush was deliberately lying to the American public or he had some type of very severe memory loss," McAuliffe said.
Bush spokesmen scoffed. They said the Pentagon had not done the extensive search Bush ordered and noted that Bush had approval to train in late 1972 with an Alabama unit.
"If the president had not fulfilled his commitment he would not have been honorably discharged," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Wednesday.
Adding to the criticism of Bush, a group called Texans for Truth announced an advertising campaign questioning whether Bush ever trained with the Alabama Air National Guard. The advertisement, set to run in several swing states, quotes a retired lieutenant colonel in the Alabama unit who says he searched for Bush but never met him in 1972 or 1973.
Bob Mintz is another of more than a dozen former members of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group who say they never saw Bush train with the unit. Medical records released by the White House show Bush received a dental exam at the 187th base in January 1973.
"I never met the man and I'm sorry I didn't because he's somebody important," Mintz, 63, said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. Mintz acknowledged Bush could have performed office duties for the 187th without crossing paths with Mintz.
The 128 pages of documents the Texas Air National Guard released to the AP on Wednesday duplicate records Bush released in February. The release also included sworn statements from Texas National Guard officials Travis Evans and Michael Blalock saying the records are the only ones related to Bush in the Texas Guard's files.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politi...ice_x.htm?csp=1
sounds damming but have no fear Carl Rove and his crack team will some how turn this into a positive for Bush. Maybe they'll just raise the terrorist alert to code orange or something to distract attention from this. lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by igottaknow sounds damming but have no fear Carl Rove and his crack team will some how turn this into a positive for Bush. Maybe they'll just raise the terrorist alert to code orange or something to distract attention from this. lol |
This link is a good informative letter addressed to the defense department asking some questions about Bushs' alleged desertion.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributo...5_Deserter.html
Here are some movies that may be a little "over the top" but I'll post them anyway.<----(That means if your sensative about some issues about how the world see's Bush then don't watch. Also don't give me a "you hurt my feelings post" because you think that I believe everything in the movie.") Now that the disclaimer is done FORM YOUR OWN OPINION.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/topgun.html
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/triwimp.html
http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html
Blah blah...Democrats on the offensive. To you fellas its a big deal.
The American public wont be affected. Let me give you some reasons as for why:
1) Its something that is isnt new. Al Gore's campaign brought this issue up already in 2000. Quite frankly it really wont have any affect because the public already knew about this....and it was always a fuzzy issue that never had a deep impact.
2) Bush said already, he made mistakes in the past and regrets them(dui,etc,) Unlike John Kerry who still hasnt mentioned why he threw away his purple hearts and also met with the N.Vietnamese during the war, and also came back and defamed his soldiers. But thats already been debated. But like I said, Yes its wrong, but from a political point of view this will be a nonissue in a few days.
3) Bush didnt center his campaign around this service unlike Kerry which it took a stab at the heart of his campaign with the swiftboat ads.
4)People know Bush has made mistakes and are looking for Kerry to present himself to the public...which he has yet to do. The public knows Bush's record..its blurry. They are waiting to see who Kerry is; when 527s attack his record they have a more lasting effect due to the public not knowing the man very well. Dwelling on the past 35 yrs will only hurt Kerry and feed the 527s to attack him more. In a mudslinging contest Kerry will lose....plain and simple.
5)Its basically a complicated issue the American public doesn't want to deal with....for example: Kerry's swift boat attacks:[SIMPLE] ''Kerry WAS Bad MAN-HE SLANDER WHEN HE COME BACK, KERRY LIE ABOUT PURPLE HEARTs''....The general american public looks towards those meaty issues.
When you begin to take apart this......FOR WHAT? How? WHat exactly will this accomplish? Bush's flaws were out in the open already.....Like I said this will only feed the fire of 527s...We can all disect this issue to the bone but in the end of the day it will not have a lasting effect.
6)The GOP party will counter this with more 527s, Kerry is not attacking the issues. This will destroy his entire campaign if he doesn't pursue the economic(domestic issues). The public will wonder if going negative on the past 35yrs will serve any purpose? He is playing right into the GOPs Campaign's hand by staying on the past. The public already knows what kind of leader Bush is and thats why the polls show where he stands today on foreign policy against Kerry. Kerry isnt suppose to fight Bush head on ....as far as leadership on foreign policy, he will lose.
My 2cents.
I agree that the public won't be affected. The parties are more segregated than ever. It almost feels like watching one of those sappy old westerns. "Draw a line in the sand, Dems on one side, Reps on the other." The party lines have been drawn and too many of the public vote strickly on the notion that "I'm a democrat and thats how I'm voting." It seems no one takes the time to get informed anymore. What ever is easier will do.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Blah blah...Democrats on the offensive. To you fellas its a big deal. The American public wont be affected. Let me give you some reasons as for why: 1) Its something that is isnt new. Al Gore's campaign brought this issue up already in 2000. Quite frankly it really wont have any affect because the public already knew about this....and it was always a fuzzy issue that never had a deep impact. 2) Bush said already, he made mistakes in the past and regrets them(dui,etc,) Unlike John Kerry who still hasnt mentioned why he threw away his purple hearts and also met with the N.Vietnamese during the war, and also came back and defamed his soldiers. But thats already been debated. But like I said, Yes its wrong, but from a political point of view this will be a nonissue in a few days. 3) Bush didnt center his campaign around this service unlike Kerry which it took a stab at the heart of his campaign with the swiftboat ads. 4)People know Bush has made mistakes and are looking for Kerry to present himself to the public...which he has yet to do. Dwelling on the past 35 yrs will only hurt Kerry and feed the 527s to attack him more. In a mudslinging contest Kerry will lose....plain and simple. 5)Its basically a complicated issue the American public doesn't want to deal with....for example: Kerry's swift boat attacks:[SIMPLE] ''Kerry WAS Bad MAN-HE SLANDER WHEN HE COME BACK, KERRY LIE ABOUT PURPLE HEARTs''....The general american public looks towards those meaty issues. When you begin to take apart this......FOR WHAT? How? WHat exactly will this accomplish? Bush's flaws were out in the open already.....Like I said this will only feed the fire of 527s...We can all disect this issue to the bone but in the end of the day it will not have a lasting effect. 6)The GOP party will counter this with more 527s, Kerry is not attacking the issues. This will destroy his entire campaign if he doesn't pursue the economic(domestic issues). The public will wonder if going negative on the past 35yrs will serve any purpose? He is playing right into the GOPs Campaign's hand by staying on the past. The public already knows what kind of leader Bush is and thats why the polls show where he stands today on foreign policy against Kerry. Kerry isnt suppose to fight Bush head on ....as far as leadership on foreign policy, he will lose. My 2cents. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Do you seriously believe any of the crap that you write? I have a hard time believing that you are that brainwashed. |
Grow up kid...go re-read that post again. | quote: |
Blah blah...Democrats on the offensive. To you fellas its a big deal. The American public wont be affected. Let me give you some reasons as for why: 1) Its something that is isnt new. Al Gore's campaign brought this issue up already in 2000. Quite frankly it really wont have any affect because the public already knew about this....and it was always a fuzzy issue that never had a deep impact. 2) Bush said already, he made mistakes in the past and regrets them(dui,etc,) Unlike John Kerry who still hasnt mentioned why he threw away his purple hearts and also met with the N.Vietnamese during the war, and also came back and defamed his soldiers. But thats already been debated. But like I said, Yes its wrong, but from a political point of view this will be a nonissue in a few days. 3) Bush didnt center his campaign around this service unlike Kerry which it took a stab at the heart of his campaign with the swiftboat ads. 4)People know Bush has made mistakes and are looking for Kerry to present himself to the public...which he has yet to do. The public knows Bush's record..its blurry. They are waiting to see who Kerry is; when 527s attack his record they have a more lasting effect due to the public not knowing the man very well. Dwelling on the past 35 yrs will only hurt Kerry and feed the 527s to attack him more. In a mudslinging contest Kerry will lose....plain and simple. 5)Its basically a complicated issue the American public doesn't want to deal with....for example: Kerry's swift boat attacks:[SIMPLE] ''Kerry WAS Bad MAN-HE SLANDER WHEN HE COME BACK, KERRY LIE ABOUT PURPLE HEARTs''....The general american public looks towards those meaty issues. When you begin to take apart this......FOR WHAT? How? WHat exactly will this accomplish? Bush's flaws were out in the open already.....Like I said this will only feed the fire of 527s...We can all disect this issue to the bone but in the end of the day it will not have a lasting effect. 6)The GOP party will counter this with more 527s, Kerry is not attacking the issues. This will destroy his entire campaign if he doesn't pursue the economic(domestic issues). The public will wonder if going negative on the past 35yrs will serve any purpose? He is playing right into the GOPs Campaign's hand by staying on the past. The public already knows what kind of leader Bush is and thats why the polls show where he stands today on foreign policy against Kerry. Kerry isnt suppose to fight Bush head on ....as far as leadership on foreign policy, he will lose. My 2cents. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Someone disagrees with you? You pull the brainwash card.... Grow up kid...go re-read that post again. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X It was a comment based on the majority of your posts. You don't seem like you're really that stupid so can I only assume that it's your programming. I'm sorry for you, son. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Are you going to refute each one of those points...? or just keep pulling the brainwash card. You are looking more like an idiot the more you just sit there and sling mud. I posted a thought out post due to your whining in the other thread about bin ladin. I did it just for you....so you are now just going to sit there and say nothing. Ok I'll wait for an informed democrat to come respond... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Dude, if I was really pressed to lose any more IQ points I'd either go do some drugs or beat my head against a wall. At least those things can be stimulating, unlike your empty-headed babble which strikes me as over-regurgitated cud. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Don't waste my time next time...pls |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X You do that all by yourself. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec You're the one throwing insults around like some kind of cave man. Like I said, If you are not going to debate the topics and refute them because you can't think of a rebuttal on your own..then go post in the Chill Out forum....plenty of people similar to you. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Hey jerky, you're the one posting off topic in a thread I created. Why don't get your black pot and kettle out of here and start your own thread? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Hey jerky, you're the one posting off topic in a thread I created. Why don't get your black pot and kettle out of here and start your own thread? |
Damn, you know it's election season when the posts become flame wars so easily here.
Take it easy, guys. Let me try to address your points, speed:
| quote: |
| Originally posted by speedracer_mec Blah blah...Democrats on the offensive. To you fellas its a big deal. |
| quote: |
| The American public wont be affected. Let me give you some reasons as for why: 1) Its something that is isnt new. Al Gore's campaign brought this issue up already in 2000. Quite frankly it really wont have any affect because the public already knew about this....and it was always a fuzzy issue that never had a deep impact. |
| quote: |
| 2) Bush said already, he made mistakes in the past and regrets them(dui,etc,) Unlike John Kerry who still hasnt mentioned why he threw away his purple hearts and also met with the N.Vietnamese during the war, and also came back and defamed his soldiers. But thats already been debated. But like I said, Yes its wrong, but from a political point of view this will be a nonissue in a few days. |
| quote: |
| 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. http://www.boston.com/news/politics..._duty_at_guard/ |
| quote: |
| 3) Bush didnt center his campaign around this service unlike Kerry which it took a stab at the heart of his campaign with the swiftboat ads. |
| quote: |
| 4)People know Bush has made mistakes and are looking for Kerry to present himself to the public...which he has yet to do. The public knows Bush's record..its blurry. They are waiting to see who Kerry is; when 527s attack his record they have a more lasting effect due to the public not knowing the man very well. Dwelling on the past 35 yrs will only hurt Kerry and feed the 527s to attack him more. In a mudslinging contest Kerry will lose....plain and simple. |
| quote: |
| 5)Its basically a complicated issue the American public doesn't want to deal with....for example: Kerry's swift boat attacks:[SIMPLE] ''Kerry WAS Bad MAN-HE SLANDER WHEN HE COME BACK, KERRY LIE ABOUT PURPLE HEARTs''....The general american public looks towards those meaty issues. When you begin to take apart this......FOR WHAT? How? WHat exactly will this accomplish? Bush's flaws were out in the open already.....Like I said this will only feed the fire of 527s...We can all disect this issue to the bone but in the end of the day it will not have a lasting effect. |
| quote: |
| 6)The GOP party will counter this with more 527s, Kerry is not attacking the issues. This will destroy his entire campaign if he doesn't pursue the economic(domestic issues). The public will wonder if going negative on the past 35yrs will serve any purpose? He is playing right into the GOPs Campaign's hand by staying on the past. The public already knows what kind of leader Bush is and thats why the polls show where he stands today on foreign policy against Kerry. Kerry isnt suppose to fight Bush head on ....as far as leadership on foreign policy, he will lose. My 2cents. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Damn, you know it's election season when the posts become flame wars so easily here. Take it easy, guys. Let me try to address your points, speed: True, however some might believe this is exactly what the Dems. needed to do in the first place. Kerry's plea to have a positive debate was completely in vain, and I think Kerry knew that anyway. They can only be defined by the Repubs. for so long, it's their turn to attempt to define the Repubs. on their own terms. 8 weeks is a helluva long time. I'm starting to wish it would come sooner, regardless of who wins. True, it's not new, but the new documents and details outlining the case against Bush's account of his record IS new, and is becoming more and more damning. I tend to agree, though it is a much more decisive case against Bush verses the case against Kerry's record by the Smear Boaters, who've been riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements. This case against Bush is not merely a handful of guys with a supposed personal account of eyewitness events that contradict a handful of other guy's TRUE eyewitness account as well as the Naval record. Rather, this is a case involving actual documents that are revealing the discrepencies between what Bush has said and what is actually on record. There's still a 5 month gap of unexplained events, however, which none of these new documents have explained, nor has Bush. Furthermore, by failing to show up under a direct order, it was by authority of the National Guard to place Bush under involuntary active duty, and would have likely sent him to Vietnam. This did not happen, nor did this happen either: Additionally, the documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are somehow missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20.../D84TK0SG0.html Funny how those have gone "missing", huh? And though the Pentagon has finally released Bush's flight records, which demonstrate a 5 month gap in flight time, Bush also has yet to provide: -Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot -Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot -Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972 -Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it -Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance -Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet) -The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding) -Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973? So what we really have at issue here is not just Bush going AWOL, but the Air Force willfully covering up the issue through favoritisms being invoked from the powers that be (i.e. Daddy Bush). That's a double whammy, and we can see now why the Pentagon has been dragging it's feet on finding these missing records over the months. Don't be fooled by the Smear Boaters and their ads - they were gonna go after Kerry regardless. Keep in mind that Hoffmann was "infuriated" by that Boston Globe writer's biography on Kerry back in February, and the Smear Boater's campaign against Kerry with a book of their own in tow started up in late April. They had accumulated a good amt. of money by late June, and were gearing up their negative ad campaign at that time to hit Kerry immediately after the Dem. Convention. Regardless of what Kerry was gonna state, this smear campaign was gonna come after him no matter what. However, I do agree that Kerry could have downplayed his medals and Vietnam record a little more, and could have focused on present day issues a little better like he is now. I agree, though not quite on the conservative spin level as you depict. Now you downplay Bush's flaws and state that they have been out in the open, yet in point 5) you concede that Bush's record is blurry? Slightly contradictory there, but nevertheless I disagree with you. Neither candidate has demonstrated very well that they have flaws, which is exactly what you would expect come election season. There is a myriad of flaws that Bush could concede to a little better, some which I think would actually help his position IF he actually admitted to them. Regardless, both candidates are trying to act "presidential", which means flaws are pushed aside as far as possible. I disagree. I see Kerry finally attacking the issues the way he should have about 2 wks. ago. If you've watched any of his stump speeches you'll notice that Kerry has abandoned his Vietnam rhetoric almost entirely (as he should). I also doubt that this new stuff about Bush's questionable historical record will bring out Kerry talking about his Vietnam record again. If Kerry does go this route, THEN I would say it is a mistake. People want to hear today's issues that effect them now. And I do agree with you for the most part that this issue of Bush's Guard record will receive significantly less playing time than Kerry's, primarily because the public is likely tired of it. Even though I believe it deserves just as much time (if not more), it's likely not gonna happen. |
and trancerX...
"Texans For Truth".. the comeback to Veterans for Truth.. at least, this IS THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH!! no twisting or anything like.. the veterans.. its a backstab to the republicans, for messing around so much..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX "Texans For Truth".. the comeback to Veterans for Truth.. at least, this IS THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH!! no twisting or anything like.. the veterans.. its a backstab to the republicans, for messing around so much.. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Damn, you know it's election season when the posts become flame wars so easily here. Take it easy, guys. Let me try to address your points, speed: True, however some might believe this is exactly what the Dems. needed to do in the first place. Kerry's plea to have a positive debate was completely in vain, and I think Kerry knew that anyway. They can only be defined by the Repubs. for so long, it's their turn to attempt to define the Repubs. on their own terms. 8 weeks is a helluva long time. I'm starting to wish it would come sooner, regardless of who wins. True, it's not new, but the new documents and details outlining the case against Bush's account of his record IS new, and is becoming more and more damning. This case against Bush is not merely a handful of guys with a supposed personal account of eyewitness events that contradict a handful of other guy's TRUE eyewitness account as well as the Naval record. Rather, this is a case involving actual documents that are revealing the discrepencies between what Bush has said and what is actually on record. There's still a 5 month gap of unexplained events, however, which none of these new documents have explained, nor has Bush. Furthermore, by failing to show up under a direct order, it was by authority of the National Guard to place Bush under involuntary active duty, and would have likely sent him to Vietnam. This did not happen, nor did this happen either: Additionally, the documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are somehow missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20.../D84TK0SG0.html Funny how those have gone "missing", huh? And though the Pentagon has finally released Bush's flight records, which demonstrate a 5 month gap in flight time, Bush also has yet to provide: -Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot -Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot -Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972 -Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it -Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance -Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet) -The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding) -Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973? So what we really have at issue here is not just Bush going AWOL, but the Air Force willfully covering up the issue through favoritisms being invoked from the powers that be (i.e. Daddy Bush). That's a double whammy, and we can see now why the Pentagon has been dragging it's feet on finding these missing records over the months. |
| quote: |
Don't be fooled by the Smear Boaters and their ads - they were gonna go after Kerry regardless. Keep in mind that Hoffmann was "infuriated" by that Boston Globe writer's biography on Kerry back in February, and the Smear Boater's campaign against Kerry with a book of their own in tow started up in late April. They had accumulated a good amt. of money by late June, and were gearing up their negative ad campaign at that time to hit Kerry immediately after the Dem. Convention. Regardless of what Kerry was gonna state, this smear campaign was gonna come after him no matter what. However, I do agree that Kerry could have downplayed his medals and Vietnam record a little more, and could have focused on present day issues a little better like he is now. |
| quote: |
I disagree. I see Kerry finally attacking the issues the way he should have about 2 wks. ago. If you've watched any of his stump speeches you'll notice that Kerry has abandoned his Vietnam rhetoric almost entirely (as he should). |
Wasn't there something about the superscript "th" not being on typewriters when it was supposedly typed? I read an article about it but I can't find it anywhere... hrm.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Seventil Wasn't there something about the superscript "th" not being on typewriters when it was supposedly typed? I read an article about it but I can't find it anywhere... hrm. |
Even if Kerry was a genuine war hero and Bush wasn't, I don't really care. That war was over 30 years ago and their service has no relevance for either candidate's ability to lead the nation today. Both were warts on a frog's ass in world events back then. Their actions since then has particular relevance. Bush is leading the modern war on terror and Kerry has voted against every major military weapons system as well. Good thing Kerry was the minority, else we wouldn't have the weapons at hand to fight Gulf War I and the GWOT.
[[[smoke]]]
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.