According to this site I found, they claim that President Bush never finished his Reserve obligation, just as Michael Moore claims.

There should be an ‘Honorable’ or ‘Dishonorable’ Discharge document, proving this one way or the other. I’m sure anyone can check out if this is true by requesting a "Freedom of Information" copy of that document.

If it’s true, then the US Army should go after deserters, no matter how long they have been on the run And I think that if it is true, they can track him down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and arrest him. After all, they go after common shmucks, seems fair to me if they go after the elites too.

Here’s the site:
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhaw k%20Headquarters

Old thread on same subject. (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32872)

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2003/db030731.gif

Christ, I had to listen to Hannity rant about this yesterday. He was so outraged that they would try to besmirch this honorable man's military record. And especially considering Kerry's record (meaning his protest of the war).
Hannity is such a dipshit. A caller last week asked him where the terms of left and right came from. He just blew the question off, mumbled something about that is just what they are called. He didn't know!
I knew, and I fix copy machines for a living.

Historical Origin of the Terms

The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

I guess you don't have to be too bright to be a professional propagandist.

I guess you don't have to be too bright to be a professional propagandist.
haha, any jerkoff can see their reference by watching the SotU address, or any assembly of Congress. Hannity is a raving asshat and the conservatives would be better off without him.

As for the thread topic, I hear this week's conference on the subject is being held in stall eleven, which can be identified by the bruised horse corpse therein.

Ruben Navarette, Jr., a columnist for the Dallas Morning News was on a talk show out of New York recently, discussing the recent primaries . He appears regularly on the show to offer commentary about voters and what they may be seeking in the next election. When the show’s host brought up the "accusations" made, most recently, by Michael Moore (with his "deserter" reference) and DNC chair Terry McCauliffe that our Commander-in-Chief was AWOL while doing time in the Air National Guard back in the Vietnam War, Navarette said, speaking for people of his generation (20s-30s) who weren't around for the Vietnam War, that the issue was a non-starter.

Navarette, who seems to hold moderate-to-right-wing views, said that these voters don't feel that what someone did during the Vietnam era, during a time of great confusion, thirty years ago, has any relevance to their votes in the upcoming election. We don't care, he seems to say, if Bush shirked his duty: "I don't give Bush any strikes for not showing up for duty in Alabama, just like I don't give Kerry any points" for going to war.

:m: Peace

The right wing shouting heads say that it is shameful to bring this up.
I would say; It is shameful, but the only thing we disagree upon is the word "it".

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushwall.jpg

Conservative and Liberal parties defend their leader to the death, even when they know s/he is wrong. It is incredible how dishonest politicians are. I am a conservative, but I don't agree with Bush and I grow weary of people assuming I should.

The parties are bound by absolutism, they cannot admit a fault of their own party or agree to a standard of the other party, making them at high risk for internal destruction. It is like admitting your boat is too good to fix the hole in the bottom.

Well here it is, this is the best I will do for the amount of time I spent looking this up, just a few minutes ;).

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=326

Godless.

Christ, I had to listen to Hannity rant about this yesterday. He was so outraged that they would try to besmirch this honorable man's military record. And especially considering Kerry's record (meaning his protest of the war).
At least Kerry got some sense after he came back, what was Baby Bush doing? Isn't Hannity a chickenhawk too? Would you trust either to lead you into war?

W. got honourably discharged.

all the conspiracy theories in the world would not change that.

Honorably discharged from the champagne unit he used to dodge the war and that he didn't show up to. Given his connections he probably would have had to rape Julie Nixon to get a dishonorable discharge. Dishonorable discharge? There's a Clinton joke in there somewhere.

W. got honourably discharged.

all the conspiracy theories in the world would not change that.
problem one; show it, show the world those little pieces of paper.
he can't, because he never finished. Never showed up in Alabama or back in Texas, then he got an early out as Baby Bush to go to Harvard. As a veteran, Bush can send for it & any other collaborating evidence, via this site: http://usgovinfo.about.com/bldd214.htm

problem two; Baby Bush says that the records are in Colorado, hey! He's the Prez, he can ask for them anytime he wants, Missouri saves them: http://www.sos.mo.gov/library/reference/orders/1986/eo1986_008.asp

or he can have his people take care of it for him, making it a cover-up:http://www.onlinejournal.com/bush/110400Starr-Conover/110400starr-conover.html

problem three; the defense of national guard service during the VietNam war.
most people joined it then to avoid 'real' duty, in war-torn VietNam, typical elite behavior

Here's the money, show us the papers:
http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=158

"he can do this, he can do that"

surely he can.
but it's not the job of the president to appease any sort of nonsense requests that aren't even relevant to his presidency, upon request

but it's not the job of the president to appease any sort of nonsense requests that aren't even relevant to his presidency, upon requestonly a liar would think that way, when questions of his past arise, the truth should be told, don't you think? what does he have to hide with that little paper?

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

records that he finished serving and was honorably discharged are public
were discussed in last elections and scrutinized ...

websites are not proof... references to real and existing documents is if you ask them to provide it and they do not the information is fabricated and false.

records that he finished serving and was honorably discharged are public
were discussed in last elections and scrutinized ...

websites are not proof... references to real and existing documents is if you ask them to provide it and they do not the information is fabricated and false.where are they? Baby Bush couldn't show them, why?

records that he finished serving and was honorably discharged are public
were discussed in last elections and scrutinized ...

websites are not proof... references to real and existing documents is if you ask them to provide it and they do not the information is fabricated and false.

and in addition, his military service is not even relevant
people are like papparazzi.. wanna find some microscopic bad thing, or even make it up, and then amplify it times a thousand... and concentrate only on that.

how is his military service relevant?

where are they? Baby Bush couldn't show them, why?
if they are indeed public, it's not his job to fetch you documents upon request.

Sincere Bush apologists should carefully watch the White House Press Secretary's briefing of today, 2-10-04 on C-Span (http://www.c-span.org/), (sorry, can't link directly, but it's 1 or 2 easy clicks to navigate to). Consider what is very evident there. This requires a few minutes of your time, but can significantly enhance awareness on this subject. I dare you to confront the demeanor of this administration when cornered. I would like for it to be explained to me how there is any possibility that this exchange represents a good-faith effort at transparency on very simple questions.

In my opinion, the extreme evasiveness does not involve whether Bush satisfactorily served in the National Guard, at least to the extent required of a young man possessing such connnections as did the young officer in question. What is being desperately obscured are the reasons why an officer in whom a great deal was invested in flight training was removed from flight status. One plausible theory is that George W. Bush had a substance abuse problem at a time when the Guard was initiating drug screening.

What is conspicuously lacking is any personal corroboration by any individual who personally served with Lt. GW Bush in the Alabama Air Guard, whether as fellow pilots or in any military capacity. My service began nearly 20 years ago, and I could certainly produce compatriots to corroborate the chronology and quality of my service for decades hence.

I did not find this story particularly interesting until watching Scott McClellan's very contentious exchange with the White House Press Corps today. This conference strongly suggests a Secretary in the unenviable position of hiding something with scandalous potential. What may disastrously unravel for this White House is not so much a priveleged service history, but the present act of deception. As with our last President, the offense is far overshadowed by deception and obstructionism, which fatally destroys credibility. I think we are witnessing the beginning of an accelerating unraveling of this administration, which has created enemies not only in the world and within the country, but within many government agencies and even within the GOP.

If you disagree with me and feel unwavering confidence in this Presidency, I challenge you to watch the press conference and then make an honest gut check about the integrity of this administration.

Here's an interesting read:

John Kerry's frontrunner status among Democratic hopefuls for president has once again, as during the 2000 campaign, placed a spotlight on President Bush's military service during the Vietnam era. It has done so on two levels. First, did Mr. Bush meet all of his obligations as a member of the Texas Air National Guard? The charge here, recycled from 2000, was catapulted into the campaign by the odious Michael Moore, who in the course of endorsing Wesley Clark, called President Bush a "deserter."
Article - National Review (http://nationalreview.com/owens/owens200402090833.asp)

It was interesting, for me especially that America's persistent Vietnam ghosts still haunt. "Hanoi Jane" and other cries of American Supremacists are back. I'm sure we'll even hear that if not for dissent, we could have killed more than just 4 million Southeast Asians, and they would have finally welcomed America's cultural genius, good intentions, and global authority.

I would like to know more specifically than in passing smears, how Kerry, Fonda, and the thousands of other Americans who reached a conclusion that the Vietnam war was a mistake and a defeat for the USA, who endeavored to end the needless carnage on all sides, who made a stand to minimize damage of that senseless war to US interests- how they can be criticized from a standpoint of patriotic loyalty, for holding these now popularly-accepted opinions. Domestic opposition to the Vietnam quagmire saved American lives and credibility.

As we face America's inevitable and ignonimous withdrawal from the remains of Iraq after the many counterproductive sacrifices still ahead, we will need similar American moral courage and rational humility again. When it's time to pack in another grandiose "police action" turned horrific, we will again need a patriotic cross-section of America who will be politically mature enough to personally face difficult truths, and courageous enough to publicly confront the lies.

records were shown again ... yesterday so plz do not bs
they are gonna now ignore this ever happened and try to go on.
the thing is people in middle america do not forget when someone lies to them
nor take it lightly the more attacks are made and proven wrong the less people
will vote for a democrat in the next elections.

I watched the press briefing re-run on C-Span last night, and it was readily apparent that Scotty went in with four or five lines of response, and couldn’t vary from them at all, no matter what question was asked. …the records, which the White House obtained from blurry 30-year-old microfiche files in Colorado, show only the specific days in 1972 and 1973, 82 in all, that Mr. Bush was paid for his service.

Although Scott McClellan, the White Houses press secretary, said the documents "clearly show that the president fulfilled his duties," he would not say, under repeated questioning at a contentious White House briefing that the records definitively prove that Mr. Bush reported for duty on those dates. (Full text here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/politics/11BUSH.html))It was basically "This document shows he got paid on these dates, and you get paid for the days you serve, so he served. Oh, and got an honorable discharge." The press, to my unutterable delight, wasn't buying at all, and kept after him. I was frankly surprised he stuck it out as long as he did; he must have repeated each of his lines 12-15 times or more. I wish I'd taped the performance for posterity.

Yes, folks, that large screeching sound was an iceberg.

:m: Peace.

those payrecords seriously do not show anything about him being present.

I'm still scratching my head on this one. Why does McAuliffe want to play re-runs when he's got so much fresh material to use against Bush? This story is not going to play any better in the minds of voters than it did when it came out four years ago. It's almost as if McAuliffe thinks that he can reverse the outcome of the 2000 results by trotting this out again.

Tracking polls show that this sort of story almost never has the legs to seriously change the outcome of an election. Conversely, issues like the economy and jobs, war and diplomacy most certainly affect swing voters. Republicans have to pleased to see the Democrats avoiding the major issues and ranting about the NG service record. I'd say they will figure it out in a few weeks and drop it. In the meantime the dirt will continue to come out from under Kerry's fingernails as the microscope gets a singular object to examine.

Keep in mind, Bush is sitting on $150,000,000 war chest, and has spent a sum total of dick so far.

The big story is yet to come. What are people going to say when it comes out that the most recognizable, most popular athlete in the world is a Republican?

"Tracking polls show that this sort of story almost never has the legs to seriously change the outcome of an election."

Something is clearly being concealed about the President's military career, and it is not just about the liberalisms of champaign Guard units. If W's "missing" time turns out to have been specifically buried because of a carefully concealed shame, such as a serious substance abuse problem while in uniform, the consequences will be instantly pivotal. W has alienated many retired veterans, and with one or two credible and corroborated witnesses, the resultant media frenzy will make the Dean "Yeargh" seem like a sneeze.

Goofyfish: Old thread on same subject

Do you have another link? That one was a bit too similar to hold my interest.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

Another false acusation shot down.

" 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch"

" It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5
"

Thanks for the link, I thought it might even satisfy, until I had the pinko audacity to actually read it. Maybe Hanoi Jane hypnotized me, and as a result this smells like bullshit. Or maybe the following is why this dog won't hunt:

Col. Campenni asserts that this developing issue is an attempt by "Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard". That's not only false, but it is feigned indignance where obviously none is warranted. The nearest thing to slandering the National Guard are preposterous assertions that it is run like an informal club, with officers coming and going between commands and duty assignments at will and largely undocumented.

What is presently titillating journalists as irresistably as a naughty White House intern is the bizarre defensive behavior on the part of the Bush White House regarding what really should be an open-and-shut issue. By clumsily attracting suspicion, the Bush White House will now be relentlessly compelled to provide more specific and relevant information. We all know that these things are now Washington's most popular blood sport.

Col. Campenni has stated that GW Bush served with him in the 111th FIS in 1970 and 1971. He has inferred that being removed from flight status was an unremarkable process, requiring only that a pilot miss an appointment, and even more slickly, the Col. inferred that not just any USAF Flight Surgeon would be authorized to certify a routine physical, that it had to be sychronous with one's birthday, etc. Bullshit!

Col. Campenni did not serve with Lt. GW Bush during the period that is in question, of which there has been no information released regarding specific places, times, and descriptions of duties performed.

It is not too much to ask for the Commander in Chief, with any necessary help from his cabinet and, conveniently, the entire US Armed Forces, to provide the following details for the period in question from May 1972 until the end of his Guard commitment in November of 1974:

Duties Performed in 1973
Chain of Command in 1973
Reason for failure to submit to a flight physical, lack of which resulted in temporary suspension of flight status.
Reason flight status was never reinstated after returning to Houston for 7 months, with no Guard duty


Reference:

Another Air Guardsman's Analysis (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003z8g)
Martin Heldt (http://awol.gq.nu/4dawol.htm)
Eleanor Clift (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4114162/)

One last note- The Col. asserts F-102s did not fly in Vietnam. Well, lookiehere (http://www.dposs.com/t_jensen-dab-reiling-account-1965.htm) at some junk lying around Danang.

Just to throw another log in the fire!.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_pr obe/

Godless.

Just a random aside. A friend of a friend loaned the friend a copy of Molly Ivins' Shrub that ended up in my hands. I see why those books are popular. There's nothing new about Mr. Moore's remarks, nothing new about this story. Each new development is strikingly similar to Ms. Ivins' depiction.

What is new about this story, and what propels it, is that the Administration is apparently stonewalling. Either this Administration is repeatedly bungling their responses by not bothering to prepare much of anything to put the story to rest, or they are hiding something.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/gutter.jpg

Hype

On the one hand, I agree with you, but I'm not surprised at the ripples and rumors of an expunged, sanitized, or even missing file. For some reason, I recall that earlier versions of the scandal ran into the same dead-end of not having really anything to go on, that the record terminated in the same Bush fog as everything else.

Personally, I think the current Bush stonewalling is smoke and mirrors. I'm trying to figure out what it is we're not supposed to be looking at. It would seem to me that either way, the present Bush strategy of dangling carrots to stoke the fires while sending Powell and McClellan on the offensive doesn't make sense.

If the records don't exist, you're only screwed worse the longer you wait. If the records do exist, then the stonewalling is intentional. And this is Bush, so he's not stonewalling on any general principle.

So the question to me is to wonder what it is we're not supposed to be looking at.

Recalling that Bush escalated his campaign against gays at the same news conference in which he accepted personal responsibility for the words in the 2003 State of the Union Address, and it worked. A great Roving Strategy, I admit. People focused on gays, not the fact that the president had finally admitted responsibility for incorrectly advising the American people and contributing to the rush to an ill-advised, ill-conceived war. Amazing.

I'm thinking this is all designed to draw attention from the 9/11 investigations. I mean, Bush apparently won't give information except at the stake of a legal argument he knows he'll lose--it's a bit like pulling teeth when "unprecedented cooperation" means the commission has to say, "Look, do we have to haul you into court for these or are you going to cooperate?" On top of that, the AP (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Sept%2011%20Commission) reports that the Kean commission is considering calling Clinton, Gore, Bush, and Cheney to testify regarding foreshadowing and possible foreknowledge.

So ... yet another empty scandal. I'm wondering what it is we're not supposed to be looking at.

Continuous and blatant red herrings can have a diminishing effect. The stonewalling in this story doesn't have the feel to me of an Administration wanting to play it out. W's political strategists surely prefer hyping distractions that do not reflect so poorly on the POTUS as this one does. Putting up White House shields so suddenly is not an indicator that the President's gurus are driving this, or that they are the least bit happy about it.

Regarding records and the lack thereof: Let's assume for a moment that something embarrassing lurks, or once lurked, in the President's service record, or that even absent dereliction, that sloppy illegal tampering once occured. Damage control would be far more difficult than it is in the case of containing classified information: For example, breaking ranks on the disparity between Iraq WMD intel and White House rhetoric can involve instant arrest and severe penalties for personnel presently under the obligations of security clearances. But inquiry into a service record is a very different kettle of fish. If any effort has been made to tamper with the President's service record, there will be multiple ways in which the attempt can break down under scrutiny. The controls on information for reasons of security and privacy are very different.

White House reaction to the resurgence of this curious issue leaves a distinct impression of fear, and I can't imagine why this would be an intentional strategy. Rather, they are possibly intent on hiding something. My wildest guess is that there was tampering for the Texas gubernatorial campaign, that far exceeds the seriousness of the lackluster duty performance on the part of a privileged young Lt GW Bush. The record tampering may have been sufficient for throwing the Texas press off the scent years ago, but now in the present, that local record tampering, and not W's lukewarm military career, is a much bigger liability should a serious inquiry be allowed to proceed any further. That's just my hunch.

"he can do this, he can do that"

surely he can.
but it's not the job of the president to appease any sort of nonsense requests that aren't even relevant to his presidency, upon request

I don't know if it's irrelevant to his presidency. I mean aren't the Republicans always jumping up and down and beating their chest like wild gorillas about the issue of this or that person's "Character"? Didn't they slam the hell out of Clinton because of his moral Character? Doesn't it say a lot about Bush's character that he just decided to ditch and not show up for duty?

I'll say one thing, this whole year long absence thing seems pretty indicative of his general work ethic. Did you know that he's taken more vacation time than any other president in history? Nearly half of his term has been vacation time.

Did you know that he's taken more vacation time than any other president in history?

it´s the time he spends in the white house that worries most of us :D

it´s not important that he is a deserter , his work ethic isn´t important - it´s important that he is an idiot ( well ... the idiot son of an asshole ) who just makes trouble

What is being desperately obscured are the reasons why an officer in whom a great deal was invested in flight training was removed from flight status. One plausible theory is that George W. Bush had a substance abuse problem at a time when the Guard was initiating drug screening.
Hmmm?,could have been the start of his cocaine habit?



What is conspicuously lacking is any personal corroboration by any individual who personally served with Lt. GW Bush in the Alabama Air Guard, whether as fellow pilots or in any military capacity. My service began nearly 20 years ago, and I could certainly produce compatriots to corroborate the chronology and quality of my service for decades hence.
I was stationed at Edwards AFB from Dec '74 to Oct '79, & I can name probably 80% of the people that served with me, including supervisors & some of the people in other units.

Exactly, Randolpho. And if you were now President, many would recall you in those days, and some would be eager to take a public stroll down memory lane- however mundane the memories might be, we're talking about recollections of serving alongside a future President of the United States. Because all Lt Bush's Alabama Guard era associates, whoever they were, can not have forever vanished along with the bulk of his service records, this story is not over.

Michael Moore is awsome man! WOO

So far, the only reservists to speak up who were present at the time and place in question only noticed Lt GW bush's conspicuous absence:

“There’s no way we wouldn’t have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him”

“I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush”

-Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop, respectively (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0213-09.htm), pilots who served in Alabama's 187th ANG Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron during the 1973 period in question.

Hype, here's the deal.

We have two options here. Focus on what both Kerry and Bush did 30 years ago. Bush was obviously not the exemplary guardsman. Kerry was obviously the recalcitrant Vietnam vet. These facts are clear.

What does that have to do with how they will govern this country?

Are those 30 year old issues more important to you than furtherance of foreign policy, economics and ability to work with congress? If so, why?

This current circus is cute, and somewhat amusing, but it really has no bearing on the future of this country.

This current circus is cute, and somewhat amusing, but it really has no bearing on the future of this country.Agreed. I would interject the idea, though, that the current circus does reflect the fact that many people would like to see Bush held accountable for anything at this point. As an electoral issue, it's not so much whether or not Bush served and served well, but What was such a big deal that you had to hide it like that?

And that question speaks more to the character and fitness of the candidate today than do his actions 30 years ago. The issue of privilege is secondary to the fact that Bush tries to run from it in order to muster the appearance of credibility.

well bush should also be held accountable for his lack of duty. he should have to face the consequnces that the common man would face for such a failure to fulfill a military obligation

"This current circus is cute, and somewhat amusing, but it really has no bearing on the future of this country."

It's interesting how different perceptions are. I don't find this circus cute nor amusing, but I know that a lack of credibility is plaguing this Presidency. Because this story hinges on the Administration's transparency and credibility in the present, and because this administration, now seeking 4 more years in power, has made radical departures in policy, it clearly has immense bearing on the future of this country.

I think that Kerry's Vietnam experience has far more parallels with the American majority than does that of GW Bush. That Kerry served with patriotism and even ruthlessness, and then arrived at and stood by the conclusion that the Vietman War was a national mistake, is far closer to the national center than is what we know of young GW Bush's experience.

I don't consider the desire to dismiss this story so much logical as it is just fatigue, disgust, and cynicism about morally disappointing politicians and the seemingly endless scandals that recur around them. Through the tawdry Clinton impeachment, most Americans seem to have missed the whole point, that a blow job was not the crime at all, but instead the deceitful reaction to the perhaps unwarranted witch hunt. What a priveleged young W actually did all those years ago is far less important than a present White House that seems intent on censoring his records to conceal something.

If Americans fully participate in democracy by learning the issues, debating them, and voting, but do not diligently insist on accountability in government, the entire activity is a charade.

And if you were now President, many would recall you in those days, and some would be eager to take a public stroll down memory lane- however mundane the memories might be, we're talking about recollections of serving alongside a future President of the United States. Because all Lt Bush's Alabama Guard era associates, whoever they were, can not have forever vanished along with the bulk of his service records, this story is not over.
Just thought of something really funny, most NG units are manned by native sons, so a Texan should have stood out in Alabama. Is there a collective loss of memory? What about all the people that worked with Bush in the Blount campaign, did they also forget baby Bush's presence or are they the only ones that remember him???

Michael Moore is awsome man! WOO

Michael Moore is awsome man! WOO

Would you care to share with us why you think so?

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushson.jpg


It turns out W was doing community service in a black ghetto in Texas in 72 for a cocaine bust as a compromise his father worked out with a judge who was ammenable to Congressman George Bush's "suggestion".

It turns out W was doing community service in a black ghetto in Texas in 72 for a cocaine bust as a compromise his father worked out with a judge who was ammenable to Congressman George Bush's "suggestion".
So, it turns out that CCR was singing about Baby Bush in that song?
So, are there any documents or reports, or were they sealed?

I just wanted to toast the notion that it took Michael Moore calling Bush a deserter to get the man to finally cough up what he's allegedly so proud of.

Raise a glass; thanks, Mike.

www.whatididinthewar.com :)

How many lives per gallon?

well bush should also be held accountable for his lack of duty. he should have to face the consequnces that the common man would face for such a failure to fulfill a military obligation
I already sent the NG Bush's present address so that they can catch this still-at-large deserter, let's see the outcome?

So far, the only reservists to speak up who were present at the time and place in question only noticed Lt GW bush's conspicuous absence:

“There’s no way we wouldn’t have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him”

“I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush”

-Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop, respectively (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0213-09.htm), pilots who served in Alabama's 187th ANG Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron during the 1973 period in question. seems to me, that a Texan in the Alabama NG, would gave stood out

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushdeserter.jpg