Bush military records 'destroyed'

[Grammatron]

You posted this:

I can see no earlier mentioning of Clinton in this thread, which was about Dubya's military records. What was your point?

On another note, you have posted these, in the order I quote them:

- at that time a president (Clinton) was in office who was a deserter

- As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that

- If no one in the armed forces has called him (Bush) a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?

Do we have different standards here - Clinton was a deserter, Bush was not, because he was never charged with that?

I posted a correction to my post that Clinton was a draft dodger not a deserter.

The records are supposedly destroyed in 96/97 who was in the office?

CapelDodger replies with an implication that Bush had the records destroyed because he was considering run for the office.

I respond with why bother doing that when the current presiden at the time had a horrible military record (or lack there of).

So no it's not "Well Clinton did it too...." thing at all, it's me pointing out the conspiracy theory people are trying to create is ridiculas. But you of course are welcome to put the tinfoil hats on and think about what evil Bush is doing.

 

[Skeptic]

You're only a deserter if you're charged with it?

Why, no, of course not. You're a deserter the moment someone who is your political opponent and has an ax to grind against you declared you one.

 

[Ziggurat]

You haven`t seen my posts then.
You are obviously ignorant about Iraq befor Fox News told you about it...was doing rather well until FoxNews recruited scum like you around a neocon agenda planned years ago...I think that`s the reason you get so uppity these days...you like the aggression, you just got left out with the say so angle LOL

That's funny, none of my links were from fox news. Where are your links? Oh, you didn't post any. I fact, you never posted ANY information comparing Iraq under Saddam to Iraq now. You just insist that you've got lots of Iraqi friends, and so you know what all Iraqis think, and how dare I presume to read the writings of Iraqis IN Iraq and post an opinion based on the facts they put forward. What, they don't count because you didn't talk to them? And you accuse ME of arrogance?

Thats always been the problem with self important warmongers...they think the war is being fought for their own good...can you say "dickhead" on here without getting banned? LOL

If you need to resort to profanity to insult someone, all that really shows is a lack of mental capacity on your part, you cretinous sack of goat stool. See, no swear words

 

[Mel]

This endless argument comparing Clinton's military experience to Bush's seems to do more harm to Bush than anything else.

Clinton was only one of thousands of young men (like Cheney) who legally avoided military service. Clinton is NOT running against Bush. If the only way Bush supporters can make their candidate look good is to continue to denigrate a FORMER president (or the current rival), I don't think that speaks very highly of Bush's qualifications.


The ONLY reason anybody cares a bit about Bush's questionable military service is because he made a COMMITMENT that seemingly he did not fulfill. People have a right to know that a candidate has HONORED his commitment to his country.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:

CapelDodger replies with an implication that Bush had the records destroyed because he was considering run for the office.

I respond with why bother doing that when the current presiden at the time had a horrible military record (or lack there of).

Clinton's avoidance of Vietnam service - quite legal, as I understand it - was raised against him by the VRWC. It failed to hurt because he had opposed the war. The subject was more hurtful to Geroge I's VP whose name escapes me, what a cypher he must have been. You know, the potatoe man, who supported the war but got out of going. Pretty much the George II situation. The subject will, at least, have come up during brainstorming sessions. Whether or not the records were destroyed as a result is anybody's guess. I don't see it as something that can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Does anyone know whether Rove anointed Bush as his chosen vehicle, or Bush recruited Rove?

 

[Grammatron]

from Grammatron:
Clinton's avoidance of Vietnam service - quite legal, as I understand it - was raised against him by the VRWC. It failed to hurt because he had opposed the war. The subject was more hurtful to Geroge I's VP whose name escapes me, what a cypher he must have been. You know, the potatoe man, who supported the war but got out of going. Pretty much the George II situation. The subject will, at least, have come up during brainstorming sessions. Whether or not the records were destroyed as a result is anybody's guess. I don't see it as something that can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Does anyone know whether Rove anointed Bush as his chosen vehicle, or Bush recruited Rove?

So why not destroy all the negative records?

 

[jj]

So, when will Bobby the K, and all those other conservative attack-dogs start lying about the people pointing out the truth in this thread, and then start stalking them about the forum, lying about what they said here, there, and elsewhere?

Or will the new moderation prevent this?

News at 11.

I'd think it's obvious by now, Bush was a draft dodger in spirit at the very least, and it seems fairly clear that he even shirked Guard duty.

On the converse, Kerry has a silver star.

So, of course, we have a bunch of quacking attack dogs screaming about how Kerry would be bad for defense. Yeah. Sure.

 

[Blue Monk]

Seems like some people like to read headlines and not the whole article:



So did Bush build a time machine to go and destroy those records 3 years before he became president?

The proper question is, "Gee, didn't those records get destroyed at just about the exact time Bush's name was first being bandied about for President?"

 

[tamiO]

"After the liberation, the new Ministry of Health decided to cancel the self-funded system in the hospitals making all the treatments and medicine for free, thousands of families are now being treated at no cost, they are so glad to get the free treatment."

"I feel so pleased when sometimes I sit in the pharmacy room there in Basra with my colleague when someone comes and gets his medicine then says ‘how much?’.. And we reply ‘Ibbalash’! ( free)."

Maybe some of the people who will be suffering from the latest Medicaid retrictions would do well to move to Iraq, where they could get medical testing and medicine for free. /sidetrack

 

[jj]

So why not destroy all the negative records?

Incompetance and a desire to have just enough left out to create a big fight about it at a time when the lies won't come out until too late.

Remember the last election? Remember all the voters in Florida who were prevented from voting? Let's not talk about the irrational results coming back from some sectors, and just point out the number of people who were illegally denied the right to vote at all.

'W', you owe Jeb a big one there.

 

[Grammatron]

Incompetance and a desire to have just enough left out to create a big fight about it at a time when the lies won't come out until too late.

So they would go just far enough to destroy some of the records, but not all so Bush would have something to be criticized for? Oh yeah that makes sense.

 

[Bjorn]

I posted a correction to my post that Clinton was a draft dodger not a deserter.

And continued: Which if you think about it not really that different.

So they would go just far enough to destroy some of the records, but not all so Bush would have something to be criticized for? Oh yeah that makes sense.

Hehe. Do you think it would have raised less suspicion if they hadn't found any records at all?

 

[jj]

So they would go just far enough to destroy some of the records, but not all so Bush would have something to be criticized for? Oh yeah that makes sense.

Yep, it certainly does if you're Rove and you think people are stupid enough to fall for it.

 

[Grammatron]

And continued: Which if you think about it not really that different.

Hehe. Do you think it would have raised less suspicion if they hadn't found any records at all?

As opposed to all the suspicion raised now?

 

[Bjorn]

As opposed to all the suspicion raised now?

Yes.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:

As opposed to all the suspicion raised now?

As opposed to what might have been confirmed by the actual records subjected to a coffee-spill. You can't destroy all the records and have a blank on the CV (which people will fill out with "drunk and drugged-up"). Nor is it a good idea to invent anything - far trickier than conspiracy theorists realise, you'll agree. I'm not saying it's so, I'm just saying ...

 

[ssibal]

The proper question is, "Gee, didn't those records get destroyed at just about the exact time Bush's name was first being bandied about for President?"

Begging the question....

 

[Kerberos]

Nice logic leap, but not quite.

Why not?

If no one in the armed forces has called him a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desert
If he's "forsaken his duty or post" or especially if he's been "absent without leave from the armed forces with no intention of returning" he's a deserter, regardless of whether he's been charged or not. What on Earth gives you the notion that you can only be guilty of a crime (or rather some crimes because apparently the principle only applies to Bush and desertion but not Saddam and genocide,), if you've been charged with it? Commiting a crime makes you guilty of it, indictment and even conviction is beside the point.

 

[Grammatron]

Why not?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desert
If he's "forsaken his duty or post" or especially if he's been "absent without leave from the armed forces with no intention of returning" he's a deserter, regardless of whether he's been charged or not. What on Earth gives you the notion that you can only be guilty of a crime (or rather some crimes because apparently the principle only applies to Bush and desertion but not Saddam and genocide,), if you've been charged with it? Commiting a crime makes you guilty of it, indictment and even conviction is beside the point.

So present the evidence you based this on then, I'm sure you had looked at it objectively, weighed in all posibilities and only then arrived at the conclusion that Bush is a deserter. I look forward to reading such a comprehensive post.

 

[Kerberos]

So present the evidence you based this on then, I'm sure you had looked at it objectively, weighed in all posibilities and only then arrived at the conclusion that Bush is a deserter. I look forward to reading such a comprehensive post.

Whoops, there goes the goal posts, I neither know, nor care if Bush is a deserter, and AFAIR I've never expressed an opinion on the subject, but you said that "Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that."(my emphasis). I simply pointed out that it is 100% irrelevant whether he's been charged. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but what you said was that Bush couldn't be a deserter because he wasn't indicted.