Bush had his guard records thrown out in 1997

[lakewinola]

Why would Bush have his records tossed?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/index.html

[jporterweb]

Thats not exactly fair. One man claims he saw this. Think about it, if you were going to dispose of records like this, would you honestly just toss it in a trash can? I don't think so.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Thats not exactly fair. One man claims he saw this. Think about it, if you were going to dispose of records like this, would you honestly just toss it in a trash can? I don't think so.

On the other hand, why is it so hard to find these docs?

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
On the other hand, why is it so hard to find these docs?

Because of a vast right wing conspiracy.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
Because of a vast right wing conspiracy.

I doubt it. More likely just because Bush skipped out, got paid anyway, and now he is president and does not want to be emberassed, don't you agree?

[Ford]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Thats not exactly fair. One man claims he saw this. Think about it, if you were going to dispose of records like this, would you honestly just toss it in a trash can? I don't think so.

Yea I can't stand Bush but .... these documents would be shredded if the account was true I would think.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I doubt it. More likely just because Bush skipped out, got paid anyway, and now he is president and does not want to be emberassed, don't you agree?

So, it’s a small right wing conspiracy? :)

[RedskinsDave]

Nice sig there Ford. What are you, 12? I'd think the admin would edit stuff like that. :confused:

[lakewinola]

Bottom line is that Bush was a draft dodger.

[RedskinsDave]

I guess that, like drug use and pardons, is only something you NOW care about.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I guess that, like drug use and pardons, is only something you NOW care about.

I would have tried to have gotten out of service for that particular war as well. Do me a favor and pose that question to Bush's dad, I remember him going off on Clinton about service and drug use. Now they say it doesn't matter. During the 2000 election ugly barbara defended her son's drug use as old news, move on - while it was the central issue of her husbands failed attempt. What hypocrites the entire family is.

[lakewinola]

Thought this was a solid article on the issue:


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/16/timep.bush.tm/index.html

[NamVet4]

. . . That suggests a brutal campaign to come about the war that is still going on—especially since the two sides haven't stopped arguing about the one that ended more than three decades ago.



Sums it up . . .
~sigh ~:(

[RedskinsDave]

Ugly Barbara? Grow up lake and take a look at the junior Senator/carpet bagger in NY.

[jporterweb]

There is no proof that he was a draft dodger. Why would he want to be a pilot if he was dodging. He would've just wanted to be a simple little nobody. But he risked his life everytime he was there flying those jets.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by jporterweb
There is no proof that he was a draft dodger. Why would he want to be a pilot if he was dodging. He would've just wanted to be a simple little nobody. But he risked his life everytime he was there flying those jets.

wow

[ArRiNgToN_56]

your on drugs and you watch CNN to much. http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/17932.htm there is proof that Bush never left his National Guard duties.

You have to be out of your mind to actually take CNN seriously they don't even report news anymore.

[Spence]

Thinks CNN does not report news yet cites The New York Post as a credible news source. Thank you, Arrington56, for the single most amusing bit of unintentional comedy this month.

[rskinsfan10]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2004/bo040217.gif

[Spence]

Great one, Kenny. I love Boondocks. No wonder the right wing tries to get that comic strip banned.

[Keino]

Aaron is a good dude. He has actually had the strip cancelled by some papers, but he has picked up alot more than he has lost.

[Spence]

I hardly ever glanced at the comic strips, but after that fracas with Boondocks and some papers cancelling the strip, I made a point to turn to that page just to read his. Freedom-loving people have to support those who are courageous enough to notice rank hypocrisy and then denounce it. The fact that he makes me laugh while doing it is just gravy.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
So, it’s a small right wing conspiracy? :)

No, I think it is because a well connected, lazy punk decided it was inconvenient to fulfill his obligation so at some point in time the matter was discretely ignored and record purged.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
No, I think it is because a well connected, lazy punk decided it was inconvenient to fulfill his obligation so at some point in time the matter was discretely ignored and record purged.

So, you don’t mind a guy who pardoned all his criminal friends, fleeces the white house, sells his (your) party down the river, cheats on his wife etc, but you do mind a guy who may not have wanted to serve in Vietnam? Makes so much sense.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
So, you don’t mind a guy who pardoned all his criminal friends, fleeces the white house, sells his (your) party down the river, cheats on his wife etc, but you do mind a guy who may not have wanted to serve in Vietnam? Makes so much sense.

Where to begin?

I hate the excrecable practice that EVERY president in the past few decades has participated in when pardoning "his criminal friends". Look it up. The oldest one I can think of off the top of my head is Reagan's pardon of Steinbrenner. I'll wager the last guy to use such pardons in a non-offensive manner was Jimmy Carter (just an idle bet, I have no proof). The Republicans have ingeniously focused on Clinton in this regard while somehow avoiding the spotlight on themselves. Of course, this is a pretty well traveled road, that of Republican's loudly professing shock and disgust for the actions and votes of their counterparts, while they themselves had committed the same actions or supported the same votes.

How did he "fleece" the White House?

How did he sell his party down the river?

I don't in any way think that serving in the military should be a pre-requisite for being president or being able to handle matters of terrorism or the politics of war, any more than one would need to be an economist to address economic matters, a teacher to handle education issues, or a doctor to handle health care policy. I could care less that that neither Clinton nor Bush served in Vietnam. I do care that Bush somehow claims to hold some sort of moral high ground becuase he "did" serve in the National Guard. I am in no way knocking the Guard, but I do not think that serving stateside gives one any insight in the conduct or the politics of warfare as opposed to not serving at all. What does bother me, is that Bush uses it as an excuse for not going to Vietnam, to seperate himself from Clinton who also did not want to go to Vietnam (but at least admitted as much, and was totally honest about not only his aversion to fighting that war, but also his aversion to somebody else going instead of himself) and then apparently not even fulfilling the obligation that was the alternative to going. Jeez, it seems like a pretty good deal if you don't want to fight, doesn't it? That is defrauding the government. Aren't you interested in, if he did not fulfill his obligation, how and why he was able to avoid his commitment?

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Where to begin?

I hate the excrecable practice that EVERY president in the past few decades has participated in when pardoning "his criminal friends". Look it up. The oldest one I can think of off the top of my head is Reagan's pardon of Steinbrenner. I'll wager the last guy to use such pardons in a non-offensive manner was Jimmy Carter (just an idle bet, I have no proof). The Republicans have ingeniously focused on Clinton in this regard while somehow avoiding the spotlight on themselves. Of course, this is a pretty well traveled road, that of Republican's loudly professing shock and disgust for the actions and votes of their counterparts, while they themselves had committed the same actions or supported the same votes.

How did he "fleece" the White House?

How did he sell his party down the river?

I don't in any way think that serving in the military should be a pre-requisite for being president or being able to handle matters of terrorism or the politics of war, any more than one would need to be an economist to address economic matters, a teacher to handle education issues, or a doctor to handle health care policy. I could care less that that neither Clinton nor Bush served in Vietnam. I do care that Bush somehow claims to hold some sort of moral high ground becuase he "did" serve in the National Guard. I am in no way knocking the Guard, but I do not think that serving stateside gives one any insight in the conduct or the politics of warfare as opposed to not serving at all. What does bother me, is that Bush uses it as an excuse for not going to Vietnam, to seperate himself from Clinton who also did not want to go to Vietnam (but at least admitted as much, and was totally honest about not only his aversion to fighting that war, but also his aversion to somebody else going instead of himself) and then apparently not even fulfilling the obligation that was the alternative to going. Jeez, it seems like a pretty good deal if you don't want to fight, doesn't it? That is defrauding the government. Aren't you interested in, if he did not fulfill his obligation, how and why he was able to avoid his commitment?


Incredibly well said!!!!!

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Where to begin?



How did he "fleece" the White House?

How did he sell his party down the river?

I

Travelgate, Mailgate, Watergate, Lewinsky nepotism and other insane abuses of power. He sold the Democratic Party down the river by A: ending the welfare state and thus ending the democrats one claim to fame: spending big on social issues and welfare. B: helping cement the democratic parties new voter base: no longer the party of working people, but now of minorities and liberal elites (if you need proof of this, what states, exactly do democrats carry? What population demographics?). C: making the democrats the perceived party of fiscal responsibility and thus ending their ability to spend big on social issues. D: turning the democratic from the once party of liberal issues to the party of moderate issues, thus deluding any liberal message and blurring them with the Republican Party. E: deploying military forces more than any other president since FDR, further soiling the democratic parties ability to claim dovish policies etc. etc.

These are real problems, to deny them and where they came from is to be detached from reality.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Where to begin?

I hate the excrecable practice that EVERY president in the past few decades has participated in when pardoning "his criminal friends". Look it up.

I have a suggestion: how about for once you back up what you have to say; you look it up. You will find out why Clinton’s pardons were so outrageous and differed from his predecessors.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
I have a suggestion: how about for once you back up what you have to say; you look it up. You will find out why Clinton’s pardons were so outrageous and differed from his predecessors.

Ok I'll try. By the way, ever hear of anyone bieng pardoned BEFORE they are tried and convicted of a crime? I have, when Ford pardoned Nixon. Now that is outrageous.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
I have a suggestion: how about for once you back up what you have to say; you look it up. You will find out why Clinton’s pardons were so outrageous and differed from his predecessors.

It turns out that while there are statisitcs about the number and nature of pardons given out, they do not include the names of each pardoned individual, so I'll go on some memory and some quick research:

1) Bush senior pardoned six of Reagan's senior officials, including Casper Weinberger. You remember them, they were the guys who traded arms for hostages, you know, caving into terrorists. Oh yeah, they also lied to Congress about it and were convicted based on findings of an independent council. Oh yeah, the independent council was about to further the invesitgation b/c, wouldn't you know it, Bush was VP at the time the crimes were committed. The pardons killed the investigation.

2) There was another guy I did find a little info about; Edwin Cox Jr. Committed bank forad to the tune of falsifying records of $78 million of collateral involved in bank loans. By the way, his dad was (and is) a major Bush supporter and Texas billionaire. Seems he contributred a fairly large sum of money to the Bush Library at Texas AM the same year his son was pardoned.

Hey, I'm not happy with CLinton's pardons, and he probably was somewhat more indiscrete about who he pardoned, but not a whole lot.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
I have a suggestion: how about for once you back up what you have to say; you look it up. You will find out why Clinton’s pardons were so outrageous and differed from his predecessors.

Hey, just found another one, a guy named Aslam P. Adam, all he was convicted of was smuggling $1.5 million worth of heroin. He's Pakistani. Bush pardoned him, too. Didn't Pakistan's heroin revenues help fund their nuclear weapons program?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
Travelgate, Mailgate, Watergate, Lewinsky nepotism and other insane abuses of power. He sold the Democratic Party down the river by A: ending the welfare state and thus ending the democrats one claim to fame: spending big on social issues and welfare. B: helping cement the democratic parties new voter base: no longer the party of working people, but now of minorities and liberal elites (if you need proof of this, what states, exactly do democrats carry? What population demographics?). C: making the democrats the perceived party of fiscal responsibility and thus ending their ability to spend big on social issues. D: turning the democratic from the once party of liberal issues to the party of moderate issues, thus deluding any liberal message and blurring them with the Republican Party. E: deploying military forces more than any other president since FDR, further soiling the democratic parties ability to claim dovish policies etc. etc.

These are real problems, to deny them and where they came from is to be detached from reality.

Watergate? Boy, you Republican's will blame Clinton for ANYTHING!

[Yudolindo]

Excuse me, white water.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Hey, just found another one, a guy named Aslam P. Adam, all he was convicted of was smuggling $1.5 million worth of heroin. He's Pakistani. Bush pardoned him, too. Didn't Pakistan's heroin revenues help fund their nuclear weapons program?

No. You still have yet to back up your claim.

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Watergate? Boy, you Republican's will blame Clinton for ANYTHING!

Who said I was a republian?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
No. You still have yet to back up your claim.

I'm not sure how you wnat me to back up my claim. I'll admit that Bush senior was probably used these pardons to a far lesser degree than other presidents in the past 30 years, and Clinton was probably looser than most (but his total numbers a roughly the same as Reagan's) but I have given you three examples of pretty bad looking deals; 1) A heroin dealer who was transporting a LOT of heroin while Bush preached "zero tolerance", 2) A major bank fraud perpetrator who was the son of a major Bush and Republican party contributor, and 3) Six senior members of the administration of which he was the VP, who were convicted of lying to Congress, and not about an extramarital affair, but about illegal arms sales to a terrorist nation which held American's hostage, and using the proceeds from those sales to fund another group of terrorists in central america who were trying to overthrow a democratically elected president.

[dukeuch]

Yudo:

Well, have I backed it up? Do you at least acknowledge that all recent presidents participated to some degree in this ridiculous practice? Bush senior was better than most, but are you offended that he did pardon son's of friends, drug smugglers, and elected officials who supported terrorists and lied to Congress?