Found In Sandy's Pants?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:25 pm

For all you lefty conspiracy freaks, eat crow.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon on Friday released newly discovered payroll records from President Bush's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard, though the records shed no new light on the future president's activities during that summer.

A Pentagon official said the earlier contention that the records were destroyed was an "inadvertent oversight."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040723/D840ON180.html

But fret not, there's always a new conspiracy just around the corner. This from DNC boss Terry McAuliffe.

"The supposed discovery of these records on Friday afternoon, as reporters converge on Boston to cover the Democratic National Convention, is highly questionable.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:47 pm

"Hey, these were printed on a laser printer!"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:53 pm

lol@Testi

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:55 pm

Not only, Bash, will the found Bush payroll records cause chagrin to the DNC, but so will this about Sanburgler's light fingered purloin papers. Seems the papers show that besides Ms. Gorlichs wall job, Berger has an even bigger role in 9/11 than previously shown:

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times â?? Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

http://tinyurl.com/3r4o6

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:18 pm

Does this mean W got paid by the National Guard while working that campain in where ever it was.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:45 pm

Indeed, Chipper, it looks like not only were the memos outlining Sandy's inaction down his pants but most likely down the back of his pants to cover his fat butt.

Ford, if you can provide any evidence that contradicts our President's records we'd be interested in reviewing it.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:46 am

Curious how the Clinton crowd is trying to alter reality. First there was "Revisionist's" Bills autobiography and now Berger wants to erase how worrying about legalities was more important than saving American lives. Does one get the impression Clinton surrounded himself with weak kneed individuals that he could manipulate to make himself look good? Just a thought.

Edit add on: Does one notice the terminology used? In the matter of Bush's records, the word "questionable" is used by the DNC yet when it comes to Sanburgler, the actions are merely "inadvertant".

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 3:55 pm

I listened to O'reily interview the head of the DNC about this, the guys says it was an honest mistake and a total accident and that its really no big deal. HRM the TOP security guy in the U.S. takes TOP Secret documents, SCANS them ( no no #1 )
shoves them doen his pants ( no no #2 ) and then leaves the building with them ( no no #3 ) and we're to think this an accident? I spent time in the Navy and handled top secret documents on occation. it was made CRYSTAL clear to me that jail time was instore if I did any of those things.I dunno maybe it was an accident maybe he was headed to the Toilet and knew there was no TP, I guess anything is possible

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Jul 25, 2004 4:22 pm

altsiemers won't save you this time Luke!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:28 am

I dont get it bash, in that quote of yours...it says they didnt get destroyed but they dont shed any new light on the scandal. So what good are the records, "if" they do exist that is?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 10:44 am

What "scandal" Zuruck?

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:00 am

Will, you're acting like his perhaps inaccurate choice of words (word, in this case) somehow invalidates his question.

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:20 pm

Zuruck only thought they were important when they were presumed destroyed. Of course they must have held the smoking gun! Now he asks what good are they because they offer no evidence of a *scandal*. Heh.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:37 pm

/me thinks Bash answered Vertigo99's question for me.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:52 pm

well, i don't really give a damn what "zuruck thinks," isn't the important thing here that this sheds no evidence for either side as to what Bush did during his years in the guard?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:27 pm

Um, no. You see, there is no controversy unless you provide evidence that one exists. Repeating misinformation is not presenting evidence; it's called lying. Innocent until proven guilty, you know. The onus is on the accusors, not the accused.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:16 pm

Bush was a fighter pilot during his years in the guard. I thought everyone knew this. Of course the leftniks would like you to think otherwise.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:44 am

bull★■◆●. If Kerry were in Bush's shoes, you guys would be all over him.

Sure, he's innocent until proven guilty - but it never does anyone any harm to question authority.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:51 am

Everyone knows that Woodchip. Where have you been?

I've thought they were important before they were "destroyed" and then "found". Just funny that the microfilm that Bush said would exonerate him was destroyed, found, then won't shed any new light.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:01 am

Nobody ever said it would.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:41 pm

You tell me DCrazy, my good friend:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... ords.reut/

"Still, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, "They show the president served in the military and completed his service, which is why he received an honorable discharge."

Hubbard said that after the Pentagon announced two weeks ago that the records were lost, officials went back to double check, and found an "unlabeled binder" that led them to the right place.

Wow, I'm glad they found that "ulabeled binder". Damn, my anti-right blood is pumping fast right now. But that's about it. I could care less if he was there or not. I was drinking in a small bar on Sunday night talking to a Nam vet and he said exactly what I wanted to hear. When someone joined the National Guard, they were escaping active duty. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Did Kerry deserve all those medals? Maybe not, but even if he didn't, even if he didn't get a single medal, the fact remains that he VOLUNTEERED for duty. What happened there, how he came back, whatever, doesn't mean that much. He volunteered for the US Navy and fought in a war zone. Bush flew planes for fun and then balked on his service. Bing!!

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:54 pm

Z, I don't know why you want to denigrate the hard-working folks that serve in the National Guard. Your boy Bill Clinton was a draft dodger and that was OK. Now you're splitting hairs as to which branch of the service is more manly to serve in. Pfft. FWIW, Kerry was in VietNam for a whopping 100 days for the sole purpose of establishing phoney bona fides for his future in politics. If you doubt it check this out http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc8.htm. His service was a PR scam and nothing to get excited about. He promptly returned and lied about his fellow servicemen, and set the stage for the shame and abuse they would receive upon returning home to what should ahve been a grateful nation. I'd wager most genuine patriots who fought in VietNam wish John Kerry never enlisted. Hell, I don't even have to wager since 95% of his command chain has gone on record as saying Kerry was unfit to serve let alone lead. With *comrades* like Kerry, who needs enemies?

Either way, this Bush AWOL accusation (started by the head of the Democratic party, btw) has been a baseless whispering campaign from the beginning. It never was a legitimate story, just more clutching at straws for the Bush bashers.

Kerry lovers, here's your candidate. /me hums the Flipper themesong.

http://media1.stream2you.com/rnc/072304v2.wmv

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:32 pm

Yeah Bash, you know everything the republican party does is right, and everything the democrats do is wrong. You go!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:16 pm

Zuruck wrote:..the fact remains that he VOLUNTEERED for duty.

When faced with the draft he tried to volunteer for duty to get stationed in europe, when that didn't work out he discovered the 'purple heart' clause and got out of the jungle post haste.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 7:44 am

bash, I never claimed Clinton was ok. Did I say that? The fact remains...he was in Vietnam and could have been shot at anytime. Had he not gotten any kind of medals, would you guys feel differently? Did John McCain get captured on purpose because of his future political aspirations? Oh no, that's right, because he's a Republican he is ok right?

Getting the the Guard as a way out was told to me by a Nam vet on Sunday night. Not my words although I've spouted it for a long time. I was talking to this man about being drafted and he said you could do three things to avoid active service. Marriage, school, and eek out by way of Guard service.

In ending, let me get this straight. Kerry only volunteered because he knew he would not be killed, even though he was put in fire zones, for his mere political future. He knew for a fact that he would never be killed. He would get out in 100 days and that he would get three purple hearts. He knew all this before he even went, crap, I should have gone to Yale too.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:04 am

he volunteered because he *thought* he was going to be able to get sent to europe....

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:16 am

Link Will?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:44 am

Hmm @ Bash's video... "The Republican National Committe is responsible for the content of this advertisement." They didn't have to put that at the beginning of the movie?