Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
washingtonpost.com

Bush's Guard Service In Question
Democrats Say President Shirked His Duty in 1972


Did not the Washington Post and all the other papers do investigations 4
years ago and found nothing wrong. Now they seem to have amnesia and going
through the same thing again. Must not be bias, just amnesia.
----

It doesn't matter much to me whether Bush was present or AWOL or had a
note from his mommy, nor do I care whether he was in the Guard or not.
This story about his actual attendance in the Guard does seem to have
some legs, though, and it is going to come up from time to time until
and unless Bush puts it to bed with some real proof.

Why?

Because the public finally is beginning to question Bush's honesty and
integrity and agenda. There are many questions being asked regarding
Bush, and not just about "terrorism" and his wars against Afghanistan
and Iraq. The questions about his apparent AWOL-ness just add to the mix.

It also is remaining as an issue because Bush's apparent opponent, John
Kerry, not only served in Vietnam during the war there, but actually
saved the life of some of his brothers-in-arms. Bush is going to be very
hard-pressed to question the military c.v.'s of Kerry.

I do admit to taking a special delight in my hope that the AWOL reports
prove true. In the last election, the pig Republicans trashed Max
Cleland as some sort of traitor, the same Max Cleland who lost three of
his limbs because of war-related injuries in Vietnam, and the lie about
his patriotism, and it was a lie, worked. If, somehow, Bush is tossed
out of office partially because of *his* military record, well, that
would add to my glee.

That's about as reasonable a posit as I can make on this subject.





--
Email sent to is never read.