Why do you still support Bush?

U have no idea what u r talking about.
I will not fight for W to ANY extent.
I merely observe that his judicial appointments
( taken together with Scalia, Thomas n Kennedy )
will result in wiping away the scourge of gun control,
which is subversive of a free republic.
David

U imply that you are NOT in the moron group,
while W IS.
He is a graduate of both Harvard n Yale.
He was 2ice elected governor of a major State.
He was 2ice elected President of the most powerful nation in the World.
He overthrew Saddam n his Dynasty.
Unless u did BETTER than all of those things,
YOU were bested by a MORON.
What does that tell us about YOU ?
Are you LOWER than a moron ? perhaps an IDIOT ??

Do you aspire to be elevated to the status of a moron ?



What u wrote means nothing,
unless u define with specificity what " failure as a president " means.
( U shud KNOW that. )
Did he fail as well as Saddam did ?



Again, your posts show that u have no idea what you are talking about.
" ignorant " means NOTHING unless u indicate what is allegedly not known.
U post foolishness.




U re-iterate your foolishness, in failing to define what u mean as " a failure ".
Perhaps u r not able to intellectually comprehend this.



U offer no proof of your naked allegations,
expecting them to be accepted on faith in u: no sale.

I don 't even support W.




I 'll rejoice in the impotence of Mr. Kerry.

OSD, See if you can figure this out. Bush went AWOL from the Air National Guards and was never charged with this crime. Anybody else that goes AWOL is. Find us any other soldier that went AWOL without paying the price. Yes, Bush went to Yale and Harvard. His daddy's influence got him through; not his scholastics. He can't even use the English language properly; he's the laughing stock of the world. He needed ESL in grade school. Yeah, it's like any fool graduating from MIT; doesn't happen unless you're GW Bush.

I don't suppose you'd like to provide a few particles of evidence for these accusations? No, I thought not. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.

Bush was "ordered" to report for duty, and he did not; that's AWOL.

From Bush AWOL?

The missing year was reported by Walter V. Robinson in the May 23, 2000 issue of the Boston Globe. "1-year gap in Bush's Guard duty. No record of airman at drills from 1972-73"

The reporter based his story on "160 pages of his records, assembled by the Globe from a variety of sources and supplemented by interviews with former Guard officials." He presents the following six pieces of evidence for his assertion that Governor Bush missed a year of national guard duty:

1) Retired General William Turnipseed and his administrative officer at the time, Kenneth K. Lott, said they had no memory of Bush ever reporting. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Turnipseed said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

2) Albert Lloyd Jr., a retired colonel who was the Texas Air Guard's personnel director from 1969 to 1995, said he does not know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. "If he did, his drill attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he fulfilled the requirements in Alabama," he said. Lloyd, who has studied the records extensively, said he is an admirer of the governor and believes "the governor honestly served his country and fulfilled his commitment."

3) In May 1973, his two superior officers at Ellington Air Force Base [Texas], Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian could not perform his annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973 because, they wrote, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

Bush, they mistakenly concluded, had been training with the Alabama unit for the previous 12 months. Both men have since died. But Ellington's top personnel officer at the time, retired Colonel Rufus G. Martin, said he too thought Bush had been in Alabama for that entire year. Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned to duty at Ellington. And Bush, in his autobiography, identifies the late colonel Killian as a friend, making it even more likely that Killian knew where Bush was.

4) "Well, then it comes rating time, and someone says, `Oh ... he hasn't fulfilled his obligation.' I'll bet someone called him up and said, `George, you're in a pickle. Get your ass down here and perform some duty.' And he did," Lloyd said. That would explain, Lloyd said, the records showing Bush cramming so many drills into May, June, and July 1973. During those three months, Bush spent 36 days on duty.

5) In November 1973, responding to a request from the headquarters of the Air National Guard for Bush's annual evaluation for that year, Martin, the Ellington administrative officer, wrote, "Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."

6) Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd said, "there should have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, four senior officers are on record as saying that George W. Bush was "not observed" for a year of his national guard service requirement. In addition, Colonel Albert Lloyd, Jr. who was engaged by the Bush campaign staff over a year ago to look into the Governor's record, backs up the word of the four senior officers.

cicerone, did you learn all of this from the excellent documentary programs done by Dan Rather?

okie, Why does that matter? You're projecting again attempting to divert what are facts.

If you don't like the facts, find evidence they are false.

Diversionary tactics and straw man are boorish and a waste of everybody's time.

Practice what you preach cicerone. If you want to turn this thread into debating Bush's National Guard duty, that is a diversionary tactic in my opinion. I think it should go on another thread, where if it were examined in detail again, it would be proven to not amount to a hill of beans, as it always has before. The fact is, the charge of AWOL has never been proven to be legitimate.

Then why do you bother with them all the time?

McG, Show me! I especially like your "all the time."

I think Okie has a point well taken. This thread is about continuing to support Bush and why anyone would.

Here's a question: who here has decided to support Bush since he started his second term? Prior to that had held a neutral or anti-Bush stance but now sees the really superb aspects of Bush's policies, foreign and domestic, and now is firmly in George W. Bush camp. Anyone? And what was the number one thing that brought about the change?

Additionally, who here, now supporting Bush, was, prior to the year 2000, a moderate?

Anyone?

Joe(jist askin)Nation

But, Joe(you missed the point)Nation, We are only pointing out all the incompetence and lies of Bush to seek the answer to "why they support bush?" during the past six years.

Yeah, ci, but you have to realize they don't see any of the bad or moron stuff, they don't believe he is the fratboy clueless jerk he was at the G8 summit, so I'm asking about the good stuff George has done to bring these people into his fold.

What can they say?

Joe( make them be positive about something for once)Nation

Methinks you will wait in vain.

Not necessarily. These morons are very good at providing their own interpretation of what we say, project their own stupid ideas, then ask more stupid questions like when McG responded to Walter on another thread with "Your opinion is that the President shouldn't allow Israel to defend itself because he doesn't want federal funding going towards new stem cell research?

Does that basically sum it up Walt?"

God, they're stupid!

This is what Walter wrote that got McG's response above:

The president of the United States of America has the power to call the Israelian government to stop bombing civilian areas in Lebanon or else he would stop selling arms to them.
Instead he chose a press-conference to stage his belief that the binning of tine embryonic specks, most of which would have died anyways, is "murder".

I've my opinion about people which such a morality, who don't care about the victims of wars but about embryos. Others might share this view.

Re: Why do you still support Bush?


I like Bush mostly because he is a friend to those who care about the Second Amendment.

Note the expiration of the unconstitutional assault weapons ban, and the way he and Bolton always prevent the UN from creating a treaty to ban civilian ownership of military weapons.

The UN made another attempt at such a ban just a couple weeks ago.

I'd stop supporting Bush if he started backing measures to ban guns.