Bush Military Records Released
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Bush Military Records Released

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    3,839

    Bush Military Records Released

    WASHINGTON (Feb. 14) - Hundreds of pages of documents that the White House said comprise President Bush's entire military record offer no new answers to the election-year questions that have swirled around his Vietnam-era service. Democrats who have led the criticism greeted Friday's release of documents with skepticism.
    The whole article: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections...13174409990002

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    well at least we know his teeth showed up and got paid.

    i think this hole thing is a real fuggen disgrace. slandering the president should be a crime punnishable by death or at least a good spanking
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  3. #3
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Tedob,

    I hope you were as opinionated when we had a special prosecuter hounding Clinton for 8 years. Reagan was continuously dissed. Carter was ridiculed, they said Amy was his foreign policy adviser. Ford couldn't wave and walk down an airplane steps without falling down. Nixon suffered massive press attacks (some deservedly). LBJ was vilified everywhere due to Viet Nam.

    I don't remember Papa Bush getting too much grief other than the idiot he chose fro VP (maybe that's why he chose him!) Why should we leave the gloves off for Baby Bush?

    What's sickening in America is that we have a lot of smart, talented people and we wind up with losers as leaders.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Countries where slandering the president is a crime, are called dictatorships...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    Originally posted here by fourdc
    Tedob,

    I hope you were as opinionated when we had a special prosecuter hounding Clinton for 8 years. Reagan was continuously dissed. Carter was ridiculed, they said Amy was his foreign policy adviser. Ford couldn't wave and walk down an airplane steps without falling down. Nixon suffered massive press attacks (some deservedly). LBJ was vilified everywhere due to Viet Nam.

    I don't remember Papa Bush getting too much grief other than the idiot he chose fro VP (maybe that's why he chose him!) Why should we leave the gloves off for Baby Bush?

    What's sickening in America is that we have a lot of smart, talented people and we wind up with losers as leaders.
    actually i was. this brand of politics makes me sick. especially the attacks like those being preformed adainst kerry right now...whom BTW i wouldn't vote for if my life depended on it.

    and by the way. in the US at least slandering ANYONE is a crime.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    Slander indeed is a crime, as is libel.

    The question though is "at what point is a statement considered defamatory?", as libel and slander both are forms of defamation.
    If you can prove that a statement about you is false, you have a case. If the statements are true however, nothing can be done about it.

    This has nothing to do with an opinion, though. All Americans are protected by the First Amendment to have an opinion, as long as your opinion does not contain facts that can be proven untrue.

    And to top that, if public figures are involved, the law changes:
    public figures must prove that the statements are known to be false. If I truly believe that what I'm writing or saying about a public figure is true, that public figure wouldn't have a case.

    In the case of reporters doubting Bush's military history, there simply is no case.
    Since only recently Bush's military records have been made public, prior to that reporters had no way of verifying their statements, and can not be accused of slander/libel.

    The smartest thing Bush could do, was release those records, as from now on reporters have a way of verifying the "truth", and can be sued in case their statements are found to be untrue.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    implying someone was AWOL to blemish their character is not an opinion nor is it based on any facts as you've said. and since when is a strong sex drive a mark of a poor leader as their trying to brand kerry with. Not that your disagreeing with this and it’s not that i really want anyone punished or jailed or anything like that. it just makes me really angry, sad and disillusioned that 'we the people' accept a press that behaves this way and then trys to pass itself off as the bard of truth. im applaud that this is what the american pubic wants as evidenced by the high sales this type of journalism brings.

    and your absolutely right for bush to do anything else would fall right where they want it. and thats the really sad part about it. these muck rakers have forced the president of the united states to prove his innocence to their allegations. no matter what anyone feels about him he still IS the president and deserves the respect of that position.

    ah hell! now i got myself all worked up again and feel like clobering a reporter. (i know! i know!)
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    94
    I think it is quite fair that the situation be looked into. There is no reason to respect him as a president at all. Those of us who are not in the armed services have no obligation to respect him at all. Maybe if you are employed by the goverment (non militarily), you might have to respect him, but that is a huge might. If he had just answered the original questions and provided records (since you need to report a bunch) this would not have been a problem, but being the dumbass he is, he did not, and simply said that he served. This causes suspicion, his fault. Also, being questioned in private? That is useless, he may as well keep his damn mouth shut. Did you see that NBC interview where he said he would, "have a chat," with the council. If he really wants this country to find out he would be questioned in public and on public records. The idea is to clear matters up, not make a huge ass smoke screen in front of a maze with the gestapo guarding the entrance.

    -Cheers-

    I have no respect for the ****er who is president. There. All said and done.. If I go missing, there is why.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    84
    who cares who would you rather see as pres?
    they are all figureheads who do as thier parties wish
    i really dont think it matters who is president
    what happens while a person is president would have happened wether it was him or not
    i mean there are people who say kennedy was the best
    well how does it feel to know your JFk practically had a morphine drip on him 24 7
    lol

    get over it people
    nobody wans to hear this ****
    My only fear in death is comming back reincarnated.

    \"Would I ever sh*t you?\"
    \"Of course not you are my favorite turd.\"--E5C4P3

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    723
    Doonsbury is offering 10,000$ if you can prove georgy boy actually showed up for duty in Alabama http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html nice incentive
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
    -- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •