A Coward and a Liar
Chuck - 8-30-2004 at 01:44 PM
Link to source
William MacTavish
capitolhillblue.com
August 30, 2004
Excerpt:
| Quote: |
A Bushite who should know better sent me a clip over the weekend, singing Dubya’s praises because he told an NBC Today Show interviewer that “had my
unit been called up, I would have gone (to Vietnam).”
“This,” she said, “shows me what kind of man our great President is.” It sure does sweetie. It shows the President of the United States is not only a
coward but a liar.
|
Character is always an issue.
Missy - 8-30-2004 at 09:06 PM
Chuck~I did a Google on Bill McTavish. For an accomplished journalist he doesn't seem to have written anything that shows up on
the Internet, except CHB. Is there a reason for this? I'd like to read some of his other articles.
mugwump - 8-30-2004 at 11:47 PM
I thought there was a claim by a Colonel who served with George Bush that Bush had in fact requested assignment to Vietnam but was turned down because
he didn't have enough flight hours in the aircraft? He volunteered just as your hero Kerry did.
I don't have the source but I remember it was posted on this site some months back!
He Chuck you are indicting as cowards millions of your fellow americans who didn't serve during the Vietnam war and certainly
didn't even go to Vietnam if they did serve. Careful!
That an infantile accusation and not worthy of one so intellectually gifted as you are IMNSHO..
AmericanPatriot - 8-31-2004 at 12:06 AM
I agree Missy. Besides, it was on capitolhillblue.com and - from the things I read there - seems Dave is spreading his negative obsession with
President Bush quite nicely. I would just hate for them to find SOMETHING positive and the President!! 
[Edited on 8/31/2004 by AmericanPatriot]
Frank - 8-31-2004 at 01:19 AM
This article reads like it came straight out of Terry McAuliffe's fax machine at the DNC. The opposition to the President is so full of hate and
loathing that just about anything anyone says against the man, including rumor and innuendo, is reported out as fact. Never mind that the Swifties
have sworn out affidavits, staked their own names and reputations, coupled with Senator Kerry's non-signing of a DD-180.
If it takes a giant $h!t on the President, then run with it.
Okay... it's put up or shut up time for all you folks on the left and sleaze merchants and political operators like McTavish and Thompson.
Let's see some evidence for the allegations in this article... now.
Let's get some hard evidence in front of the voters and let them decide. On the website and with no redaction or "unnamed sources".
And to be fair, let's not even apply a criminal threshold to the "evidence". Let's use the civil standard of proof by a
preponderance of evidence. Your case will be much easier to prove that way. Of course, if you can't provide any evidence then your charges are
nothing more than a baseless smear... exactly what you bemoan endlessly (and wrongly) that the Swifties are doing to Senator Kerry.
If you haven't the goddamned common courtesy to supply evidence, at least to the level and amount the Swifties have, then shut your cheesy
pieholes and log off your computers until you can get yourselves back to reporting the news, rather than trying to make it or influence it.
William Randolph Hearst would be so enamored of the Internet.
[Edited on 8-31-2004 by Frank]
Maverick - 8-31-2004 at 01:25 AM
I discount ANYTHING that comes from that site....and for a long time it was my home page.
And for those of you who are not familiar with Texas politics, Ben Barnes has a LOT more ethical problems in his background to be ashamed of than
recommending the President for the National Guard. If he were anyone else, he would have been in jail by now and he left politics in disgrace.
Besides it was an OPINION piece and proves nothing except that the author is so filled with hatred for the President he cannot be objective.
Dave - 8-31-2004 at 01:55 AM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanPatriot
I agree Missy. Besides, it was on capitolhillblue.com and - from the things I read there - seems Dave is spreading his negative obsession with
President Bush quite nicely. I would just hate for them to find SOMETHING positive and the President!!
[Edited on 8/31/2004 by AmericanPatriot] |
Huh? I'M the "Dave" on CHB and I have certainly NOT spread anything negative about the President there. Nor do I have a
"negative obsession" with the President. What are you talking about?
[Edited on 8-31-2004 by Dave]
kat - 8-31-2004 at 03:29 AM
Chuck, you seem to enjoy posting stuff from William D. McTavish, but as I look through Google, he seems to have sprung from whole
cloth in 2004, (as far as Google is concerned he only exists at CHB... and as a baby that lived to age 2 months back in 1910 
) and APNews.com, returned no bylines by him... made me think,
is this actually your pen name?
kat - 8-31-2004 at 03:50 AM
...just to be clear, in case it isn't.
To quote from 'Outlaw Josie Wells', "No offense meant..."
Chuck - 8-31-2004 at 01:32 PM
| Quote: |
I thought there was a claim by a Colonel who served with George Bush that Bush had in fact requested assignment to Vietnam but was turned down because
he didn't have enough flight hours in the aircraft? He volunteered just as your hero Kerry did.
|
George Bush explicitly said "no" when asked whether he would volunteer for "overseas" duty. It's part of his records. I posted a
link to it months ago. He never volunteered for Vietnam, he has never claimed to have volunteered, and you know it. He also told Tim Russert in his
February 8, 2004 interview that he never volunteered for Vietnam.
[Edited on 8-31-2004 by Chuck]
Chuck - 8-31-2004 at 01:55 PM
| Quote: |
Okay... it's put up or shut up time for all you folks on the left and sleaze merchants and political operators like McTavish and Thompson.
Let's see some evidence for the allegations in this article... now.
Let's get some hard evidence in front of the voters and let them decide. On the website and with no redaction or "unnamed sources".
|
At your service Frank. Just tell me for which allegations you want support, and I'd be pleased to oblige.
As for the swifties swearing out affidavits, which ones are you talking about. Elliot's multiple affidavit with intervening retractions? 
Maybe Alfred French's affidavit which he swore was based on personal
knowledge, but later said he didn't have personal knowledge? How
about Letson's affidavit which is based on multiple levels of hearsay? Who knows, maybe the head swift boat liar, John O'Neill drafted all the affidavits and just presented them for signature
to his minions.
Dave - 8-31-2004 at 03:13 PM
There's that word again, Chuck.
Actually, the affidavits were both written and signed by the signatories (read the book.) Since when is an affidavit that admits that his knowledge
is from hearsay a lie? Read Dr. Letson's affidavit. He ADMITS that his knowledge of how the "wound" was received had come from Sen.
Kerry's shipmates. Then, he swears to having first-hand knowledge of the contents of his affidavit. In other words, he has "first-hand
knowledge" of the hearsay nature of the source of Lt. Kerry's "wound." That's no lie and it's CERTAINLY not
perjury.
Chuck - 8-31-2004 at 03:24 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Dave
There's that word again, Chuck.
Since when is an affidavit that admits that his knowledge is from hearsay a lie? |
There's that old straw man again. I never said that admitting that knowledge is based on hearsay is a lie. Letson may be entirely truthful in
his affidavit. The only statements, however, in his affidavit which are based on personal knowledge are those related to the nature of the wound.
Letson has no first hand knowledge of how Kerry came to be wounded. Runyon, Zaladonis and Schachte are the only witnesses who claim to have such
knowledge. And the swifties themselves say that Lt. Kerry was with "two enlisted men."
[Edited on 8-31-2004 by Chuck]
dilligras - 8-31-2004 at 03:57 PM
from a man who served with then Lt. Bush (not in the same plane) the truth about service in the TANG that lefties will continue to ignore, simply
because it doesn't support their closely held beliefs about our President's service in the military and his willingness to go "in
harm's way".
This was a letter to the editor of the Wash. Times that I saved.
Missy - 8-31-2004 at 04:00 PM
I'm still waiting for information on the elusive William
McTavish.
RevMac - 8-31-2004 at 04:05 PM
Sleep well, Missy... I forsee avoidance and dancing.... 
wisnan - 8-31-2004 at 04:05 PM
Thanks, Dennis
dilligras - 8-31-2004 at 04:18 PM
Lt. Col. Jay Lyons is retired from the USAF and does volunteer docent duties with me at the Texas Military Forces Museum.
He said that the plane that Lt. Bush trained in before flying the F-102A "widowmaker" was the F-86D, which had a propensity to blow up in
mid air. If a certain little red light came on, you had 5 seconds to eject.
Q: How does one fly a plane while staring at a red bulb in the cockpit?
A: Not very well.
Carry on,
Dennis
Frank - 8-31-2004 at 04:31 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Chuck
At your service Frank. Just tell me for which allegations you want support, and I'd be pleased to oblige.
|
Let's start with the allegation in the article that the President is abusing prescription anti-depressants.
| Quote: |
| Apparently those anti-depressants Bush pops like jelly beans are fogging up what little is left of his
brain. |
Got some hard evidence that can be corroberated to back that charge up?
Bottom line... the linked article is an opinion piece, so one must look past the rhetoric. But that little nugget in the middle is one that the author
has trotted out before, and one that I believe you have linked to here as well.
My personal opinion is that if it's true, then it is a far bigger deal than anyone's military service thirty or more years ago and the
country the voters need to see the evidence and decide for themselves. If it is not true, then it is just another fine example of the media engaging
in the politics of personal destruction, rather than simply doing their jobs and reporting the facts of a story.
In short... you're called. If you, or this author, can't show some cards to support this allegation, then I'd expect you to apologize
and the author to publish a retraction.
And at that, right quickly.
Chuck - 8-31-2004 at 07:45 PM
I have no "hard" evidence of the prescription drug charge, other than those articles which I have previously posted here.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology. I didn't make the charge. I posted the article. If AA members were expected to post
apologies for unsubstantiated charges that appeared in articles, this forum would be nothing but apologies.
Anything else in the article you want to talk about, or is that.
Dave - 8-31-2004 at 08:40 PM
Funny how you're perfectly willing to indict President Bush based on "unsubstantiated charges" but refuse to acknowledge that
"unsubstantiated charges" are EXACTLY what you use to post your opinions of him.
Does anyone else wonder why every thread started by Chuck on this board is some negative story about President Bush or his administration? It's
what's primarily wrong with the left these days--not a positive thought among the whole lot of 'em.
It's also why the
left is a dying philosophy in this country, losing legitimacy every day.
Frank - 8-31-2004 at 09:24 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Chuck
I have no "hard" evidence of the prescription drug charge, other than those articles which I have previously posted here.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology. I didn't make the charge. I posted the article. If AA members were expected to post
apologies for unsubstantiated charges that appeared in articles, this forum would be nothing but apologies.
Anything else in the article you want to talk about, or is that. |
You offered evidence, and I was merely taking you up on that. I didn't necessarily expect you to have it, but you never know, unless you ask. I
think you and I know each other well enough, in a cyber sense, that I'm not going to clang you personally as I know you wouldn't clang me in
kind.
There is plenty we could talk about in the article, but I think I've made my point. And it wasn't you I would be truly concerned with
relative to an apology... you're only the second hand messenger, after all. 
So pardon me if my message read that way to you.
My challenge still stands though, to any and all who read this.... if you have evidence concerning this drug allegation against President Bush, then
bring it.
If you do not have such evidence about this particular charge, then common sense and common decency dictate that you need to shut it.
mugwump - 8-31-2004 at 10:20 PM
Hey Chuck...check out dillgras's post above... thats the reference I saw! And its pretty conclusive.."Lt. Bush didn't have the required
hours in the air , besides the program was scrapped and the ANG didn't get to fly in the war!
I checked the reference/ form signed by Bush and I find no denial such as you mention on that form ...please point out where there is such a
denial!
The only NO I see checked is on the line....
..which reads
"If I am selected for recall in a non flying capacity I hereby request permanent suspension from flying status"
His check of the NO block indicates to me that if recalled he wanted to come back in with flying status..He didn't indicate he wouldn't go
overseas.
Are you twisting facts..or have I missed something!
mugwump - 8-31-2004 at 10:55 PM
Chuck I read the transcript of the interview with Tim Russert and again I think you are drawing an improper conclusion.. This is how MSNBC recorded
it.
Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.
Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those
days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command
I fear you and some others on the left are taking his comment out of context. He said he didn't enlist to go directly to Vietnam..he said if his
unit had been called up he would have gone?????
How do you get he was a coward from that exchange?
Your subjectivity is amazing! I fear it distorts your analysis of fact.
Dave - 9-1-2004 at 12:18 AM
To be fair, that form does contain a block where you can volunteer for overseas duty or not. Pres. Bush checked the box that said he did NOT
volunteer for overseas duty. That does NOT, however, mean that he would NOT have gone if called up to active duty status. That form is what we used
to call a "dream sheet" where we stated our assignment preferences. It was a "dream sheet" mainly because the military is NOT
obligated to honor ANY of your preferences. When I was preparing to return from Korea in 1963, I filled one of the things out and asked for duty in
the NE or SE parts of the U.S.--mostly so I'd get enough travel pay to go home on leave before going to my next duty station. I GOT the Presidio
of Monterey, California. My travel "pay" amounted to about $12.00.
[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Dave]
Chuck - 9-1-2004 at 01:27 AM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by mugwump
Chuck I read the transcript of the interview with Tim Russert and again I think you are drawing an improper conclusion.. This is how MSNBC recorded
it.
Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.
Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those
days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command
I fear you and some others on the left are taking his comment out of context. He said he didn't enlist to go directly to Vietnam..he said if his
unit had been called up he would have gone?????
How do you get he was a coward from that exchange?
Your subjectivity is amazing! I fear it distorts your analysis of fact. |
How did I take anything out of context. He said that if his unit had been called up, he would have gone. Well, as my kids say, DUHHH! This is about
whether he "volunteered." It's not about anything else. It's not about what he would have done had he been called up. Of course
he would have gone. (Unless Daddy could have pulled more strings to keep his spoiled little butt out of harm's way).
He gave an unequivocal answer to Russert's question about volunteering. What is it about, "No, I didn't" that's so hard to
understand.
Chuck - 9-1-2004 at 01:30 AM
| Quote: |
Funny how you're perfectly willing to indict President Bush based on "unsubstantiated charges" but refuse to acknowledge that
"unsubstantiated charges" are EXACTLY what you use to post your opinions of him
|
How do you get a "refusal" (your word) to acknowledge unsubstantiated charges from my post where I expressly state that I have no hard
evidence of the drug prescription charge? Do I have to make my concessions in blood before you take them seriously?
War Dog - 9-1-2004 at 01:58 AM
| Quote: |
| Does anyone else wonder why every thread started by Chuck on this board is some negative story about President Bush or his
administration? It's what's primarily wrong with the left these days--not a positive thought among the whole lot of 'em. It's also
why the left is a dying philosophy in this country, losing legitimacy every day. |
Cause hate filled, biased, partisan articles based on lies, false accusations, untrue rumors and propaganda is all that Chuck ever posts! We've
learned to expect nothing else from him.
It's amazing how Chuck and others here always claim that others who they disagree with are liars, when in reality, their whole arguments are
based on lies! Sorta makes you wonder who the real liars and cowards are? Hmmmmmmmm?
Friggin Minion War Woof!
Frank - 9-1-2004 at 03:05 AM
Let's debate the point please, not the personalities or the person.
Thanks and carry on!!!!!
Now back on point....
| Quote: |
| He
gave an unequivocal answer to Russert's question about volunteering. What is it about, "No, I didn't" that's so hard to
understand. |
But the "No, I didn't" is only a portion of the entire answer to the question. In context, the President also clearly said that he
voluntarily served as a fighter pilot. That voluntary service carried with it the obligation that if Uncle Sam said "go" he'd have to.
The loyal opposition diregards this basic layer of common sense and applies the sinister attack that "his daddy would've gotten him out of
it".
Like your kids say..... Duuuuuuh. 
[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Frank]
Chuck - 9-1-2004 at 09:59 AM
| Quote: |
Let's debate the point please, not the personalities or the person.
Thanks and carry on!!!!!
|
If you take that from him, he won't be able to post any more.
Chuck - 9-1-2004 at 10:03 AM
| Quote: |
The loyal opposition diregards this basic layer of common sense and applies the sinister attack that "his daddy would've gotten him out of
it".
|
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm drawing an inference which is entirely consistent with the man's lack of character. The point is
moot anyway. He or others close to him manipulated the system so that there was no more than a snowball's chance in hell of him ever seeing
actual combat.
AmericanPatriot - 9-1-2004 at 01:15 PM
| Quote: |
I
agree Missy. Besides, it was on capitolhillblue.com and - from the things I read there - seems Dave is spreading his negative obsession with President
Bush quite nicely. I would just hate for them to find SOMETHING positive and the President!!
Huh? I'M the "Dave" on CHB and I have certainly NOT spread anything negative about the President there. Nor do I have a "negative
obsession" with the President. What are you talking about?
|
DAVE!!! I must apologize to you! I meant Doug, not Dave! Your views, and mine, are much too similar for me to make such a statement about....
mugwump - 9-1-2004 at 01:43 PM
| Quote: |
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm drawing an inference which is entirely consistent with the man's lack of character. The point is
moot anyway. He or others close to him manipulated the system so that there was no more than a snowball's chance in hell of him ever seeing
actual combat.
|
This nonsense exemplifies my assertion that your subjectivity warps your analysis of even simple facts. Chuck you exemplify the slavering minions on
the left who make all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and inferences that don't jive with the facts....They jive with your preconceived opinions!
[Edited on 9-1-2004 by mugwump]
Dave - 9-2-2004 at 12:40 AM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by AmericanPatriot
| Quote: | I
agree Missy. Besides, it was on capitolhillblue.com and - from the things I read there - seems Dave is spreading his negative obsession with President
Bush quite nicely. I would just hate for them to find SOMETHING positive and the President!!
Huh? I'M the "Dave" on CHB and I have certainly NOT spread anything negative about the President there. Nor do I have a "negative
obsession" with the President. What are you talking about?
|
DAVE!!! I must apologize to you! I meant Doug, not Dave! Your views, and mine, are much too similar for me to make such a statement about....
|
Apology accepted and unnecessary. Tow explained what you meant the other day in a U2U message.
Kelis26 - 9-2-2004 at 03:56 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Chuck
| Quote: |
The loyal opposition diregards this basic layer of common sense and applies the sinister attack that "his daddy would've gotten him out of
it".
|
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm drawing an inference which is entirely consistent with the man's lack of character. The point is
moot anyway. He or others close to him manipulated the system so that there was no more than a snowball's chance in hell of him ever seeing
actual combat. |
Oh Good Grief...frickin' back that up or find some other insane theory to post here for our sheer entertainment.
Woulda,coulda,shoulda...whatever. You are supporting a man for the presidency that KNOWINGLY LIED...COMMITTED PERJURY in front of congress and
disgraced his commission as a NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER.
Get that, Chuck?
NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER. He DID NOT volunteer for VietNam. He sought a deferment, and when he was denied he sought service in the NAVAL RESERVES, but
poor guy, his unit was activated. Yes he went, good..great...whatever. And then he LIED on reports and probably got 3 purple hearts just so he could
get his ticket home. And then he came home and LIED some more.
Whatever...sheesh...
Bring it on? Yeah, BRING IT ON...Like ALL of his military records. ALL of them. President Bush has released most, if not all, of his service records.
Sen. Kerry hasn't release SQUAT.
liberalscum - 9-2-2004 at 04:01 PM
OK. The F102 was close to being taken out of service as obsolete, and none served in Vietnam. So a pilot trained on an F102 was bound to stay
stateside -- even if he had retained his flight status, as Lt. Bush did not.
[Edited on 9-2-2004 by liberalscum]
Kelis26 - 9-2-2004 at 04:15 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by liberalscum
OK, tank boy. The F102 was close to being taken out of service as obsolete, and none served in Vietnam. So a pilot trained on an F102 was bound to
stay stateside -- even if he had retained his flight status, as Lt. Bush did not. |
And your point is????
Tank boy?
And imagine, some people actually say that I'm not civilized.
OK LS, you want something?
In 1990, I was a young 2nd LT in the TN Army National Guard, branched Armor. The 30th Armored Brigade (Seperate) had not yet transitioned to the M1
from the M60A3 series tanks. The US Army made a decision at the beginning of the deployments to Saudi Arabia that they would field nothing less than
the M1 tank. So my brigade was never activated for service in Desert Storm.
Does that simple fact make ALL of the guys I served with some kind of cowards or combat dodgers????
So what if the TX Air National Guard was equipped with the F102? As you can see from my experience above, most air & army guard units in those
years were equipped with secondary equipment.
And that makes President George W. Bush a coward somehow????
Good grief, give it up already...
Towanda - 9-2-2004 at 04:21 PM
OKAY. Fair warning here..
The name-calling STOPS.
Liberalscum....please edit your post....you know the rules.
Frank - 9-2-2004 at 05:26 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Chuck
I'm not disregarding anything. I'm drawing an inference which is entirely consistent with the man's lack of character. The point is
moot anyway. He or others close to him manipulated the system so that there was no more than a snowball's chance in hell of him ever seeing
actual combat. |
Just like Senator Kerry apparently manipulated the system into three Purple Hearts and a plane ride home after three months and change in the forward
area?
Since we've apparently gotten past the so far baseless drug charge that first got my attention in the linked article, if you now want to pillory
the President on his service record, then Senator Kerry needs to step up and open his to full and complete investigation, as has been repeatedly
called for by any number of respondents.
In short... if y'all wanna throw mud, you need to be ready to have some thrown back. And even while I'd like to hope and believe the debate
can be framed around the issues those who support both candidates, and one of the candidates himself for that matter, don't seem to be able to
get past thirty five years ago.
Chuck - 9-2-2004 at 05:46 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Kelis26
Oh Good Grief...frickin' back that up or find some other insane theory to post here for our sheer entertainment.
|
I have. On other threads. Many times. But here, you can check out Ben Barnes'
video on how he helped the young George W. Bush avoid having to fight in a cause he believed in.
| Quote: |
Woulda,coulda,shoulda...whatever. You are supporting a man for the presidency that KNOWINGLY LIED...COMMITTED PERJURY in front of congress and
disgraced his commission as a NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER.
|
You don't have a shred of evidence of that. And I won't even ask you to back it up, because no evidence of that exists.
I'm quaking in my boots, Kelis...
| Quote: |
NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER. He DID NOT volunteer for VietNam. He sought a deferment, and when he was denied he sought service in the NAVAL RESERVES, but
poor guy, his unit was activated. Yes he went, good..great...whatever.
|
That's a crock. You are getting very good at making things up, though. As for his volunteering, click on this link, and then click on the link "Request for
Swiftboat duty." Then get back to me about what in that letter you don't understand to be "volunteering."
| Quote: |
And then he LIED on reports and probably got 3 purple hearts just so he could get his ticket home. And then he came home and LIED some more.
|
"Probably"??? Yeah right, he put himself in harm's way
so he could go home early. I guess if he'd done a better job of it, he could have come home early the same way 58,000 of our soldiers came home.
Kelis26 - 9-2-2004 at 06:20 PM
| Quote: |
Originally posted by Chuck
| Quote: | Originally posted by Kelis26
Oh Good Grief...frickin' back that up or find some other insane theory to post here for our sheer entertainment.
|
I have. On other threads. Many times. But here, you can check out Ben Barnes'
video on how he helped the young George W. Bush avoid having to fight in a cause he believed in.
| Quote: |
Woulda,coulda,shoulda...whatever. You are supporting a man for the presidency that KNOWINGLY LIED...COMMITTED PERJURY in front of congress and
disgraced his commission as a NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER.
|
You don't have a shred of evidence of that. And I won't even ask you to back it up, because no evidence of that exists.
I'm quaking in my boots, Kelis...
| Quote: |
NAVAL RESERVE OFFICER. He DID NOT volunteer for VietNam. He sought a deferment, and when he was denied he sought service in the NAVAL RESERVES, but
poor guy, his unit was activated. Yes he went, good..great...whatever.
|
That's a crock. You are getting very good at making things up, though. As for his volunteering, click on this link, and then click on the link "Request for
Swiftboat duty." Then get back to me about what in that letter you don't understand to be "volunteering."
| Quote: |
And then he LIED on reports and probably got 3 purple hearts just so he could get his ticket home. And then he came home and LIED some more.
|
"Probably"??? Yeah right, he put himself in harm's way
so he could go home early. I guess if he'd done a better job of it, he could have come home early the same way 58,000 of our soldiers came home.
|
3 words:
Unfit for Command
6 more words:
The Many Faces of John Kerry
All the proof I need to support my views.
I am not here to debate you. Because in my view you don't care about debate.
Chuck - 9-2-2004 at 09:53 PM
| Quote: |
I am not here to debate you
|
You're not? Then why did you ask me to provide support for my statement that President Bush pulled strings to get into the Guard? What's
the matter Kelis, did you really think I'd make that statement without being able to support it? And when I did, you come back and tell me you
don't want to debate!!!
BWWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!