Bush's Military Record Released

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 04:53am

Having reviewed the totality of the documents at the last link provided by "The Kernel", I do not see any change in the nature of the documents that are produced there. However, additional documents on that site appear to be of sufficient quality; and the context of a sufficiently correct nature; that I consider the issue to be solved on the case of the documents being reproductions produced by the relevant bureaus at the request of the individual maintaining the site, and thus the matter closed. Due to this I am now willing to concede on the authenticity of the documents.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 05:09am

Having conceded the authenticity of those specific copies of the documents in question, certain articles addressing what they state are of a particular relevance to the question of the President's service:

National Guard Association of the United States article on the President from 2001

Listing of a series of articles by Nashville journalist Bill Hobbes on his website HobbsOnline on the issue of the President's military service.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 07:29am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
May I suggest some Thorazine and a tin foil hat?
Your petulant tactics deserve nothing better than a hearty "fuck you", and as a liberal you should be as much concerned with big-businesses' obsession with money over the truth as with potential government coverups. Strange that I am and you're not. Oh, right, this is a partisan issue so your head has gone out the window.

Oh I very much agree that the media has a plethora of problems that interfere with their ethics. I don't need to be a liberal to see it either. However all of that is irrelevent. The simple reason being that there are enough people in this country with a vested interest in proving these documents false if there was even a shred of evidence to suggest it. The fact that they have not is all the proof I need. If these documents were forgeries, we would have heard about it years ago.

Perhaps in the future when you decide to get caught up in partisanship, you should consult with reality before making your determination.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 07:43am

The Kernel wrote:
Perhaps in the future when you decide to get caught up in partisanship, you should consult with reality before making your determination.

I merely requested additional evidence; and, it was provided, so the concession was provided in return. Do we really need to continue this particular line out of nothing more than inertia?

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-02-11 08:10am

The Kernel wrote: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

How about linking to some other site supporting your claims which dont refer back to that site.

Providing a second source which backsup a primary source is a good idea if you are trying to present an argument based on the primary source's validity.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 08:18am

ggs wrote:
How about linking to some other site supporting your claims which dont refer back to that site.

Providing a second source which backsup a primary source is a good idea if you are trying to present an argument based on the primary source's validity.

I'm content in being referred back to a section which has sufficient documentation to generally establish a plausible chain of events for the documents thus displayed, and supporting documents of an acceptable viability; thus my concession. However that probably is a good principle to follow in general. I probably could have found that page myself earlier in the argument, in retrospect, but was to busy conducting my own searches for other documentation. An oversight for which I am guilty.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 08:40am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
ggs wrote:
How about linking to some other site supporting your claims which dont refer back to that site.

Providing a second source which backsup a primary source is a good idea if you are trying to present an argument based on the primary source's validity.
I'm content in being referred back to a section which has sufficient documentation to generally establish a plausible chain of events for the documents thus displayed, and supporting documents of an acceptable viability; thus my concession. However that probably is a good principle to follow in general. I probably could have found that page myself earlier in the argument, in retrospect, but was to busy conducting my own searches for other documentation. An oversight for which I am guilty.

Actually, I did provide a second source (the original link from Thomas Paine), the repeat link was just to show additional documentation.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 08:43am

The Kernel wrote:
Actually, I did provide a second source (the original link from Thomas Paine), the repeat link was just to show additional documentation.

I believe the two sites are sourcing the same, or at least ggs indicated that. Not mine, though. *shrugs* May wish to ask him for clarification on the matter.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-02-11 09:30am

Seems to me, that Ol' Dubya should rememebr some specific stories about his time with the 187th, eh? Being an ex-military man myself, I have memories of guys I was with for a short time in basic, at my unit, funny little anecdotes I can produce about servicing Humvees in the motorpool, pulling over drunks, telling the drunk that "YES, Sergeant Major, you ARE going to step out of the car." Etc. etc. etc. So far, all I've seen are claims that bush "Specifically remembers" serving at that unit in Montgomery. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fucking do it for me. I want to know something a BIT more specific. That's just me, and I think any "Reasonable" person would agree that "Specifically remembering" something is "Specifically really fucking vague."

h0rus · Post by **h0rus** » 2004-02-14 07:47am

The Kernel wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The Kernel wrote:

Tell me, is it hard being that big of a dumbass?
You appear to be only an ape capable of throwing shit.
Let me get this straight, you are accusing the media of manufacturing evidence without a single shread of proof? Neither Bush, nor any of his conservative lackeys has tried to dispute this document, and you claim that it is fake without a shread of evidence? Calling you a dumbass is being charitable.

I remember when she was crying foul over 'conspiracy theorists', cos of Raoul Duke and some other guys idea that that British arms dealer, or whatever was assasinated for political reasons. She used the same angle you are to attempt to discredit them.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-02-14 02:01pm

The Kernel wrote: Actually, I did provide a second source (the original link from Thomas Paine), the repeat link was just to show additional documentation.

Oops. My bad, I'll call it poor reading on my part.

The CNN article (2 of them I think you linked to) doesnt refer back to that other source you linked to.

But it does refer to the document in question:

The New York Times later said a torn and undated document with Bush's Social Security number -- the name was torn off -- proved that Bush had been performing duties between November 1972 and July 1973. But a performance review from his commanding officers for that period stated that Bush had "not been observed" at the Texas base where he was assigned in the previous year.

Another CNN article has this bit in it:

The report stated Bush had been performing "equivalent training" at a Guard unit in Montgomery, Alabama. But the man who was that unit's commander at the time has said he does not recall Bush reporting for duty.

But this isnt a big suprise, 30 year ago and Bush wouldnt have interacted with him much.