Bush military records 'destroyed'

[demon]

And the dog ate my homework:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3880141.stm

[Chaos]

If you ask me, there are a few "accidents" too many in this administration.

[Cain]

F*cking foreigners.

You guys are too damn cynical. See, that's what this administration boldly stands up against -- cynicism. Bush is hopeful for a democratic Iraq, a safe Iraq, a free Iraq. Bush is optimistic for a thriving domestic economy, keeping the homeland safe and free. Bush is for America -- no apologies.

It's like they say: a conservative wakes up thinking of each day as the Fourth of July; Liberals wake up each day (in the late afternoon) thinking it's April 15th.

[demon]

Cain:
"...that's what this administration boldly stands up against -- cynicism. Bush is hopeful for a democratic Iraq, a safe Iraq, a free Iraq..."

Too right, that`s why he spent all those billions of dollars, just to give them democracy...he`s good like that. Thing is, it's just a bit too much like Saddam's democracy there at the moment.
But, here's a question: when is the US army going to invade again to bring "freedom" to the people of Iraq?

Seems the Philippines are pulling their 51 troops out of the "mother of all coalitions" as Rumsfeld would say...drip, drip, drip...

[Chad Noles]

originally posted by demon:

But, here's a question: when is the US army going to invade again to bring "freedom" to the people of Iraq?


When is the US Army going to invade again to bring "freedom" to the people of America?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon
Too right, that`s why he spent all those billions of dollars, just to give them democracy...he`s good like that. Thing is, it's just a bit too much like Saddam's democracy there at the moment.


Yeah, what with all those people getting killed for expressing different political viewpoints. And the ethnic cleansing campaigns against Kurdish civilians. And the draining of the marshes in the south. And the fact that hospitals are all run as "self-funding" institutions, teachers were paid a few dollars a month. And the amputations and mutilations used as punishment...

Oh wait, Iraq DOES have a free press now, there aren't any ethnic cleansing campaigns, the marshes are being reflooded, hospitals are actually free to civilians for the first time in decades, teachers are paid living wages, and amputees are getting prosthetic limbs rather than people losing real ones.

I'm confused... how is it still like Saddam's "democracy"? Well, they're still muslims, does that count for you?

You're a worm, demon.

[Mel]

Originally posted by demon
And the dog ate my homework:


Obviously, the dog got hungry when he couldn't find a single person willing to come forward to back up Bush's story.


Bush's M.O. for dealing with his past:

1) Hide records in daddy's library

2) Seal records by legal manuever

3) When choice 1 or 2 fail, LOSE those suckers.


Let's all sing the 'O, O, O, Obstruction of Justice' song.

[ssibal]

Seems like some people like to read headlines and not the whole article:

It added that in 1996 and 1997 the microfilm records of "numerous service members" from the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972 were ruined - Mr Bush's among them.



So did Bush build a time machine to go and destroy those records 3 years before he became president?

[wjousts]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
hospitals are actually free to civilians for the first time in decades

Shame that isn't the case here.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by ssibal
So did Bush build a time machine to go and destroy those records 3 years before he became president? I wonder what Bush was up to in 1996/1997?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Oh wait, Iraq DOES have a free press now,


The US has shut down a few newspapers since invading Iraq. That's not "free."


hospitals are actually free to civilians for the first time in decades,


Actually, under Saddam, Iraqis had free health care.



I'm confused... how is it still like Saddam's "democracy"? Well, they're still muslims, does that count for you?

Do you actually know of anyone that called Saddam's regime a democracy? I sure as hell don't, and I even know a few Baathists.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Actually, under Saddam, Iraqis had free health care.


Yeah, I forgot about that. Those guys who had limbs chopped off by Saddam were not charged anything for this service.

Good call, Cleon. We always need to be reminded of the bright side of things.

[demon]

Mel:
"Obviously, the dog got hungry when he couldn't find a single person willing to come forward to back up Bush's story."

Yep, and he found a zippo lighter too. Bad dog;)

[CapelDodger]

from ssibal: So did Bush build a time machine to go and destroy those records 3 years before he became president?
from Bjorn:I wonder what Bush was up to in 1996/1997?Planning a run for president, perhaps? Maybe getting a team together - or having one come to him - that would spot this slight problem from the Vietnam era? Who knows?

[demon]

Quote:
"'Inadvertent destruction'
The microfilm containing the records apparently disintegrated as staff were trying to preserve it from decay."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It`s the way they tell`m...wonder why I`m not laughing though.

[ssibal]

For those implying that Bush was somehow involved in the destruction of these records, how about providing some evidence.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Planning a run for president, perhaps? Maybe getting a team together - or having one come to him - that would spot this slight problem from the Vietnam era? Who knows? Oh my Ed - I would never have thought of that! :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from ssibal:
from Bjorn:Planning a run for president, perhaps? Maybe getting a team together - or having one come to him - that would spot this slight problem from the Vietnam era? Who knows?

You might have a point there, but at that time a president was in office who was a deserter and people had no problem with that, so why go through so much?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Yeah, I forgot about that. Those guys who had limbs chopped off by Saddam were not charged anything for this service.

Good call, Cleon. We always need to be reminded of the bright side of things.

Obivously he meant Sunni muslims and by healthcare he didnt mean western quality. You assume way too much.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You might have a point there, but at that time a president was in office who was a deserter and people had no problem with that, so why go through so much? Did Mr. Clinton enjoy eating desserts? No doubt. Oh, wait, you mean a deserter from the military. Right. Except for one small problem...

[Dorian Gray]

YEAH, Grammatron, the small problem that Clinton was never IN the military. But guess who was, and who is a deserter?

And Cain, there's a difference between optimism and what you do, which is stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes tight and go 'loo loo loo loo loo loo' to keep out all the pesky reality.

[Grammatron]

When I wrote deserter I mean draft dodger. Which if you think about it not really that different.

As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Grammatron
When I wrote deserter I mean draft dodger. Which if you think about it not really that different.

As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that.
You're only a deserter if you're charged with it? Following the same logic, does that mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass murderer, untill this year?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Kerberos

You're only a deserter if you're charged with it? Following the same logic, does that mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass murderer, untill this year?

Nice logic leap, but not quite.

If no one in the armed forces has called him a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Grammatron
When I wrote deserter I mean draft dodger. Which if you think about it not really that different.

As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that.
You're only a deserter if you're charged with it? Following the same logic, does that mean that Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass murderer, untill this year?

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:If no one in the armed forces has called him a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?His actions determine whether he was a deserter. The fact that no-one in the military has accused their commander-in-chief of desertion doesn't tell us much. Just what his actions were is going to be difficult to determine, what with the records getting trashed and all.

What is clear is that Clinton opposed the war, and didn't go, while Bush (and Cheney) didn't oppose the war ... and didn't go. Make of that what you will.

[CapelDodger]

edited to remove double post

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Cleon

The US has shut down a few newspapers since invading Iraq. That's not "free."


Yes, for inciting violence, not for printing opposing points of view. What's your point?


Actually, under Saddam, Iraqis had free health care.


No they didn't. I'm not sure where you got your information, but I'm getting mine from Iraqi doctors. The health care system under Saddam basically collapsed (beginning actually BEFORE the first gulf war) because Saddam didn't spend money on it. That has finally changed.


Do you actually know of anyone that called Saddam's regime a democracy? I sure as hell don't, and I even know a few Baathists.

Read demon's post again, the one I responded to. Note his use of the phrase "Saddam's democracy". I don't care what demon *actually* thinks regarding democracy, but I am going to reuse the term he used when describing Saddam's Iraq. If it's somehow too complicated to understand why I might reuse demon's term when responding to him, well, perhaps you need to start using a blunt keyboard so you don't hurt yourself.

[demon]

From Mytharat (weapons inspectors kicked out etc...he should work for Fox News or Anne hasn`t got a Clwyd "Human mincing machines" he LOVES when we kill people, just not when arabs retaliate. Silly, silly racist!")

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, under Saddam, Iraqis had free health care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mytharat:quote:
No they didn't. I'm not sure where you got your information, but I'm getting mine from Iraqi doctors. The health care system under Saddam basically collapsed (beginning actually BEFORE the first gulf war) because Saddam didn't spend money on it. That has finally changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mytharat:
Read demon's post again, the one I responded to. Note his use of the phrase "Saddam's democracy". I don't care what demon *actually* thinks regarding democracy, but I am going to reuse the term he used when describing Saddam's Iraq. If it's somehow too complicated to understand why I might reuse demon's term when responding to him, well, perhaps you need to start using a blunt keyboard so you don't hurt yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I`ll call you on this...how many Iraqi`s do you know? I know many...here me? MANY! shock horror too, I know Palestinians too...I actually talk to them, you warmongering jerk. Engage the people you are talking about before you speak about them you despicable armchair bomber. I dare you to come back here after talking to an Iraqi...hearing one of the Chalbi "yes men" doesn`t count, get that? Idiot.

t

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You might have a point there, but at that time a president was in office who was a deserter and people had no problem with that, so why go through so much? "Clinton did too" is soo old now .... :p

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon

I`ll call you on this...how many Iraqi`s do you know? I know many...here me? MANY!


That's nice for you. Can I meet them?

Tell you what, I'll give you a source that you can check out yourself, so you don't even have to trust me.
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
Look up the July 4th post. Example quotes:
"During the ex-regime, the hospitals in Iraq, according to a decision from the ‘wise’ government were self-funded, i.e the poor Iraqi who’s downtrodden and plunged into poverty had to pay very high expenses to get the medicine or to be treated in the hospitals..."

"After the liberation, the new Ministry of Health decided to cancel the self-funded system in the hospitals making all the treatments and medicine for free, thousands of families are now being treated at no cost, they are so glad to get the free treatment."

"I feel so pleased when sometimes I sit in the pharmacy room there in Basra with my colleague when someone comes and gets his medicine then says ‘how much?’.. And we reply ‘Ibbalash’! ( free)."

Now, do you have a source to back up your contention, or are you just talking out your backside again?


shock horror too, I know Palestinians too...I actually talk to them, you warmongering jerk.


Shock and horror, I wasn't talking about Palestinians. Get bent.


Engage the people you are talking about before you speak about them you despicable armchair bomber. I dare you to come back here after talking to an Iraqi...hearing one of the Chalbi "yes men" doesn`t count, get that? Idiot.

t

What, am I supposed to be scared by that? Am I supposed to feel cowed by some imagined moral superiority on your part? How about you wander through http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/ or http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ and tell me why you so disdain the opinions of those Iraqis. I guess maybe they don't count as "real" Iraqis if they are glad to have freedom. But then, you never really cared about their freedom at all.

Edit to correct "aren't" to "are" :(

[demon]

If you actually want to talk to an Iraqi...face to face...not through a link or by a cruise missile...ask them about sanctions. I dare you.

Why don`t you actually ask some real Iraqis for a change instead of mouthing off here? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Give you a hint...it`s people, human beings.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon
If you actually want to talk to an Iraqi...face to face...not through a link or by a cruise missile...ask them about sanctions. I dare you.


I'm not sure what you think your point is, but the sanctions support invading Iraq. The sanctions were devastating indeed to innocent Iraqis, but they could not be safely lifted while Saddam stayed in power (one of the primary arguments against the war was that it wasn't needed because sanctions kept Saddam in check). The best way to get rid of sanctions is to get rid of Saddam. Which is what we did.


Why don`t you actually ask some real Iraqis for a change instead of mouthing off here? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Give you a hint...it`s people, human beings.

I note that you have no support for your earlier factual contentions, and you have no response to the sources I posted. And yes, it is indeed about human beings. But you haven't ever actually advocated a course of action that would produce real, lasting benefit for the people you seem to want me to think you support.

So again, get bent.

[demon]

"I note that you have no support for your earlier factual contentions, and you have no response to the sources I posted. And yes, it is indeed about human beings. But you haven't ever actually advocated a course of action that would produce real, lasting benefit for the people you seem to want me to think you support."
More than a decade of sanctions are the way to go eh?

To think there was no alternative to war is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the anti-war position.

Takes one hell of a warmonger to persist that we were right to go to war in the light of new revelations every day now...oh yes, human rights violations. Have you ANY idea about Iraqi history? Do you know ANYTHING about it?

I mean that seriously, have you enaged any? Would you like too? Ask a resident of Fallugha about "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...telling them it`s for their own good just won`t cut it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bjorn
"Clinton did too" is soo old now .... :p

Yes and that's not the point. You are welcome to re-read the posts and my response to them to get the point.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon

To think there was no alternative to war is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the anti-war position.


It's not about whether or not there were alternatives, it's about whether or not the alternatives were better. And nothing you have ever presented indicates that there was a better alternative. Keeping the sanctions was an alternative (were you for that alternative, in light of how, as you yourself point out, it's toll was terrible for Iraqis?). Lifting sanctions (which might allow Saddam's weapons programs to restart) was also an alternative. Got any more alternatives?

Oh, and you STILL haven't been able to address any of my factual contentions regarding the state of Iraqi health care, or in fact anything else I said in my earlier post regarding the difference between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation. All you can do is resort to "no true Scotsman" logic. But I'm not going to play that game. So, once again, bite me.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon

To think there was no alternative to war is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the anti-war position.


It's not about whether or not there were alternatives, it's about whether or not the alternatives were better. And nothing you have ever presented indicates that there was a better alternative. Keeping the sanctions was an alternative (were you for that alternative, in light of how, as you yourself point out, it's toll was terrible for Iraqis?). Lifting sanctions (which might allow Saddam's weapons programs to restart) was also an alternative. Got any more alternatives?

Oh, and you STILL haven't been able to address any of my factual contentions regarding the state of Iraqi health care, or in fact anything else I said in my earlier post regarding the difference between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation. All you can do is resort to "no true Scotsman" logic. It's getting old.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Yes and that's not the point. You are welcome to re-read the posts and my response to them to get the point. You posted this:

You might have a point there, but at that time a president was in office who was a deserter and people had no problem with that, so why go through so much?I can see no earlier mentioning of Clinton in this thread, which was about Dubya's military records. What was your point?

On another note, you have posted these, in the order I quote them:

- at that time a president (Clinton) was in office who was a deserter

- As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that

- If no one in the armed forces has called him (Bush) a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?

Do we have different standards here - Clinton was a deserter, Bush was not, because he was never charged with that?

[Mel]

Clinton was a deserter???


The last I heard, he wasn't even IN the service..... like a couple of guys in the Bush admin.

[demon]

Mytharat:
"It's not about whether or not there were alternatives, it's about whether or not the alternatives were better. And nothing you have ever presented indicates that there was a better alternative. Keeping the sanctions was an alternative (were you for that alternative, in light of how, as you yourself point out, it's toll was terrible for Iraqis?). Lifting sanctions (which might allow Saddam's weapons programs to restart) was also an alternative. Got any more alternatives?

Oh, and you STILL haven't been able to address any of my factual contentions regarding the state of Iraqi health care, or in fact anything else I said in my earlier post regarding the difference between Saddam's Iraq and the current situation. All you can do is resort to "no true Scotsman" logic. It's getting old."

You haven`t seen my posts then.
You are obviously ignorant about Iraq befor Fox News told you about it...was doing rather well until FoxNews recruited scum like you around a neocon agenda planned years ago...I think that`s the reason you get so uppity these days...you like the aggression, you just got left out with the say so angle LOL

Thats always been the problem with self important warmongers...they think the war is being fought for their own good...can you say "dickhead" on here without getting banned? LOL

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You posted this:

I can see no earlier mentioning of Clinton in this thread, which was about Dubya's military records. What was your point?

On another note, you have posted these, in the order I quote them:

- at that time a president (Clinton) was in office who was a deserter

- As a side-note, Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that

- If no one in the armed forces has called him (Bush) a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?

Do we have different standards here - Clinton was a deserter, Bush was not, because he was never charged with that?

I posted a correction to my post that Clinton was a draft dodger not a deserter.

The records are supposedly destroyed in 96/97 who was in the office?

CapelDodger replies with an implication that Bush had the records destroyed because he was considering run for the office.

I respond with why bother doing that when the current presiden at the time had a horrible military record (or lack there of).

So no it's not "Well Clinton did it too...." thing at all, it's me pointing out the conspiracy theory people are trying to create is ridiculas. But you of course are welcome to put the tinfoil hats on and think about what evil Bush is doing.

[Skeptic]

You're only a deserter if you're charged with it?

Why, no, of course not. You're a deserter the moment someone who is your political opponent and has an ax to grind against you declared you one.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon

You haven`t seen my posts then.
You are obviously ignorant about Iraq befor Fox News told you about it...was doing rather well until FoxNews recruited scum like you around a neocon agenda planned years ago...I think that`s the reason you get so uppity these days...you like the aggression, you just got left out with the say so angle LOL


That's funny, none of my links were from fox news. Where are your links? Oh, you didn't post any. I fact, you never posted ANY information comparing Iraq under Saddam to Iraq now. You just insist that you've got lots of Iraqi friends, and so you know what all Iraqis think, and how dare I presume to read the writings of Iraqis IN Iraq and post an opinion based on the facts they put forward. What, they don't count because you didn't talk to them? And you accuse ME of arrogance?


Thats always been the problem with self important warmongers...they think the war is being fought for their own good...can you say "dickhead" on here without getting banned? LOL

If you need to resort to profanity to insult someone, all that really shows is a lack of mental capacity on your part, you cretinous sack of goat stool. See, no swear words :D

[Mel]

This endless argument comparing Clinton's military experience to Bush's seems to do more harm to Bush than anything else.

Clinton was only one of thousands of young men (like Cheney) who legally avoided military service. Clinton is NOT running against Bush. If the only way Bush supporters can make their candidate look good is to continue to denigrate a FORMER president (or the current rival), I don't think that speaks very highly of Bush's qualifications.


The ONLY reason anybody cares a bit about Bush's questionable military service is because he made a COMMITMENT that seemingly he did not fulfill. People have a right to know that a candidate has HONORED his commitment to his country.

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:CapelDodger replies with an implication that Bush had the records destroyed because he was considering run for the office.

I respond with why bother doing that when the current presiden at the time had a horrible military record (or lack there of).
Clinton's avoidance of Vietnam service - quite legal, as I understand it - was raised against him by the VRWC. It failed to hurt because he had opposed the war. The subject was more hurtful to Geroge I's VP whose name escapes me, what a cypher he must have been. You know, the potatoe man, who supported the war but got out of going. Pretty much the George II situation. The subject will, at least, have come up during brainstorming sessions. Whether or not the records were destroyed as a result is anybody's guess. I don't see it as something that can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Does anyone know whether Rove anointed Bush as his chosen vehicle, or Bush recruited Rove?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Grammatron:
Clinton's avoidance of Vietnam service - quite legal, as I understand it - was raised against him by the VRWC. It failed to hurt because he had opposed the war. The subject was more hurtful to Geroge I's VP whose name escapes me, what a cypher he must have been. You know, the potatoe man, who supported the war but got out of going. Pretty much the George II situation. The subject will, at least, have come up during brainstorming sessions. Whether or not the records were destroyed as a result is anybody's guess. I don't see it as something that can be dismissed out-of-hand.

Does anyone know whether Rove anointed Bush as his chosen vehicle, or Bush recruited Rove?

So why not destroy all the negative records?

[jj]

So, when will Bobby the K, and all those other conservative attack-dogs start lying about the people pointing out the truth in this thread, and then start stalking them about the forum, lying about what they said here, there, and elsewhere?

Or will the new moderation prevent this?

News at 11.

I'd think it's obvious by now, Bush was a draft dodger in spirit at the very least, and it seems fairly clear that he even shirked Guard duty.

On the converse, Kerry has a silver star.

So, of course, we have a bunch of quacking attack dogs screaming about how Kerry would be bad for defense. Yeah. Sure.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by ssibal
Seems like some people like to read headlines and not the whole article:



So did Bush build a time machine to go and destroy those records 3 years before he became president?

The proper question is, "Gee, didn't those records get destroyed at just about the exact time Bush's name was first being bandied about for President?"

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

"After the liberation, the new Ministry of Health decided to cancel the self-funded system in the hospitals making all the treatments and medicine for free, thousands of families are now being treated at no cost, they are so glad to get the free treatment."

"I feel so pleased when sometimes I sit in the pharmacy room there in Basra with my colleague when someone comes and gets his medicine then says ‘how much?’.. And we reply ‘Ibbalash’! ( free)."

Maybe some of the people who will be suffering from the latest Medicaid retrictions would do well to move to Iraq, where they could get medical testing and medicine for free. /sidetrack

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So why not destroy all the negative records?

Incompetance and a desire to have just enough left out to create a big fight about it at a time when the lies won't come out until too late.

Remember the last election? Remember all the voters in Florida who were prevented from voting? Let's not talk about the irrational results coming back from some sectors, and just point out the number of people who were illegally denied the right to vote at all.

'W', you owe Jeb a big one there.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


Incompetance and a desire to have just enough left out to create a big fight about it at a time when the lies won't come out until too late.

So they would go just far enough to destroy some of the records, but not all so Bush would have something to be criticized for? Oh yeah that makes sense.:rolleyes:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I posted a correction to my post that Clinton was a draft dodger not a deserter.And continued: Which if you think about it not really that different.

So they would go just far enough to destroy some of the records, but not all so Bush would have something to be criticized for? Oh yeah that makes sense.Hehe. Do you think it would have raised less suspicion if they hadn't found any records at all?

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So they would go just far enough to destroy some of the records, but not all so Bush would have something to be criticized for? Oh yeah that makes sense.:rolleyes:

Yep, it certainly does if you're Rove and you think people are stupid enough to fall for it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Bjorn
And continued: Which if you think about it not really that different.

Hehe. Do you think it would have raised less suspicion if they hadn't found any records at all?

As opposed to all the suspicion raised now?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Grammatron


As opposed to all the suspicion raised now? Yes.

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:As opposed to all the suspicion raised now?
As opposed to what might have been confirmed by the actual records subjected to a coffee-spill. You can't destroy all the records and have a blank on the CV (which people will fill out with "drunk and drugged-up"). Nor is it a good idea to invent anything - far trickier than conspiracy theorists realise, you'll agree. I'm not saying it's so, I'm just saying ...

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Blue Monk


The proper question is, "Gee, didn't those records get destroyed at just about the exact time Bush's name was first being bandied about for President?"

Begging the question....

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Nice logic leap, but not quite.
Why not?

Originally posted by Grammatron

If no one in the armed forces has called him a deserter and charged him with that, how does that make him one?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desert
If he's "forsaken his duty or post" or especially if he's been "absent without leave from the armed forces with no intention of returning" he's a deserter, regardless of whether he's been charged or not. What on Earth gives you the notion that you can only be guilty of a crime (or rather some crimes because apparently the principle only applies to Bush and desertion but not Saddam and genocide,), if you've been charged with it? Commiting a crime makes you guilty of it, indictment and even conviction is beside the point.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Why not?


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desert
If he's "forsaken his duty or post" or especially if he's been "absent without leave from the armed forces with no intention of returning" he's a deserter, regardless of whether he's been charged or not. What on Earth gives you the notion that you can only be guilty of a crime (or rather some crimes because apparently the principle only applies to Bush and desertion but not Saddam and genocide,), if you've been charged with it? Commiting a crime makes you guilty of it, indictment and even conviction is beside the point.

So present the evidence you based this on then, I'm sure you had looked at it objectively, weighed in all posibilities and only then arrived at the conclusion that Bush is a deserter. I look forward to reading such a comprehensive post.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Grammatron


So present the evidence you based this on then, I'm sure you had looked at it objectively, weighed in all posibilities and only then arrived at the conclusion that Bush is a deserter. I look forward to reading such a comprehensive post.
Whoops, there goes the goal posts, I neither know, nor care if Bush is a deserter, and AFAIR I've never expressed an opinion on the subject, but you said that "Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that."(my emphasis). I simply pointed out that it is 100% irrelevant whether he's been charged. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but what you said was that Bush couldn't be a deserter because he wasn't indicted.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Whoops, there goes the goal posts, I neither know, nor care if Bush is a deserter, and AFAIR I've never expressed an opinion on the subject, but you said that "Bush is not a deserter because he was never charged with that."(my emphasis). I simply pointed out that it is 100% irrelevant whether he's been charged. Perhaps you didn't mean it, but what you said was that Bush couldn't be a deserter because he wasn't indicted.

Well I have not seen any evidence that would indicate he is a deserter.