freeflydrew 0 #1 July 9, 2004 Pentagon: Bush military records destroyed http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1151&slug=Bush%20Military%20Service Quote WASHINGTON -- Military payroll records that could more fully document President Bush's whereabouts during his service in the Texas Air National Guard were inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon. I just had to post this... how ironic that the piece of microfilm that was not backed up, was destroyed, and contained Bush's "payroll information" Ha Ha Ha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #2 July 9, 2004 Check out the date! in'96, Clinton thru his clairvoyance, knew that GWB would be running for re-election in'04 and that these records would be helpful. Hence, he ordered them destroyed. -------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #3 July 9, 2004 Quotein'96, Clinton thru his clairvoyance, knew that GWB would be running for re-election in'04 and that these records would be helpful. Hence, he ordered them destroyed. Yes, Bush junior at that time had never even considered running for office.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #4 July 9, 2004 QuoteCheck out the date! in'96, Clinton thru his clairvoyance, knew that GWB would be running for re-election in'04 and that these records would be helpful. Hence, he ordered them destroyed. -------------------- Ha Ha HA... I didn't point fingers saying it was him or her, I merely laughed at the pure irony of the whole thing... Ha Ha Ha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #5 July 9, 2004 QuoteCheck out the date! in'96, Clinton thru his clairvoyance, knew that GWB would be running for re-election in'04 and that these records would be helpful. Hence, he ordered them destroyed. Uuuuh, where do you get '96 out of that? I'm serious, I have NO idea what you are talking about. If the article is true; it does kind of make you wonder. It's like Occam's Razor; what's more likely, that someone wanted the records destroyed to avoid a potentially embarrassing revelation that Bush didn't "completely" serve (which personally I could really give a s%$# about anyways, I think there are more relevant and timely issues to debate), or that out of ALL of the records that could have been "inadvertently" destroyed without being backed up. they HAPPENED to be the ones at the center of a so-called scandal? I guess the Gods Of Coincidence have a hell of a sense of irony..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
larsrulz 0 #6 July 9, 2004 "The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said." I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #7 July 9, 2004 Quote"The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said." Thanks. Haven't had any caffeine yet. Either that, or it's my "Left Wing Blinders"... Of course, if there was some conspiracy to destroy the film, I seriously doubt they would stop short of lying about it in a letter. Interesting, too that a Google and LexisNexis reveals a few bits about the Pentagon and projects to repair deteriorating microfilm, but nothing anywhere near 1996 or 1997... (1981, 1985, and 2001)... Hmmmmmmmmm..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #8 July 9, 2004 QuoteInteresting, too that a Google and LexisNexis reveals a few bits about the Pentagon and projects to repair deteriorating microfilm, but nothing anywhere near 1996 or 1997... (1981, 1985, and 2001)... Probably because it's not exactly a newsworthy event. I can see the headline now "Pentagon tries to salvage old microfilm records" - No, wait. I can't. Because it's likely that noone cared until they went searching for GWB's payroll. As far as the conspiracy goes - if you go looking for it, you'll likely find it, even when it isn't there. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #9 July 9, 2004 QuoteProbably because it's not exactly a newsworthy event. I can see the headline now "Pentagon tries to salvage old microfilm records" - No, wait. I can't. Because it's likely that noone cared until they went searching for GWB's payroll. Funny, I would have thought the same thing, but there was plenty of info on the other projects; most of it not from "hard news", but from scholastic sources and interested parties, i.e., groups worried about the deteriorating records, etc. QuoteAs far as the conspiracy goes - if you go looking for it, you'll likely find it, even when it isn't there. Ain't that the truth. You should hear my "Ralph Nader is secretly an android remotely controlled by Dick Cheney" theory..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #10 July 9, 2004 "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." -John Kerry, defending [then-Presidential Candidate] Bill Clinton's draft-dodging in a speech on the Senate floor, February 27, 1992. http://www.foolsblog.com/archives/001905.html Oh, and from the same speech: "I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the [Presidential] campaign." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #11 July 9, 2004 If the point that you are making is that it's a fairly irrelevant consideration in the face of some the real issues, I have a tendency to agree. I can see it now: "I voted for Kerry for president, the most important elected position in the world, because he served for a year thirty years ago and GWB didn't"..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #12 July 9, 2004 I think my point is that I take exception to the notion that it was (according to Kerry) perfectly acceptable then for someone to have intentionally evaded fulfilling his civic duty to this country, but it has now become important to argue semantics over someone else who actually did serve his country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #13 July 9, 2004 I see your point, though I am frankly not surprised at ANY politician changing his views on such things to support his agenda at the time. Call me jaded when it comes to the political process, especially at the federal level."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #14 July 9, 2004 Ironic. LOL. As if all the evidence Bush has presented to date wasn't enough. What is more ironic to me that a man who, during the Cold War swore an oath '...to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same...' has himself become a domestic enemy - especially with regards to our capitalist economy. A tool of socialists - (recall what USSR stood for, Gore supporters) both openly proclaimed socialists as Jack Sweeney and socialists in denial like Nancy Pelosi/Tom Daschle. Kerry's dream-term would harbinger the end of the republic along de Tocquevellian lines. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #15 July 12, 2004 QuoteI think my point is that I take exception to the notion that it was (according to Kerry) perfectly acceptable then for someone to have intentionally evaded fulfilling his civic duty to this country, but it has now become important to argue semantics over someone else who actually did serve his country. I'm sorry, but how is that according to Kerry? Yeah, there are people on the left screaming about Bush's record. Personally, I could care less. Seems Kerry doesn't either: "I don't know what the facts are with respect to the president's service," the decorated veteran said on a Tucson tarmac. "I know issues were raised previously. It's not up to me to talk about them or question them at this point." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #16 July 12, 2004 It's according to Kerry because he stood up on the floor of the United States Senate and tried to convince everyone that it was perfectly alright for someone not to fulfill his civic duty to this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #17 July 12, 2004 QuoteIronic. LOL. As if all the evidence Bush has presented to date wasn't enough. What is more ironic to me that a man who, during the Cold War swore an oath '...to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same...' has himself become a domestic enemy - especially with regards to our capitalist economy. A tool of socialists - (recall what USSR stood for, Gore supporters) both openly proclaimed socialists as Jack Sweeney and socialists in denial like Nancy Pelosi/Tom Daschle. Kerry's dream-term would harbinger the end of the republic along de Tocquevellian lines. A nice day off work does wonders!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
