Discussion:
Racicot : Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam
(too old to reply)
Sarah
2004-02-24 02:26:47 UTC
Permalink
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/


(February 23, 2004 -- 06:33 PM EDT // link // print)

Run it by the boss first?

This morning we noted that Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot tried
to float the demonstrably false line that President Bush had
volunteered for service in Vietnam, but hadn't been 'selected'.

Now, our first thought was that Mr. Racicot might be angling to be the
next winner of the 'Heather Wilson "I think the American people are a
bunch of god-forsaken idiots" Award'.

But this isn't just a blatant mistatement of the facts that Racicot
apparently believes the press will be too timid to call him on. He's
even contradicting what the president himself said only two weeks ago.

Let's go to the tape ...

"He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered
to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to go, but nonetheless served his
country very well."

Marc Racicot
NPR Interview
February 23rd, 2004

Now, here's what the president himself said just two weeks ago ...

RUSSERT: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?

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.

BUSH: No, I didn't. You're right.

Meet The Press
February 8th, 2004

And here's an even more candid version of events from the president
from fourteen years ago ...

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

George W. Bush, 1990
as quoted in The Houston Chronicle
May 8th, 1994.

No doubt there are other examples in which the president has conceded
the undeniable truth that he didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam.
And if folks want to send them in to me, I'd be obliged.

But let's just consider what Racicot is doing here.

This wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was deliberate. Now that the
topic has been moved a bit to the back burner, they're trying to get
back on the offensive by floating a deliberate and undeniable
deception in the hopes that no one will notice. If no one does then
the new false story will become the accepted version in the coming
campaign debate.

You really can't let your eyes off them for a second.

Is anyone going to ask the campaign or the White House whethre their
new line is that the president volunteered to go to Vietnam but just
never got picked?

-- Josh Marshall

(February 23, 2004 -- 11:03 AM EDT // link // print)

Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's
military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you
realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and
his surrogates just won't stop lying about it.

This morning Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot was interviewed by
Juan Williams on NPR. When asked about the president's Air National
Guard service he said, the president's and John Kerry's service
"compare very favorably... He (i.e. the president) signed up for
dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to
go, but nonetheless served his country very well ."

He volunteered to go to Vietnam?

Marc, no he didn't.

Does he think no one is listening?

(For some reason Williams, made no effort to call him on it.)

Let's set aside the fact that pulling strings to get into the Air
National Guard in 1968 is, on its face, quite the opposite of
volunteering to go to Vietnam. When the president signed up for the
National Guard there was a check box asking whether he wanted to
volunteer for overseas service. And he checked off "do not volunteer."

Now, the president's defenders have tried to explain this in various
ways, hypothesizing that some unknown other person checked off the box
or, more plausibly, that he was instructed to do so since what he was
actually signing up for was to fly planes in Texas. Of late, they've
brought forward friends or fellow Guardsmen who say -- with no
documentary evidence whatsoever -- that Bush at one point or another
asked about serving in Vietnam.

(There is also the president's claim that he volunteered for something
called Palace Alert, a program that would have taken him to Thailand.
But I believe there is no record of this. And as noted in this
Washington Post interview from 1999, if he did sign up, it would have
been within a week of the program's being shut down -- a fact that
points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that if he did sign up, he did
so to sign up, not to go.)

But however that may be, it is awfully hard to turn the "do not
volunteer" into "do volunteer."

This is just a preview of what we're certain to see from the Bush
campaign this year since it follows past practice so closely: Wait
till the brouhaha subsides and then hopscotch over the remaining
unanswered questions about the president's service by making stuff up
that is flatly contradicted by the record.

Who's going to call them on this?

-- Josh Marshall
Vern Cole
2004-02-24 13:52:32 UTC
Permalink
I don't know what the National Guard policy was, but in the Army from
the time I was in Basic Training until the day I got out we where
always given a form to fill out asking us what our choice of
assignments were. I put Vietnam down every time as my first choice,
followed by Ft. Bragg, then Ft. Campbell.

There very well may be a record somewhere that says that Bush's first
choice was Vietnam. Those type of records are normally keep though.

Vern
Post by Sarah
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
(February 23, 2004 -- 06:33 PM EDT // link // print)
Run it by the boss first?
This morning we noted that Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot tried
to float the demonstrably false line that President Bush had
volunteered for service in Vietnam, but hadn't been 'selected'.
Now, our first thought was that Mr. Racicot might be angling to be the
next winner of the 'Heather Wilson "I think the American people are a
bunch of god-forsaken idiots" Award'.
But this isn't just a blatant mistatement of the facts that Racicot
apparently believes the press will be too timid to call him on. He's
even contradicting what the president himself said only two weeks ago.
Let's go to the tape ...
"He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered
to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to go, but nonetheless served his
country very well."
Marc Racicot
NPR Interview
February 23rd, 2004
Now, here's what the president himself said just two weeks ago ...
RUSSERT: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
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.
BUSH: No, I didn't. You're right.
Meet The Press
February 8th, 2004
And here's an even more candid version of events from the president
from fourteen years ago ...
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
George W. Bush, 1990
as quoted in The Houston Chronicle
May 8th, 1994.
No doubt there are other examples in which the president has conceded
the undeniable truth that he didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam.
And if folks want to send them in to me, I'd be obliged.
But let's just consider what Racicot is doing here.
This wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was deliberate. Now that the
topic has been moved a bit to the back burner, they're trying to get
back on the offensive by floating a deliberate and undeniable
deception in the hopes that no one will notice. If no one does then
the new false story will become the accepted version in the coming
campaign debate.
You really can't let your eyes off them for a second.
Is anyone going to ask the campaign or the White House whethre their
new line is that the president volunteered to go to Vietnam but just
never got picked?
-- Josh Marshall
(February 23, 2004 -- 11:03 AM EDT // link // print)
Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's
military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you
realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and
his surrogates just won't stop lying about it.
This morning Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot was interviewed by
Juan Williams on NPR. When asked about the president's Air National
Guard service he said, the president's and John Kerry's service
"compare very favorably... He (i.e. the president) signed up for
dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to
go, but nonetheless served his country very well ."
He volunteered to go to Vietnam?
Marc, no he didn't.
Does he think no one is listening?
(For some reason Williams, made no effort to call him on it.)
Let's set aside the fact that pulling strings to get into the Air
National Guard in 1968 is, on its face, quite the opposite of
volunteering to go to Vietnam. When the president signed up for the
National Guard there was a check box asking whether he wanted to
volunteer for overseas service. And he checked off "do not volunteer."
Now, the president's defenders have tried to explain this in various
ways, hypothesizing that some unknown other person checked off the box
or, more plausibly, that he was instructed to do so since what he was
actually signing up for was to fly planes in Texas. Of late, they've
brought forward friends or fellow Guardsmen who say -- with no
documentary evidence whatsoever -- that Bush at one point or another
asked about serving in Vietnam.
(There is also the president's claim that he volunteered for something
called Palace Alert, a program that would have taken him to Thailand.
But I believe there is no record of this. And as noted in this
Washington Post interview from 1999, if he did sign up, it would have
been within a week of the program's being shut down -- a fact that
points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that if he did sign up, he did
so to sign up, not to go.)
But however that may be, it is awfully hard to turn the "do not
volunteer" into "do volunteer."
This is just a preview of what we're certain to see from the Bush
campaign this year since it follows past practice so closely: Wait
till the brouhaha subsides and then hopscotch over the remaining
unanswered questions about the president's service by making stuff up
that is flatly contradicted by the record.
Who's going to call them on this?
-- Josh Marshall
Gogarty
2004-02-24 15:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vern Cole
I don't know what the National Guard policy was, but in the Army from
the time I was in Basic Training until the day I got out we where
always given a form to fill out asking us what our choice of
assignments were. I put Vietnam down every time as my first choice,
followed by Ft. Bragg, then Ft. Campbell.
There very well may be a record somewhere that says that Bush's first
choice was Vietnam. Those type of records are normally keep though.
Where is it then? The President of the United States can't get the
beaurocracy to cough up his records? And wasn't there a form on which he
checked "do not propose for foreign assignment" or some such?

On a related note, Doonsbury has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who
can verify Bush's presence on National Guard duty in Alabama. I assume it
is a valid offer.
no-one
2004-02-24 16:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vern Cole
I don't know what the National Guard policy was, but in the Army from
the time I was in Basic Training until the day I got out we where
always given a form to fill out asking us what our choice of
assignments were. I put Vietnam down every time as my first choice,
followed by Ft. Bragg, then Ft. Campbell.
There very well may be a record somewhere that says that Bush's first
choice was Vietnam. Those type of records are normally keep though.
Where is it then? The President of the United States can't get the
beaurocracy to cough up his records? And wasn't there a form on which he
checked "do not propose for foreign assignment" or some such?

On a related note, Doonsbury has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who
can verify Bush's presence on National Guard duty in Alabama. I assume it
is a valid offer.


Yes it is, just one twist the money will be given in that persons name (tax
write off) to the USO!
Hugh Gibbons
2004-02-25 04:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by Vern Cole
There very well may be a record somewhere that says that Bush's first
choice was Vietnam. Those type of records are normally keep though.
Where is it then? The President of the United States can't get the
beaurocracy to cough up his records? And wasn't there a form on which he
checked "do not propose for foreign assignment" or some such?
On a related note, Doonsbury has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who
can verify Bush's presence on National Guard duty in Alabama. I assume it
is a valid offer.
It doesn't exist. How could it? Do you think George W. Bush was so
addled as to think that joining the National Guard was the thing to
do if you wanted to serve in Vietnam? For that, you joined the Army,
or Marines and told them you wanted to fight for Democracy. The National
Guard??? How dumb do you have to be to believe this lie?
FSIA
2004-02-24 22:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vern Cole
There very well may be a record somewhere that says that Bush's first
choice was Vietnam. Those type of records are normally keep though.
NO way...the whole purpose of Bush entering the National Guard was to
prevent his being drafted in a time when every able-bodied young male
was either drafted, deferred or they enlisted. Draftees went to
Vietnam, enlisted had somewhat of a choice.
reid decker
2004-02-24 17:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Sarah: What do you expect will be better in this country by getting war
protesters in office? And BTW, who started the Viet Nam war? Wasn't it JFK?
And how bad is the unemployment situation as compared to the Carter
Administration when we had 15% unemployed, 12% inflation, 22% interest
rates, 5 lost helicopters and hundreds of prisoners in Iran? Those
statistics are all hushed up now, how come? Sarah, I truly believe you
should be investigated as a subversive.
Post by Sarah
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
(February 23, 2004 -- 06:33 PM EDT // link // print)
Run it by the boss first?
This morning we noted that Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot tried
to float the demonstrably false line that President Bush had
volunteered for service in Vietnam, but hadn't been 'selected'.
Now, our first thought was that Mr. Racicot might be angling to be the
next winner of the 'Heather Wilson "I think the American people are a
bunch of god-forsaken idiots" Award'.
But this isn't just a blatant mistatement of the facts that Racicot
apparently believes the press will be too timid to call him on. He's
even contradicting what the president himself said only two weeks ago.
Let's go to the tape ...
"He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered
to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to go, but nonetheless served his
country very well."
Marc Racicot
NPR Interview
February 23rd, 2004
Now, here's what the president himself said just two weeks ago ...
RUSSERT: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
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.
BUSH: No, I didn't. You're right.
Meet The Press
February 8th, 2004
And here's an even more candid version of events from the president
from fourteen years ago ...
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
George W. Bush, 1990
as quoted in The Houston Chronicle
May 8th, 1994.
No doubt there are other examples in which the president has conceded
the undeniable truth that he didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam.
And if folks want to send them in to me, I'd be obliged.
But let's just consider what Racicot is doing here.
This wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was deliberate. Now that the
topic has been moved a bit to the back burner, they're trying to get
back on the offensive by floating a deliberate and undeniable
deception in the hopes that no one will notice. If no one does then
the new false story will become the accepted version in the coming
campaign debate.
You really can't let your eyes off them for a second.
Is anyone going to ask the campaign or the White House whethre their
new line is that the president volunteered to go to Vietnam but just
never got picked?
-- Josh Marshall
(February 23, 2004 -- 11:03 AM EDT // link // print)
Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's
military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you
realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and
his surrogates just won't stop lying about it.
This morning Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot was interviewed by
Juan Williams on NPR. When asked about the president's Air National
Guard service he said, the president's and John Kerry's service
"compare very favorably... He (i.e. the president) signed up for
dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to
go, but nonetheless served his country very well ."
He volunteered to go to Vietnam?
Marc, no he didn't.
Does he think no one is listening?
(For some reason Williams, made no effort to call him on it.)
Let's set aside the fact that pulling strings to get into the Air
National Guard in 1968 is, on its face, quite the opposite of
volunteering to go to Vietnam. When the president signed up for the
National Guard there was a check box asking whether he wanted to
volunteer for overseas service. And he checked off "do not volunteer."
Now, the president's defenders have tried to explain this in various
ways, hypothesizing that some unknown other person checked off the box
or, more plausibly, that he was instructed to do so since what he was
actually signing up for was to fly planes in Texas. Of late, they've
brought forward friends or fellow Guardsmen who say -- with no
documentary evidence whatsoever -- that Bush at one point or another
asked about serving in Vietnam.
(There is also the president's claim that he volunteered for something
called Palace Alert, a program that would have taken him to Thailand.
But I believe there is no record of this. And as noted in this
Washington Post interview from 1999, if he did sign up, it would have
been within a week of the program's being shut down -- a fact that
points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that if he did sign up, he did
so to sign up, not to go.)
But however that may be, it is awfully hard to turn the "do not
volunteer" into "do volunteer."
This is just a preview of what we're certain to see from the Bush
campaign this year since it follows past practice so closely: Wait
till the brouhaha subsides and then hopscotch over the remaining
unanswered questions about the president's service by making stuff up
that is flatly contradicted by the record.
Who's going to call them on this?
-- Josh Marshall
Gogarty
2004-02-24 18:17:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <5pL_b.1695$***@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, ***@bellsouth.net
says...
Post by reid decker
Sarah: What do you expect will be better in this country by getting war
protesters in office? And BTW, who started the Viet Nam war? Wasn't it JFK?
No, it was Eisenhower. JFK inherited it.
Bert Bishop
2004-02-24 20:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by reid decker
Sarah: What do you expect will be better in this country by getting war
protesters in office? And BTW, who started the Viet Nam war? Wasn't it JFK?
And how bad is the unemployment situation as compared to the Carter
Administration when we had 15% unemployed, 12% inflation, 22% interest
rates, 5 lost helicopters and hundreds of prisoners in Iran? Those
statistics are all hushed up now, how come? Sarah, I truly believe you
should be investigated as a subversive.
Post by Sarah
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
(February 23, 2004 -- 06:33 PM EDT // link // print)
Run it by the boss first?
This morning we noted that Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot tried
to float the demonstrably false line that President Bush had
volunteered for service in Vietnam, but hadn't been 'selected'.
Now, our first thought was that Mr. Racicot might be angling to be the
next winner of the 'Heather Wilson "I think the American people are a
bunch of god-forsaken idiots" Award'.
But this isn't just a blatant mistatement of the facts that Racicot
apparently believes the press will be too timid to call him on. He's
even contradicting what the president himself said only two weeks ago.
Let's go to the tape ...
"He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered
to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to go, but nonetheless served his
country very well."
Marc Racicot
NPR Interview
February 23rd, 2004
Now, here's what the president himself said just two weeks ago ...
RUSSERT: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
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.
BUSH: No, I didn't. You're right.
Meet The Press
February 8th, 2004
And here's an even more candid version of events from the president
from fourteen years ago ...
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to
get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to
better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
George W. Bush, 1990
as quoted in The Houston Chronicle
May 8th, 1994.
No doubt there are other examples in which the president has conceded
the undeniable truth that he didn't volunteer for service in Vietnam.
And if folks want to send them in to me, I'd be obliged.
But let's just consider what Racicot is doing here.
This wasn't a slip of the tongue. This was deliberate. Now that the
topic has been moved a bit to the back burner, they're trying to get
back on the offensive by floating a deliberate and undeniable
deception in the hopes that no one will notice. If no one does then
the new false story will become the accepted version in the coming
campaign debate.
You really can't let your eyes off them for a second.
Is anyone going to ask the campaign or the White House whethre their
new line is that the president volunteered to go to Vietnam but just
never got picked?
-- Josh Marshall
(February 23, 2004 -- 11:03 AM EDT // link // print)
Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's
military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you
realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and
his surrogates just won't stop lying about it.
This morning Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot was interviewed by
Juan Williams on NPR. When asked about the president's Air National
Guard service he said, the president's and John Kerry's service
"compare very favorably... He (i.e. the president) signed up for
dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn't selected to
go, but nonetheless served his country very well ."
He volunteered to go to Vietnam?
Marc, no he didn't.
Does he think no one is listening?
(For some reason Williams, made no effort to call him on it.)
Let's set aside the fact that pulling strings to get into the Air
National Guard in 1968 is, on its face, quite the opposite of
volunteering to go to Vietnam. When the president signed up for the
National Guard there was a check box asking whether he wanted to
volunteer for overseas service. And he checked off "do not volunteer."
Now, the president's defenders have tried to explain this in various
ways, hypothesizing that some unknown other person checked off the box
or, more plausibly, that he was instructed to do so since what he was
actually signing up for was to fly planes in Texas. Of late, they've
brought forward friends or fellow Guardsmen who say -- with no
documentary evidence whatsoever -- that Bush at one point or another
asked about serving in Vietnam.
(There is also the president's claim that he volunteered for something
called Palace Alert, a program that would have taken him to Thailand.
But I believe there is no record of this. And as noted in this
Washington Post interview from 1999, if he did sign up, it would have
been within a week of the program's being shut down -- a fact that
points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that if he did sign up, he did
so to sign up, not to go.)
But however that may be, it is awfully hard to turn the "do not
volunteer" into "do volunteer."
This is just a preview of what we're certain to see from the Bush
campaign this year since it follows past practice so closely: Wait
till the brouhaha subsides and then hopscotch over the remaining
unanswered questions about the president's service by making stuff up
that is flatly contradicted by the record.
Who's going to call them on this?
-- Josh Marshall
The highest annual unemployment rate under Carter was 7.1%. Are the
other numbers also incorrect?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf
Hugh Gibbons
2004-02-25 04:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by reid decker
Sarah: What do you expect will be better in this country by getting war
protesters in office? And BTW, who started the Viet Nam war? Wasn't it JFK?
Why do you ask? Is HE running for President?
Post by reid decker
And how bad is the unemployment situation as compared to the Carter
Administration when we had 15% unemployed, 12% inflation, 22% interest
rates, 5 lost helicopters and hundreds of prisoners in Iran?
Why do you ask? Is HE running for President?
Post by reid decker
Those
statistics are all hushed up now, how come?
No, they're irrelevant now. Pay attention. It is 2004. JFK was
assassinated 25 years ago. Carter builds houses for poor people
and occasionally helps out the US government when he's asked. George
W. Bush wants my vote for President. So does John Kerry. I like
Kerry better, because I know the President lies all the time, or has
his subordinates lie for him.
Gogarty
2004-02-25 14:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Gibbons
No, they're irrelevant now. Pay attention. It is 2004. JFK was
assassinated 25 years ago.
Minor point, but it was more than forty years ago. Nov. 22, 1962.
Gogarty
2004-02-25 18:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by Hugh Gibbons
No, they're irrelevant now. Pay attention. It is 2004. JFK was
assassinated 25 years ago.
Minor point, but it was more than forty years ago. Nov. 22, 1962.
Oops! 1963.
Hugh Gibbons
2004-02-26 00:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by Hugh Gibbons
No, they're irrelevant now. Pay attention. It is 2004. JFK was
assassinated 25 years ago.
Minor point, but it was more than forty years ago. Nov. 22, 1962.
I'm living in the past myself.
John TIbbs
2004-02-25 14:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hugh Gibbons
Post by reid decker
Sarah: What do you expect will be better in this country by getting war
protesters in office? And BTW, who started the Viet Nam war? Wasn't it JFK?
Why do you ask? Is HE running for President?
Post by reid decker
And how bad is the unemployment situation as compared to the Carter
Administration when we had 15% unemployed, 12% inflation, 22% interest
rates, 5 lost helicopters and hundreds of prisoners in Iran?
Why do you ask? Is HE running for President?
Post by reid decker
Those
statistics are all hushed up now, how come?
No, they're irrelevant now. Pay attention. It is 2004. JFK was
assassinated 25 years ago. Carter builds houses for poor people
and occasionally helps out the US government when he's asked. George
W. Bush wants my vote for President. So does John Kerry. I like
Kerry better, because I know the President lies all the time, or has
his subordinates lie for him.
What makes John Kerry tick?
Tony Blankley (archive)

February 25, 2004 | Print | Send



I disagree with those who believe that George Bush's National Guard record,
or John Kerry's 1970's anti-war statements, should not be considered by the
voters in 2004. In fact, the voters should know about drunk driving records,
marital relations, college cheating, war records, old resume enhancements
and all the other bric a brac of a life about two-thirds lived -- if the man
is running for president of the United States. Intelligence, judgment,
character and personality -- as well as political philosophy and policy
positions -- are all needed predictors of how a man will perform as
president. American voters have a right to know -- and a duty to find out --
as much as they can about the man they would elect to the office, because an
American president is not only the most powerful man in the world, he is
potentially the most dangerous.

All people, but politicians especially, try to hide their weaknesses and
shortcomings from public view. Thus, an election is not only a contest
between two candidates, but a contest between each candidate and the public
over a search for the full truth of the candidate's nature. Each piece of
information, positive and negative, is probative (but not necessarily
dispositive) of determining that true nature.

While self-consciously high-minded people condemn even honest negative
campaigning, it is only through such efforts that hidden and embarrassing
facts or conditions are revealed that may well be needed to properly
understand the nature of the man and his fitness for the presidency.

While we will surely find out more, we already know a lot about George W.
Bush. As a well-born son of a famous family, he performed adequately, but
not exceptionally, in his youth and early adulthood. He fell away from his
faith, came to drink and party too much and drifted from one job or venture
to another. Then, his life changed completely. He sought out and refound his
faith, gave up his sybaritic ways, returned to the fold and focused his
energies and abilities. We know this story well -- it is the parable of the
prodigal son. And he ended up as president and headstrong leader of a great
nation at war.

But what is John Kerry's story? It has not yet come into public focus. We
need to find out what makes John Kerry tick. I have a suspicion that we will
not truly know him until we understand what happened to him in the jungles
of the Mekong Delta. Did the jungle, and what happened there creep
permanently into his psyche?

Grass and vines quickly reclaim ground despoiled by human warfare. Slower to
heal are the bodies, and sometimes the minds, of the warriors. Some men are
actually strengthened and made wiser by battle. Others leave the traumas of
warfare on the battlefield. Yet others hide it deep in their minds and, upon
returning home, go on about a regular peacetime life -- seemingly neither
worse nor better for wear.

Then there are those for whom the war becomes the great, personally defining
event of their lives. It not only shapes, but also distorts, their
perception of the world. Often this sort of man entered combat as an
idealistic youth. Shocked by the brutality of war, they spend the rest of
their lives failing to come to intellectual and psychological terms with the
disparity between their youthful expectations and grim battle. These were
good men, once. But they become spiritually damaged. Sometimes the more
intelligent of these traumatized former soldiers turn to ideas, rather than
liquor or opiates, to numb their troubled souls from their painful memories.
World War I produced many such examples -- from the pacifist poets like
Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, to the sensitive cultural scholar and
novelist Robert Graves, all the way to the demented ideologue Hitler.

Is John Kerry one of these types? Certainly he is not a Hitler. But is he
one of the others? Did his experience with the horrors of war breed in him
not a healthy caution before turning to military force, but an irrational
obsession to never use force -- even when it is necessary for our national
security?

Certainly Vietnam never seems far from his lips or his mind. Of course he is
not the first politician to take advantage of a good war record. Other than
being a little unseemly, if his constant references to Vietnam are merely a
pragmatic exploitation of a political asset, so be it.

But if his experience in Vietnam has deranged his capacity to make rational
judgments about the use of military force on behalf of national security,
then, while he was an excellent junior officer 30 years ago, he would be
unfit to be commander and chief today. John Kerry should help us better
understand his true nature by permitting the government to release his full
military files. We can't afford to elect a pacifist president in a time of
war.




begin 666 icon_print.gif
M1TE&.#EA% `4`,0``!<7%QD9&?W]_;^_OSHZ.CT]/3L[.[R\O!86%CP\/ $!
M`***@8&/[^_KV]O;Z^O@```/___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````"'Y! ``````+ `````4`!0```6/("2.9&F*
M3YHJZ\.RYC,R$,W0*$G+N+G/M0>#I2HJ(+(***@3U)ZC)"G9<TY+2R31]9))
MH[K3MW;<%E/(\+?WS(X6\/@BL #$`72[*-#H]QV #@V"@X(((@!^@86"@'\+
M(@N+@Y2.C0V0$ $`"9T)!@4$GJ-P;X0.!PT#C*J8))*5@;* F2A$9F=H)VPF
$5B$`.P``
`
end

begin 666 icon_email.gif
M1TE&.#EA% `4`-4``/____W_^O___?__^__^___^_/[_^_[__?W__/[___O_
M_OW__O[_^O[^__[^_O_]_O_]___^^O_]^O[^_/W]_?S^_?W]^V*;TF*9TF29
MSV&:SV*9T6&:T668SV28T6.7T&.8SF27SF:7T6"7SV27S&66T!(1#Q0/$P\1
M#@T1$A$1#Q 0$A 0$!$/%! /#1$/$A 0#@\0$@\/#Q .#P\-$ $!`0`"`00`
M`0`````!`````````````````````````"'Y! 04`/\`+ `````4`!0```9J
M0(!P2"P:C\BD<LD<XI[0J!2:2.":PL]+(+@^F1R6PU'#`D(Q".2*Q:B$;, T
M*BS)X.8+:C# C1U2?T0A+T(V!HB)!***@9,$(W9AXI%@`V()>8("&;G)PH$A(Y
2)B8GI2XN+*FJJV:MKJ]F00`[
`
end

begin 666 blankley.gif
M1TE&.#EA9 !D`,0``/____?W]^_O[^?GY]_?W]?7U\[.SL;&QKZ^OK*RLJJJ
MJJ:FIIZ>GI*2DHJ*BH*"@GEY>7%Q<6EI:6%A85E965%144E)24%!03DY.3$Q
M,***@H*" @(!@8&/X!`@```````"'Y! 44`!T`+ ````!D`&0```7_X"9B%B5)
M4TI-T51EXD5%= 3=]Z/O_.[\P*!PV"@:C\BDTLAH-D6;#*8R0:6NKHMF<V'5
M:+B>6#<LFX7+M-K)@&I()BN68H%1O^#<>-\[G]6 2DY;&QH:%A4G$W&*%A@:
M=***@XDQ!\***@9I,382%&***@I$2>D%%IWE#HY/P\0#@T0-%A7$3RU00T.9)N\
M1X,B&<%3=U6E%QE4-S;*>38/L"Y4%'05U173TBL2-D!%W;V;OU'"%]6SBQ7E
MVWFQS@\TK12/U]@7]A86]OKZ5!+/N3K @0LV#H/!<BOFI#-***@U*E5BC2&5R1
M3]^TBOM$:+ WX]4?@4N"B31H,%2*$Z9D_ZQ;-FF4BXGY\#T:L8\CG6,B,W3Y
M1P1DR)Q22&)(J(+C2F;*3,V;X"B#(4)!->C<A^\8(0P3>'[TV0!H4)+7KE!8
MN U'#6/VJND+IN6I(8,Y+^1S"F5GKJT^O7XU2*7*389F6UR8DG*"O:$2VHI\
M6Y.M/2A1$F'B6D2O4+Y7\IF89'C?V'(RCMESO$6NEKCZ9HJ4\8!!@P?=T( D
MF?,RX12:UTDPY51N52D$"VW@\)9O.BC!/&'06>V1!@H0`'J4+3#U(]LD^M(1
M%4&>SA)*I0R&7/>FO2TBAW.(\***@NM?[SN"<XZ]I+62MA('(4%T\'?P8"<
M7(V,)I57&SDEE?\G&U30``/R9=++8/==9DTR$% ``P8HB$8A!A<@!UY-%!HB
MS'+(?*C@<!M(X-HS$O)2DDP59D>,@%A9$$-%)#P2##YZ;4C24XN]H8\('&0`
***@6MX:3(8/E#66 T*&-"D%(B^`0D*C1<>1.$^;]%5T!8<<%#!*["5`0Z4;$J9
MB(X;D%!5.74@(I,%N$WA")<5U#&"01N-5IMZ&4APEYH39ID?;5_A2<$6"8J$
M" UT0#F-(M-<-*=0AU49IX%BQA"=FM2E`2*4B\)***@F>OD%2";.0PHT#+<F2
M*3;55*2@)RO&:***@F\@$B'C[57,0H?BQF:4%9E3C P +00JL``@HL@,3_#X'1
MT&=3;BT&S 00`ON*&H7("1X=***@O+OK* `@DD<( !]!Z ``+T&G" `OSR
M"ZTWD^Q6E:HPN'6(N+@LH=&IF?8)J"&^285G%0W$:T !&&.<[\;UVGMOOPIX
MPTH+-RVG$50;38!PL$JXD=VM#V^4#Q>(2+# `3C/NS'..^NLK\?W4FLM$MW]
M%F?!)EZP\***@MNT%L?***@B#N9L=;X%</QSOE8''>V_N>QV304$FYA!$&3X
MH;#+3QL;9IR(//#QO#QCG7'&/UL-- )?6PL;!-%4DY-4]J"==I-%0+'>&U1?
M0Z/)*50<K]X'9$S Y9??G77>0?/=-Q" I]-6_YS.:6 H&8?'>$29948A9[$.
M"\H"`PG<J[?EF.>.=\= ]QNM-^\8MEA-%+"BRW2J&\'Z>M\UWEQ3Y42P0- =
M7US Y0)DKSWFF^O]L>]@Z\)4F!95`UN:XB:Q?!2*@@<D%Q4\T&_.]&),@/;X
M9Y]YUMY_7VWXL7#8<O1!-1CQ`%A(6-]7?*,I&'3!`?.KV_7NE[_M$4!CE.M=
MR(Q JQ8(<$[5B ! ?(! (ZB'.,!Y5:::4@'I!<UG]***@_O;'N_[]+UJTBD8^
M4I"6G2SM&PTXH510)(5S[2E^TT(`S^Y&01D*(',<ZUK0_/6N:CE ;/@XP86@
M`P08K2R(;DC.$.6$+O]$0)!?]+->$RO(O9[M"V3^@F,#(K M/$F@*M=PA2[T
M^,7U("<XKIJ&<1HPO336;XU.S%C.$E M(X#O74%C`!***@9L==H0,?%2;\ECW
M"0&YRG%\8<"T[ 5#^V'.B0,80-80P$C7'*&*_)H<SA; %#EU0042T,7Y4H>H
M(JSO*2[***@23WKQ5!_B!1 *@V0`&O1:ES=2"(K<78Y6/3)'***@2BZ/A[#5
MK8\\;V'5<XBIQ(T=$Y7V"ED[5,9!V#***@B?*BYKXF.3&F9.6'WN0D>5R')RU,
M`))UPQH!!N#$S#FS.QV!91$"`J]XRA-PE>K"-"* STWJTV"N&M\$^*7$4J;_
MDJ SQ)R]K-4."';N8Z]IC4,/<+D#/ `+YZ+ ^;IIT=85PA#(&8H%GD,MD-VK
M?@7XZ !R=T&AY8*0";@8O:;HS'=:#7-S+ 5%+$!1]$VFIGX$)C">LU,*4+%O
MT$JJYO#&R+LHP'HY\]_0IH5&S"T`<(N8&#ZJ2E-?KJ=U6AW!(7:Z4;#!(A8W
M@*#F.F9%!***@E4$M`,Y8";+7.*&C.(.%%D-1"1O,D9=^4-SB,/H(?&***@HTAH
MB?QL%T4%.."?B<774A<@GVDM`#;/8F4\$_#2$$;'";O$K!GV:3!A[!4KKWG0
M`AC)KW 58;AW,P`"&I ")?[O8\[<Q5N=546<8<RE_U.*#C=FM31P'NA$,R+!
M#=Y5N;O=B[6$M)Z^%M =Z:7T!_+ $QYL,-QX(8 `U,2O`VSPK!3H4I=6S2QY
M@"(41!C$!@JP+L94J=CETDH!B3T`<***@W]8"@LM<(#UIIFSZRK -0@`G$<.
M*"[>+I!"5,,`1?&EL_.*K#L-.( J#<!>F0:+K<]XEK020#N-46NEBC4M!*KE
M7U;***@PFQM*'AB*/&[ U9+2BQD1%6%X:T\ !)P6:OHB;U*6RDG964RP#) "!
MZ4'@3$8.\!E.N+!]7&<H$\ `K?S6'4 -A0;OA##***@N;GMI.D0MH0E)MAS,>
MWXX`#*!#!!!PVM<\1,V[O?^HDI=\***@DH 'R4#%SGR$MR-:+SQ#<6^T^C%2>
M6<V^!XC7S0BP`$5#JQ9B*+$^]_(A&=#!***@Z8Z#-ZZM.Z'8#/#YA>OF3[OWCF
M+=7VG2)+V6N^M[8BUIA@,_ON`QZY62N)2Y4FBTW-VH!TM)ELJ!W79)MLD"6
M``G(]5#***@H2`NN7DW9.2:8!@<5B[:3P8J;50N;.!'NYH[M+9RQK%V[\)AHK
MK&CWD8=@4]>***@J7>JA09+:<U+W/J"\@]N9K?!>JQ?\=I@$1*@6$Q3X"Y[
M>+=-IQ(EB$^C`==5KE_?J3%YU<O!5]:VW6[.Z^*ZDI"159F0+Z%R/[+<P"X_
M.?__LA9RCBK58CY^3<ZKG-R<P;%:32B"H"4<'=/RH>C N(=:G@*'DV--7P9@
ML(_CA;?E\J !D+W;8GL.KT!S0EY,8L .PI#R(9#G5-9X6-D9P$K5#G:I\OJH
M<H/K#;@'+6.$OB&T?***@AJ9[N*]]]-?]#IG7Y4K>X)&<X9F(P: .0+G\]D96
M.N=CZ%Z+::*,U^4O'5A+0)J3C+.33,(Y#?DY]&Z(56PATSG'"CSGI1%(L*^;
M+C+@<:*AA&?T0S1/]"#@WD91<@H9I??[":I2B0C ,[3V2[9#T-%!".@>8W\G
MA#1I/99PSSR ;2^$ZU/-6,(`CXM&.:\)$H!:RM4"M4 R_[<R40F&0>L779BD
M1TS +[40"[8';3]@4XQ3+***@2%/J'5#^U,;6#,<Q5`V-Q*Q259XL5<D.C"PT1
M"TQ3>0H`$; 6@;%&@3:B*0<!'NQ47R>E1!BS7(0D=?#P#X0T/<352,###@_Q
M2OSR;#!X"138.#3(,"O0;TFD93^U-XUU7+'T->^%@NY ***@BRAA$OH`/9W
M(0($!W<P+B W7/***@T/X2(147(<"3<UB. 'Q3J_U@(%%?;:'>T44)2ID#J[@
M2%54.[+'4=32!& 5+3Y76/^B!ZTP?YR6AV*XA#LP:Q52`GT1!J_P++)WB/7%
M8[$G>4?@+-4R7B1%";0R"=0%"_^K6(DPV'"U<1F:N AD]A#.(DJ/]"ZU4UX[
MZ'ISQ VM`'<04GL\P(J$]%(Z,("6J ,RF(D)L0*P]@-.T#?:EEH+%3R"I'_!
M)F'<!&"J6#$0L $JHPK-^ `K9QN=`BM74(=!>%PLHTM%D"&5\***@3T&***@S%#
MX!"!53$/$">#"(FQ:'***@ATF00J#6$7S.%%C88%***@0'O\()J^&%G16/&LXH4
M%8[***@45$!VPV(=959"V80[%<(^O`'UZAR<IE6?:AE+'\RZ!EE3IMHJI$(X-
M0 `4L!XGUPI\R >L,T8$(PSTD!#KX #DM2^[9@`@(V.(]3TKZ2](Y77\6&$J
M:)0`$ '_K7,!>M<.`[DXP-%;<I$II+ -1CDM&==0/N4_C?0.D^@:F$>3RL ,
M>4 K!P``$_"3*L.%V.*3>'4@?R<#6" KT0%)B'=US;=05X8$SZ)W[- ,8+"*
M`A `%>!'Q)%+4O<W?-F7#!(G87$2I, "[A**Q'5<0W-<N3"(2D!G+&$67H #
M"P``!8 !Q.$)Q7.9EO!-Y+$>Y7 %8VD%"<F(_$*:?7,$P:F84C>5+* ,#U `
M`* `&I!5S_D<:-*3EXB;D+$1VM";B@`/M/,_5S=Y6.@[2L"%#B& /+D`3_2/
M/VD(***@M,*7^P09.D$4VFD%M2!*@<:+GXAUL(1U"0,0R5DK_WGP``<@``J0
MDS\9!</Q6:] G>CH1]=))&%1GYAR`DL2:+HH>YTS=U_V7UV$?/.U#&2&GHAV
M`67BEY29`2(DB3S0<)V4'+M)H6,I"K2#H<,59M=E+ZT4C\K0FY(P`0V02HR6
M`1"J$7_G(@"A>?KTHKW1#S*J15'8+Y[883EZ+^!6BJW@$K*"!_<H8]3R`,]I
MI/$9!<L"/&FRI-_%%D[ZI"0C0JP45HN55E/4!".F"KOAF:MY`@***@9@L@`2PB
M'-[5.E@!A+IP46G*',7 IBW `D'HB:AFA1"R=***@BV/)FC'F.0HPF5D5GTYA
M4Q>P31/8<*X"%X IHV>1328`0<\22_\YB #%^ 6Q@ +T*0GR`BW40J2;>C(:
M`0,0NA'^T !+NA<@DIWUF8(WL @1X!HZUI(?1BN*H!N+, U5T*,C^ES+]:>
M.J9&NAY3@)6R>!FE6JQ?0&]PU8]:!YX=%)@N(:VB@!15-#T%@ `(ZA9%JJV=
M)ZJC>A",H)U?H*E9<:<K`83+&*W2N*Z9,E_1\6M)]'^***@GUFE=N@%,#)JQ]
MP:\Z, &XVCJ&,@J9PINC( <GT!WG0 OP,#W5\E,$0(;V&I]YM9F?8"%$::&Q
M( _Q:0$0* <=.[)R$"NB$&QI>7J3N;*\);$W5:0F(A2=J1LTZZ+/Z2 Y``&R
MFK,C>PYRX+/;U6*6!B `"["D0HM13P&=AXH,54 #5*(>V5H('! !6GN//3JU
M;IM-KM"?JD4`!G"7+ANQ1.NU#$(D%D(*+V"VG,H!# ``!P!8JO %.UL%(VM9
MOH.U!A `;4 <0^NU-X511'J=%M(<9%*OF*L!#0```E"X>C!?8_FQ("L]<ILO
M!"4!G%NYE+LK!E.D>[$B7-N7)X,!@PNZRS5]-A"BB$N6+(EM^1(`"B";VJJW
M[(%1X)032-*Z+#L<%8 ``3"]`4!;SQ"***@NK%?-&CDLO`Q `K!N=8PH4. 6[
%P!0"`#L`
`
end
Charlie D.
2004-09-26 22:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Bush and I Were Lieutenants
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14805
Charlie D.
2004-09-26 22:38:59 UTC
Permalink
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/Slover-Juempel%20DMN%20article%2007-04-1999%20re%20Bush%20and%20TANG.pdf
Charlie D.
2004-09-26 22:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he
remembers George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading
safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his
weekend obligations.

"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun
said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona
Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR
race.

"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never
complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in
the Guard. He showed up on time and he left at the end of the day."

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to
Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group
to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of
1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer.

The 69-year-old president of an Atlanta insulation company said Bush
showed up for work at Dannelly Air National Guard Base for drills on
at least six occasions. Bush and Calhoun had both been trained as
fighter pilots, and Calhoun said the two would swap "war stories" and
even eat lunch together on base.

Calhoun is named in 187th unit rosters obtained by the AP as serving
under the deputy commander of operations plans. Bush was in Alabama on
non-flying status.

"He sat in my office most of the time — he would read," Calhoun said.
"He had your training manuals from your aircraft he was flying. He'd
study those some. He'd read safety magazines, which is a common thing
for pilots."

Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were
lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots.

A guardsman belonged to the sponsoring unit that selected him and then
sent him away to pilot training. That individual belonged to that
Guard unit. He didn't have a choice on what aircraft he would fly - he
would be coming back to that unit and the aircraft it possesed.
Tom Betz
2004-09-26 22:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie D.
Retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he
remembers George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972,
reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he
performed his weekend obligations.
"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill"
Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press
from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this
weekend's big NASCAR race.
Calhoun's story has been thoroughly discredited.

First, he kept changing it, almost immeediately.

From <http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/164912p-144437c.html>:

The only seemingly credible witness to vouch for Bush is
retired Lt. Col. John (Bill) Calhoun, who insists he saw Bush
report for weekend duty in Alabama. But Calhoun's memory seems
about as spotty as some of the military documents.

Calhoun, of Atlanta, initially said he saw Bush report for
Guard duty "eight to 10 times for roughly eight hours at a
time from May to October 1972." Later, he said he saw Bush
report for drills "on at least six occasions."

And in an interview this weekend with the Daily News, Calhoun
said he saw Bush attend "at least four drills."

Bush's records credit him with two days in October and two in
November.

Calhoun, 69, a former National Guard supply officer,
attributed the varying numbers to reporters' confused
interpretations, and said the Guard defines a "drill" as a
weekend of duty in the one-weekend-per-month cycle. "So if I
saw him at six drills, that's 12 days," Calhoun said.

Calhoun's explanation was even knocked yesterday by retired
Texas Air National Guard Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr., who Bush
picked in 2000 and again recently to review his records and
vouch that he met his Guard obligation.

"Two days make a 'drill weekend,' not a drill," said Lloyd.

Originally published on February 16, 2004

Second, he claims to have seen Bush in Alabama before even Bush says he was there.

From <http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/10/calhoun_bush/>

When Calhoun first emerged in February, he announced he'd
seen Bush "eight or 10 times" on the base performing drills
between May and October of 1972. But within 24 hours of his
statement, the White House released Bush's military pay
records -- which aides touted as definitive proof of Bush's
service -- definitively proving that Bush was not credited for
any training in Alabama for the months of May, June, July,
August and September 1972, and that Bush showed up only in
late October. So how could Calhoun have seen Bush several
times in one summer if Bush's own records indicate he was
never there?

Calhoun's story is even less believable in light of the fact
that Bush in 1972 originally tried to transfer from his Texas
Air National Guard unit in Houston to a National Guard unit at
Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. That request was eventually
denied, so Bush ended up at the Montgomery unit where Calhoun
served. But again, according to Bush's records, he didn't even
apply for the transfer to Montgomery until September and
didn't show up until late October. How did Calhoun see Bush
performing drills throughout the summer of 1972 when Bush
didn't even request an assignment there until the fall?

The brief answer is that Calhoun's story is likely untrue,
and has been known to be doubtful for six months.

Doubtless, the other two stories you posted URLs for are
equally false.
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who votes for George W. Bush.
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Charlie D.
2004-09-26 23:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Betz
Doubtless, the other two stories you posted URLs for are
equally false.
doubtless no matter what the proof, you won't accept it, Do you work
for CBS?
Tom Betz
2004-09-27 17:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie D.
Post by Tom Betz
Doubtless, the other two stories you posted URLs for are
equally false.
doubtless no matter what the proof, you won't accept it,
I've seen no proof. I've seen only unsubstantiated allegations.

You want documented proof?

See <http://www.glcq.com/>.

Why has nobody taken Texans for Truth up on the $50,000 offer to
anyone who can prove Bush actually served in Alabama?

<http://www.texansfortruth.com/>
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who votes for George W. Bush.
Charlie D.
2004-09-26 22:45:32 UTC
Permalink
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9259
Loading...