Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29843)	6/9/2004 11:19:17 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I think the American people have already formed an opinion about Bush on the AWOL issue. He just failed to keep his obligations, plain and simple; call it AWOL or whatever you may want to.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29843)	6/10/2004 12:30:08 AM
From: American Spirit	Respond to of 81568

In 1972, Bush's father was head of the RNC with tremendous political pull in Texas. Obviously, they got GW off from the AWOL stuff and got him off Guard duty early to go to Harvard. Also, Karen Hughes was reported to have visited the Guard base around 1998-1999 to cleanse his military records. Wonder what was taken out? One rumor which has gotten a lot of play is the one that GW disappeared in 1972 because he was arrested for cocaine. That would make sense considering he refused to take his physical which included a mandatory drug test for the first time.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29843)	6/10/2004 8:00:23 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I will wait with great anticipation for that same author's well-researched explanation of how John Kerry managed to earn three purple hearts without spending a single day in the hospital.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29843)	6/10/2004 8:14:45 AM
From: tonto	Respond to of 81568

I believe full disclosure by Bush, as well as by Kerry, should be required. Both have holes in their stories and we have the right to know. Conclusion Anyone seeking to be President of the United States and its Commander in Chief, and who has campaigned specifically on a promise to restore honor and integrity to the office, strengthen the military, and tell the plain truth, should be prepared to discuss his past record of service to his country. Candidate Bush has a duty to the American people, as well as his fellow military comrades-in-arms, to fully and accurately answer all of these grave questions about his exceedingly convenient and prematurely short military service. Bush's available service records raise very serious questions that reflect heavily on his qualifications for President. By disclosing the full contents of his official service record, Bush could clear up the cloud of questions that still linger 32 years after his first oath to the United States.