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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (78300)	10/17/2004 9:48:02 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793838

It really makes sense that he'd actively try to keep these secret. The newly released documents shed no new light on the most controversial periods of his service.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (78300)	10/17/2004 12:16:18 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

So two retired army lawyers combed through numerous boxes that had been mothballed thirty years ago and came up with additional documents. It's significant, IMO, that the AP article doesn't identify what those documents are beyond that they include orders for high altitude training. So? Did Bush not show up for that training? What else do they include? Requisition forms for pencils? Records indicating that Bush tore his flight suit and it needed repair? Note the following: A Texas National Guard spokesman, Lt. Col. John Stanford, defended the continuing discoveries, saying Guard officials did not find all of Mr. Bush's records because they were disorganized and in poor condition, in boxes filled with dirt and dead bugs. More importantly, do you have any evidence that the administration has intentionally withheld documents? I think not.