To: American Spirit who wrote (62968 ) 6/12/2005 3:29:43 PM From: Dan B. Read Replies (1) | Respond to I think that is a very stupid analysis. You can say he "did not report for duty in Alabama," but it is dishonest to do so when in fact the record show he was paid by Texas, which, barring evidence not in evidence, indicates Alabama notified Texas that he showed up, just as the General explained, and just as Bush had himself asked to be able to do. The General further explained that there would be no record of his presence in Alabama since he was not of the outfit in Alabama, just showing up for the required weekend there, in lieu of going to Texas. Probably cocaine this, probably that, and you conclude....how silly. No AWOL Bush.com or Garry Trudeau is going to pay up on mere testimony that he was seen there in Alabama (which we have seen here on SI many times), look at the requirements for the reward, it's patently silly given the Generals testimony of paperwork circumstances. Obviously, that he was paid, indicating he showed, and the General's testimony to that effect, isn't good enough or the money would have been forwarded. It IS good enough evidence for those of us considering all we know about the situation, and nothing offered that I've seen seriously indicates we should think otherwise. You would be talking about 7 months of 1 weekend a month, and again, when you say he did disappear, it simply is not in evidence to my knowledge, certainly not from anything you've provided. I see nothing here but biased folks trumping up a number of out of context spins on reality, such as the Generals own words, when the General went out of his way to knock down such interpretations of his meaning.
