Billy Burpelson wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:42 -0400, dxAce wrote:

Bernard Peters wrote:

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:52:27 -0700, dave wrote:

Rather was set up. This removed "AWOL Bush" as an issue; even
though there's plenty of evidence beside the 60 Minutes fake letter.
I concur.
The only reason none of the other media don't follow this line is that
all were threatened with loosing access to the Pres and white house
media pool. The republicants management of the media is pretty similar
to how Putin managed the media. The question is, who learned from whom?
OK, you post the 'proof'. See if you can come up with something better
than your retarded brother, David Rickets.
The proof was already presented. From multiple prospectives even. The
real issue is that you have chosen to believe the "controlled" media
inspite of the fact of the other evidence and also the lack of evidence
(where was he during this time?).

Concluding, Bush's record poor performance as president and his inability
as a corporate manager is example enough of his inability to make
intelligent decisions that one would have gained if he had server as a
pilot in the AF.

dxAce wrote:

Inability as a corporate manager?

Please recall that he severely bungled and botched several of his
business ventures before he got into politics and was bailed out of the
mess by Daddy's Saudi Arabian friends. Look it up.

How quickly we forget...

That's fine Billy, but please post the proof that G.W. was AWOL...