Sorry,
but I have to ask. Why should the military records of Bush from 30 years ago really matter? Is he the same person now he was then? No. Does it really matter if he didn't have an active role in a conflict most Americans disagreed with? No. Does it really matter if his family may have exerted influence to protect him? No.

Why are American's so focussed on the past? Worst case scenario is that a young scared and spoilt person found a way to escape being sent to an unpopular war. So what? Sure if he's lying about it and hiding things it may have some indication of his character, but in reality it's nowhere near as important as what he's doing now, what he plans to do, what he stands for. It shouldn't even by an topic for conversation. If there was a problem it should have been dealt with 30 years ago and not today.

Paul.

If it's truly unimportant, then the President should have no problem admitting to it. (He's had similar problems admitting to his cocaine use.)

Abandoning your responsibilities to the armed forces is a serious offense, sometimes punishable by death in time of armed conflict. Just because something occurred in the past, even in the distant past, doesn't mean it is irrelevant; that's why we have a little thing called "history class" in school. In this case, it goes to indicate that George W. Bush is nothing but the frat boy puppet of the right wing, propped up by his influential family as early as his college days and as recently as November 2000.

Thank you for asking solitair. I should assume that if he lives in denial of his wrongdoing thirty years ago he is th same person he was then, so 1.)yes it apparently does matter to him at least; If he used his guardsmanship to escape service to his Country in time of war then, YES it most certainly does matter to all the guardsmen and women who serve a equally un-just cause today. They are putting life and limb on the line in his same position, refusing to be illegitimate, and are dying and being maimed. They will not be seen as hypocrites when they wear flight jackets and tell people they too are veterans of war for their Country. So 2.) Yes; If his family exerted influence to protect him they too show a lack of the values necessary to serve as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. The family, you may have heard this term before, "abused its power" to get thier Son protection while others went, fought and died in service, so 3.) yes;(on this matter I note Bush was not an unwilling paticipant in his cowardly act, or forced to be one by his family) Americans are just a bunch of strange people I guess, in wanting to judge a Candidate by his past so as to have a gauge to judge future credibility and whether thier President is a hypocrite, abuser of power, unwilling to place his own neck on the line for his country while simultaneously making his fellow Ameicans do so, so 4.)yes; As to the relevance of his not serving but being paid for guard duty he did not perform, while being coward in time of war is as relevant today as it was then, so 5.)yes;

'What he's doing now? He is furthering his disrespect of the armed forces by telling them to fight and die and be maimed while he sits in the oval office, once again out of line of fire, and refuses to admit he was coward in the same postition, the war was un-just and done by use of fraud to the Congress for purpose of putting Americans in harms way to profit for his oil friends and Haliburton, etc.

He 'stands' for legitimizing ILLEGAL immigrants as long as they promise him they'll take an Americans job; not a very Republican ideal. He is reducing benefits to veterans, taking away their eligibility for oveitme pay when they return home,due to them being 'trained' while overseas. He is a strong advocate of stripping away civil liberties of Americans in insisting on further and more onerous 'Patriot Act 2" which has already been adjudged unconstitutional in portions. He uses existing campaign laws to further an agenda (which Americans hold are corrupt and un just laws) by buying the Presidency with no one before him being so blatant about it. He supports a Vice-President enmeshed in criminal activity and openly meeting privately with Supreme Court Justices on 'hunting and 'fishing' trips, etc. etc. He's just got a slew of reasons to not give him four more years of violence and violations as our deficit and debt increases along with the loss of life and limb of our best and brightest.

Finally, it couldn't be dealt with thirty years ago, as his family had the records altered by a telephone call as he ran for the Presidency in 1999.

We are just now developing a account of him claiming he was 'transporting tropical plants' in his one seat government craft out of Central America in the time he was in the National Guard. There is much more to come on this story so please do stay tuned because you know I'll be putting up the information the 'controlled-media' won't as it comes in.

My question is how can you claim this is a coup if you haven't verified the authenticity?

VES

Vernmeister2u: i give you an insightful for that. Thank you for the reply. I put it up caveat lector, so others will feel moved to go view the documents and judge for themselves whether or not they are legitimate. We just had a case of photojopurnalists posting fraudulent photos placing Kerry and Fonda together in Vietnam years, so we know anything is possible nowadays. What walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck in todays politics isn't necessarily so. Please let me know if the documents look false or you wish to challenge their authenticity, and I ask others to do the same.

Thanks for the reply.

I can certainly understand people being very annoyed if the president refuses to admit the truth about his war record. I still don't agree that they should be an issue for the now though. His last few years, the decisions he has made, the people he associates with, are all valid reasons though.

I can see how many thousands of Americans who did fight in wars would be very very upset to see the current president portrait himself as a war hero if he was actually the opposite. That would indeed be a reasonable case for examining his records further as he raised them first.

Paul.