Here is the main difference Dan. The SBVT claim certain things about John Kerry that only he can disprove if he releases all of his records which he won't do. These claims are also being made by people that served with him.

This BS awol claim is being made by liberal activists and not by people that served with Bush.

Big difference there.

Because they can't FIND any. Of course, they weren't looking in the local bars.

AM, you should be sorry. You haven't backed up a single claim yet.....

All of Bush's records are out including his medical records...

JFK can clear this all up if he would do the same but he won't....

I wonder why.......

You keep making my point. You have nothing on Bush but liberal hersay and BS......

Bush could clear his name as well. There ARE documents somewhere that would show where he was and when.

It's EXACTLY the same, you're just looking through your GOP prescription lenses.

The questions are swirling around the both of them. You're only interested in the answers YOU are looking for. That makes YOU biased, not the media.

No they aren't. What kind of stories are you telling here?

I guess the TRUTH can't be stomached by you but it doesn't matter....


O"NEILL is a liar and it's been proven beyond a doubt.

Explain to me then please why this has been around since 94, every liberal organization has tried (and even tried to pay people to lie) to find information. Bush's record is clean. You can't find one person who he served with that will say anything negative about him. Even when he transferred to Alabama, people said that he served. His medical records are clean too.....

JFK WON'T release anymore of his own records while Bush has. Why?

Why don't you try and defend Kerry's senatorial record instead of lie about Bush......

Can't do that because it can't be defended....

How does one prove someone WASN'T somewhere?

Prove there's no Easter Bunny.

Bush could prove he WAS there, and hasn't.

Do you wonder why about that?

I believe it is not possible to 'prove' a negative. Seem to remember that from school.
I'll see if I can find the logic book.
KK

There is also a 10k reward offered to anyone who saw, or served with Bush while he was stationed in Alabama. It has, so far, gone unclaimed.
KK

-----------------------------------------------------------

As someone once said (DanS I believe),"Pot meet the kettle".


DanS,

You've already suggested that you voted for Bill Clinton (a verifiable draft-dodger) twice as opposed to the verifiable war heros Bush 41 and Bob Dole who ran against him.

So why do you keep saying/suggesting ones service record vs. another is an issue of importance?

The last time I brought up that inconsistancy you said it was because Bush is comparing their respective records. The fact is that it's Kerry and the left which have put that pot on the front burner--Bush has said that he respects and honors Kerry's service.

Rory,

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said if you can't prove the allegations against Kerry, then why are they "facts", when the allegations against Bush are not.

If it's wrong to call Bush AWOL because we can't prove he wasn't there and he won't prove he was, then it's wrong to call Kerry a fake when so far no proof of that has been offered. Are you tuning in yet?

Yeah, I voted for Clinton. Twice. I'm not the one who's panties are in a wad over a 30-year old war record. The Bush crowd (that's you) is keeping Viet Nam at the forefront by trying to tear him down, and the Kerry camp is keeping it out there to try to boost him up. I'd just as soon move on to present-day issues. Bush is just as weak on them, and obviously so is Kerry..........why do you think we're still talking about Viet Nam?

I'm not a Kerry fan. I'm less of a Bush fan. I know it's a really difficult concept to grasp, but that's how it is.