On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 00:20:03 -0700, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Thomas wrote:
>
>> The answer is that the press knows what anyone of at least minimal
>> intelligence does, notwithstanding some retarded Bush-bashing
>> malcontents, that Bush wasn't AWOL, was NEVER AWOL and if they had
>> printed that he was they would have looked as idiotic as you do.
>> For someone who claims to have considerable military experience, you
>> are shockingly misinformed about the fact that AWOL and honorable
>> discharge on your DD214 doesn't go together.
>
>Actually, there is nothing about being AWOL which -precludes-
>an honorable discharge. And, in the absense of an actual court
>martial conviction or article 15 punishment for AWOL, there is
>nothing which would authorize anything -other- than an honorable
>discharge.
The people who know the facts say that you are wrong........again.
You didn't even read what I posted, did you? That's what I thought.
>
>We are agreed that the dubya was never court martialled for being
>AWOL. His honorable discharge does not mean that he couldn't have
>been however
It does and the facts corroborate that view. Case closed.
ALOHA
Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)