$50,000 If You Could Prove W was in Bama in 1972-73

[Nbadan]

Here is a chance for you to take some of that George Soro 527 money home with you...


CNN) -- The founder of the group Texans for Truth said Tuesday that he is offering $50,000 to anyone who can prove President Bush fulfilled his service requirements, including required duties and drills, in the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972.

The group made the announcement as Bush was in Las Vegas, Nevada, to address the National Guard Association's convention.

"Today would be a fine day for him to finally answer all the questions that have dogged him since he entered public life," the group's founder, Glenn Smith, said in a statement.

"Bush's dishonesty about missing from service during Vietnam goes to the heart of his presidency. He was dishonest then just as he is misleading us about why we went to war with Iraq. He dodges responsibility then just as he dodges responsibility for Iraq today."

<snip, more>

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/14/bush.texans/index.html)

[Yonivore]

Nah, we'd rather just let the Demoncrats fester and explode over the past while President Bush marches to a probable landslide November victory.

If you guys want to sit around and masturbate over a non-issue like his Air National Guard service -- particularly when your first three attempts have failed -- go ahead. No one's going to stop you.

[DeSPURado]

Talk about putting there money where their mouth is. Damn!

[Yonivore]

I will admit this, that's pretty brave after:

Ben Barnes says he helped George W. Bush get into the Guard after previously testifying, under oath, that he hadn't and only to have his daughter call him a liar on a national radio program;

CBS comes up with damning memos only to have the proven, to everyone but DeSPURate and Dan Rather's satisfaction, to be forgeries; and,

The DNC starts ragging on '78 campaign literature that they say is false which, actually turns out to be true.

Yeah, I'd say the track record on smearing Bush over his Guard record is pretty risky territory.

Do they say what they will accept by way of proof? Because, I'm betting it's going to be pretty much impossible to produce the kind of proof they'd be demanding.

[bigzak25]

who would change their vote from kerry to bush if it was proven?

anyone?

didn't think so...

[Yonivore]

Nope...and the undecideds don't participate in forums like this.

[Joe Chalupa]

It is funny or strange that nobody has come forward about serving with Dubya.

It won't really change my mind either way.

But it is one of those questions that makes me go..hummm.

[Yonivore]

I think they have. That's why I've questioned what they would accept as proof.

[Yonivore]

Terms and Conditions of Reward:


Offer of Reward

GENERAL DISCLAIMER

The Texans for Truth Web site and Reward Offer are offered to the user conditioned on acceptance by the user (“User” or “you”) without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein. By accessing and using this Web site, the User agrees to be bound to all such terms, conditions, and notices (the “Agreement”).

The following terms and conditions govern your use of this Web Site and the information contained on or available through the Web Site. By accessing, using or downloading the Web site or the information you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions, which may change without further notice to you. This Web site is operated by Texans for Truth, a 527 located in the State of Texas.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE REWARD

What is the reward for?

Texans for Truth is offering a reward of $50,000 for original information proving whether George W. Bush performed duties in the Air National Guard between May 1972 and May 1973 at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama on the terms and conditions set forth below. This offer of reward expires on September 30, 2004. Texans for Truth reserves the right, however, to terminate this Reward Offer at an earlier date at its sole discretion.

What type of information is eligible?

Texans for Truth is looking for new, original information concerning George W. Bush’s performance of military duty, or lack thereof, between May 1972 and May 1973.

To be eligible, the information must not have been previously disclosed to the media (including television, radio, cable, Internet, and print publications) and must be comprised of the following (“Eligible Information”):

1. Firsthand, eyewitness testimony – this type of information includes sworn firsthand accounts that George W. Bush performed Air National Guard duty, or lack thereof, between May 1972 and July 1973. It also includes firsthand knowledge of statements made by Mr. Bush concerning his Air National Guard activities during that time; and

2.Documentary evidence – copies of genuine and authentic documents describing George W. Bush’s performance of Air National Guard duty, including the required drills or lack thereof, between May 1972 and July 1973.
Eligible Information must be comprised of legal and competent evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. For the information to be eligible, its release cannot violate any applicable law including, but not limited to, the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1973.

Eligible Information does not include information based on speculation, rumor, hearsay or innuendo, or information that has already been made public.

Submission of information in support of a request for a reward under this offer constitutes your warranty and representation that the information falls within the definition of Eligible Information and is truthful, accurate, and submitted in good faith to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief. When you submit information to Texans for Truth it also means that disclosure of the information by you to us does not violate either any applicable law or any duty you may have to third parties.

Who is eligible to receive the reward?

Adults over the age of eighteen years with firsthand knowledge or lawful possession of Eligible Information are eligible to receive the reward following an eligibility review to be performed by the Texans for Truth.

The following individuals are ineligible to receive the reward: (1) officers or employees of any political party or political campaign; (2) full- and part-time employees of the media including, but not limited to, the print media, television, cable, radio, and the Internet; and (3) anyone who has donated goods, money or services to Texans for Truth.

By submitting information in response to our reward offer, you are consenting to a background check by us in order to assess the veracity, genuineness, and authenticity of the information and to determine your eligibility to receive the reward.

By submitting information in response to our reward offer, you are consenting, if you receive a reward, to attend and participate in one or more news conferences.

How do I submit information to be eligible for the reward?

Information should be provided by completing the form found at www.texansfortruth.com/vetinfo/ and submitting the requested information, as directed in the form A complete form includes providing no less than five Montgomery, Alabama National Guard veterans that served on the Dannely Base from 1972- 1973, with current contact information, who can corroborate your story.


Completion of the Web site form and submission of information by you to us mean the following:

All submissions become the property of Texans for Truth, which will be entitled to disclose the information to any and all third parties. By completing the form and making a submission to Texans for Truth you are indicating your consent to the disclosure of any information contained in the submission, including the disclosure of your identity to third parties such as the media.

Any and all communications you send to this Web site, its reward offer or to Texans for Truth are made on a non-confidential basis, and Texans for Truth is under no obligation to refrain from reproducing, publishing or otherwise using them in any way for any purpose. Texans for Truth shall be free to use the content of such electronic mail communications for any purpose.
How will the reward decision be made?

The final determination as to which person or persons shall be eligible to receive part or all of this reward shall be left to Texans for Truth. The total amount available to pay successful submitters under this Reward Offer shall be $50,000. If only one person submits Eligible Information that satisfies Texans for Truth’s standards, that person shall receive the entire $50,000. If there is more than one such submitter, the reward shall be divided in equal shares. In no event, however, shall Texans for Truth have any obligation to pay more than $50,000 total pursuant to this Reward Offer.

Texans for Truth shall complete a review of your eligibility to submit information. This review will be completed at our sole discretion and may include a background check. We will also take steps to verify the information you have submitted. The nature and extent of the information verification process will be in the sole discretion of Texans for Truth.

Payment shall be made within sixty (60) days of the completion of the eligibility review and information verification process that will be performed in accordance with the sole discretion of Texans for Truth.

GOVERNING LAW; FORUM SELECTION

This Reward Offer and Agreement are governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Any and all disputes concerning this Reward Offer shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Texas.

INTEGRATION CLAUSE

This Reward Offer and Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous understanding or agreement, oral or written, with respect to matters herein.

CONSTRUCTION

This Reward Offer and Agreement shall be construed without regard to which party was responsible for the drafting of its terms.

LIABILITY DISCLAIMER

The information, software, and other materials published on this Web site may include inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Texans for Truth and its employees, representatives, agents, and contractors make no representation about the suitability of the information, software and other materials provided for any purpose. All such information, software, and other materials are provided “as is” without warranty of any kind. Texans for Truth and/or its employees, agents, representatives and contractors hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, software, and other materials, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Texans for Truth and/or its employees, agents, representatives and contractors be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of or in any way connected to the use of this Web site; the delay or inability to use this Web site; for any information, software or other materials obtained through this Web site; for participating in the Reward Offer; or otherwise arising out of the use of this Web site, whether based on contract, tort, strict liability or otherwise, even if Texans for Truth and/or any of its employees, representatives, agents, or contractors have been advised of the possibility of damages. Because some States/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of liability for consequential or incidental damages, the above limitation may not apply to you.

INDEMNIFICATION

As a condition of use of this Web site and/or participation in the Reward Offer, the User agrees to indemnify Texans for Truth and its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and contractors from and against any and all liabilities, expenses (including attorneys’ fees) and damages arising out of claims resulting from User’s use of this Web site and/or participation in the Reward Offer, including without limitation any claims alleging facts that if true would constitute a breach by User of these terms and conditions.

[Yonivore]

"Texans for Truth reserves the right, however, to terminate this Reward Offer at an earlier date at its sole discretion."
Like when we find out we're full of shit.

"Information should be provided by completing the form found at www.texansfortruth.com/vetinfo/ and submitting the requested information, as directed in the form A complete form includes providing no less than five Montgomery, Alabama National Guard veterans that served on the Dannely Base from 1972- 1973, with current contact information, who can corroborate your story."
:rollin

[Tommy Duncan]

Do they really want Kerry to win or do they simply want to prove how much they hate Bush?

You know Rove is enjoying this episode immensely. 49 days to go and the Left still wants to talk about 1972.

[Yonivore]

Hey, and I'm doing what I can to keep the Lefties, in here, on message.

[Tommy Duncan]

You don't beat an incumbent president this way. Look at the last two incumbents to lose: Carter and GHWB. Both had low approval ratings (in the 30s), one with a bastardized economy and one that merely sucked, both were uncharasmatic, both had tepid support from their party base, both faced strong contenders, and both also faced significant 3rd party candidates in the race who were arguing for 'change'.

Kerry is no Clinton or Reagan when it comes to raw political talent and GWB is certainly no Carter or Bush41.

You win by being bold, staking out a clear position, and attacking the president on his administration, not what he did 32 years ago.

****, this is elementary.

[Nbadan]

It was probably Rove who cooked up these documents at the same time he cooked up the Saddam-Niger documents. As I have said before, we will probably never know if these documents are authentic or not. Even the * administration thought the documents were real when CBS release a copy to them. They sure didn't dispute the allegations. Wasn't till someone doubted their authenticity on a Freeper site (could have been Rove, who knows?) that everyone started doubting the documents font, superscript, and proportional spacing.

Fact is, there is one typesetter that could have been used to meet all three debunking allegations and that alone is enough to cast a long shadow of 'reasonable doubt' in any court of law. All other criticism of the documents are either hearsay or, in the case of expert witnesses, can be countered with other expert witnesses.

[Tommy Duncan]

Wow, it finally came to pass that danny blamed either the 'Neocons' or Rove for the CBS forgeries.

It was Burkett, danny.

[Tommy Duncan]

PS....what "typesetter" is that?

[Tommy Duncan]

Wasn't till someone doubted their authenticity on a Freeper site (could have been Rove, who knows?) that everyone started doubting the documents font, superscript, and proportional spacing.


Um, the questioning of those docs began in multiple forums and by a myriad of bloggers. One of the most detailed and persuasive arguments for those documents being forged was written by someone who is anti-Bush and presumably left of center.

[Joe Chalupa]

Like I said before, I don't care about 1972-73 and Dubya's partying years. Heck, I can hardly remember 1979-1984 myself when I was one hard core partying, smoking, experimenting, sex loving Marine!!

But I do have many buddies who would vouch for my being present and accounted for!!

Semper Fi!!

[Nbadan]

You win by being bold, staking out a clear position, and attacking the president on his administration, not what he did 32 years ago.

I agree, but I think the Democrat operatives are trying to drill in voters minds that W. was dishonest about his repeated contention, both in the election and in past elections, that he completed his service to the guard when there is tons of evidence out there that even though he met minimum service requirements, he fell well short of completing the commitment he swore to take in 1968.

Its bold, but if they can put into question W's credibility in the mind of voters, it will go along way toward putting a dent in W's sense of invulnerability to allegations among the public. It could other wise be futile to attack a Teflon president as W has clearly become involving the economy and the Iraq war - too of the most important issues for voters.

[Tommy Duncan]

The GOP tried putting the draft dodger label on Clinton back in 1996. Didn't work. Why? Again, because people had already heard that before and had made up their opinions about him. Turns out that the average voter did not hate Clinton like the GOP base did.

The Demos have gone down that wrong path themselves in this election.

There's a certain disconnect. If you are criticizing the incumbent on what he was doing 30 years ago then it certainly looks like you are acknowledging that you don't have much to attack him on with respect to his job performance.

[Nbadan]

Completely different set of circumstances. 911 changed all that. I'm not sure W could have beat McCain if the 911 attacks had already happened much less Gore. W had 0 foreign policy and diplomatic experience going in in 2001 and it has shown miserably in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and with foreign relations in general.

[Tommy Duncan]

Huh?

The strategy is the same. You're right, 9-11 did happen so on top of having an incumbent in a pretty decent position you also have one who is waging a war.

Kerry's inability to articulate a clear position on Iraq coupled with the National Guard attacks and what not certainly looks small and insignificant. It looks as though he doesn't have much to criticize Bush about. The National Guard mess seems to confirm that.

Americans are unhappy about the situation in Iraq, but Kerry's base is split significantly about the war. Kerry needed to make the case that the war was wrong in the first place and win people to his side. As it stands he is just nitpicking that things did not go well after the invasion.

Kerry should have campaigned as a more sober Dean. Against the war, for a clear and short term timetable to get the troops home, and perhaps even for an independent commission to study the decisions that led to the invasion.

Instead Kerry will likely go down in defeat, most likely due to his own arrogance.

[Nbadan]

The strategy is the same. You're right, 9-11 did happen so on top of having an incumbent in a pretty decent position you also have one who is waging a war.

Yeah, but was it the right war? More and more people are saying no. Even hard-core Texans are turning on the Iraq war. Kerry has always maintained that he supports the troops, but he didn't support the decision to send them into Iraq based on, now evident, insufficient hard evidence that Saddam possessed WMD, or that he supported active international terrorists or Al-Queda.

[Nbadan]

Kerry should have campaigned as a more sober Dean. Against the war, for a clear and short term timetable to get the troops home, and perhaps even for an independent commission to study the decisions that led to the invasion.

Instead Kerry will likely go down in defeat, most likely due to his own arrogance.

You are getting way ahead of yourself if you think that W has any sort of lock on the election. Kerry's position on the war has always been the same, but maybe he hasn't been as adamant about repeating over and over again on talk radio to make it true.

[Tommy Duncan]

Kerry's position on the war has been all over the place.

I don't listen to talk radio or read extremist websites. That's your gig.

[Yonivore]

"It was probably Rove..."
Nice segue from they're authentic to it's a vast right wing conspiracy, DeSPURate.

By the way, if it were Rove, Dan Blather would have had no trouble revealing his source, I guarantee it.

[Nbadan]

Kerry's position on the war has been all over the place.

I don't listen to talk radio or read extremist websites. That's your gig.

That's republican spin, not what Kerry has really said about the war. He supported the war, but not the way W. wanted to screw the American taxpayer for the full initial costs. He also supported W's contention that a sitting President should have the ability to declare war, something I think should be left only to congress.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, well lately John Kerry has taken to lying about how expensive the war in Iraq has been, and how that has meant less money for such pressing needs as "afterschool programs." Kerry doesn't exactly live up to the real JFK's determination to "pay any price, bear any burden . . . in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." And now it turns out that KERRY LIED!!!! about the cost of the war.

"Kerry is . . . claiming in the latest version of his standard stump speech that the war in Iraq has cost '$200 billion and counting,' " reports Factcheck.org, a Web site of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania:


He claims Iraq has cost "$200 billion and counting." Not yet, it hasn't. (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253)

But so far, the bill for the war is still under $120 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Kerry runs the figure up to $200 billion by counting money scheduled to be spent next fiscal year, plus additional funds for the future that haven't even been requested yet. He also is counting money projected to be spent for operations in Afghanistan and to protect US cities, not for Iraq.
Why does he have to lie about it?

[Hook Dem]

Because thats what he does best!:lol

[DeSPURado]

money to be spent next year is alreay allocated no?

[Yonivore]

Yeah, but misleading people into believing it's all going to Iraq? C'mon...don't stretch yourself too thin DeSPURate, you've already got two or three other implausible arguments going in other threads.

[ClintSquint]

There are actually many points to attack Bush on.
Kerry's campaign if totally off whack.
Bush's spending proposals alone are an easy target.
Bush has also flip-flopped on many issues.
Attack, attack, and then attack again.

[Yonivore]

"There are actually many points to attack Bush on."
That would matter if Kerry's weren't treble what Bush's are.

"Kerry's campaign if totally off whack."
True that. Actually, an understatement.

"Bush's spending proposals alone are an easy target."
Except that Kerry would spend at least twice as much in half as much time, if allowed.

"Bush has also flip-flopped on many issues."
No, he hasn't.

"Attack, attack, and then attack again."
They're too busy proving Kerry was a hero instead of a murdering traitor and tossing around lies and forgeries about Bush's Guard Service. Yeah, they have a winning strategy.

[ClintSquint]

Bush hasn't flip-flopped.....let me remind you since you suffer from selected memory.

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.



Wake up America!!!!