Quote:
Originally posted by dissention
Interestingly, Bush likes to call his drunk driving a "youthful indiscretion," but he was in his thirties at the time. Also, he was *convicted* of drunk driving with three other people in the car, as reflected in legal documents. He was an alcoholic who continued to drink well after his arrest. When he was called for jury duty in 1996, he conveniently forgot to mention his criminal conviction on the jury pool form and came up with a cockamamie excuse for why he shouldn't be called for jury duty. He was also arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 and flatly denied that he was arrested after 1968. That proved to be a lie. Not only was arrested, he was convicted. However, he told the public that he never went to court for the drunk driving and that it was taken care of the night that it happened. That's another lie; he had two court dates and got continuances twice. He didn't pay the fine until a month and a half later, not that same night. They were going to put his ass is jail overnight, but someone paid the $500 bond to keep him out, as reflected in legal papers. The fact that he changed his drivers license number in 1995, at the height of his political career at the time, is also highly suspicious. In fact, because of his drunk driving in Maine, his license was suspended for two years in that state. Let's also not forget his past with cocaine.
We can spin it all we want, but the fact is that his dodge-drafting during Vietnam was and is highly suspicious. He's unaccounted for for lengthy periods of time, some of his former staff from when he was governor have claimed that his records were doctored by the Bush camp, former officers from the Texas National Guard claim the same thing, the public portion of his records that would have been released under an FOIA request have turned up completely missing, he used his family's power to avoid everything that he didn't want to do, etc. If he served as well is he supposedly did, then why are all of these inconsistencies turning up? It makes no sense, but the Right will spin it to make him look saintly.
Shrub has some major issues with credibility.
|
Once again, who has never, ever in their lives driven under the statutory definition of "over the limit." I submit few have. Moreover, who would not try and get out of it if caught. I submit no one (fess up, a cop has never let you go even though you broke the traffic law - its the same thing in that the crime was committed, the law was broken, etc.). Moreover, W recognized he had a problem and quit. he should be lauded for that - not beaten down IMO. Also, it is not unethical to get a continuance in a case or to post bond or to pay the fine after it is levied. Most of the stuff you bring up is just reg. procedure you assert is a bad thing (someone is spinning
). I submit if W had been up to no good in this, he would have tried to have it fixed and been busted doing so. But, he did not.
My point is few people are willing to point the accusatory finger at themselves before judging. Another good example is how many of us have run a red/caution light (with intent or not)? I submit we all have done this. Did we then go immediately to the police station and turn ourselves in? I didn't.
So, I say nail Bush on the big issues (Lord knows there are plenty
) and leave this petty, human nature stuff alone. It is not the battle that will win the war so to speak
