nevermind

it's a shame that you can't ask a question around here without being flamed by the "1000+" crowd.

But you'll have to IM Walt.

Walt gets kudos from me!

I read the thread you're talking about, but from what I can see, Walt has all the documentation. I haven't seen anything that's disproven his story. He (Walt) sounds a little down, though.

who's that?

Here's the thread I'm talking about

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x690033

I'm not trying to flame. It just seems like Walt Starr has gone on the defensive- as if someone had debunked his theory. :shrug:

is the rule for temporary wearing of unit awards. Walt is awaiting that and other media outlets are checking it. "Some people" have tried to squash it by saying "i did this and I did that" but I would be skeptical of anyone who doesn't have paperwork to back them up.

Bush is said to have gotten two awards and that since the pictures are in black and white it's difficult to tell what the ribbon is for. I don't know. Do y'all? And yes, we are Kerry supporters and can't stand the chimp.

wearing two in the picture and it is easy to zoom in and see what each ribbon is whether in black and white or in color, they are quite distinctive if one has a knowledge of ribbons. The identification of the ribbon is not in question, only whether there was an earlier reg that allowed bush to wear a unit ribbon when he was not part of the unit at the time it was won.

As I understand it, Walt is awaiting confirmation regarding this last question.

http://www.awolbush.com/awards.asp

Scroll down to where it talks about his awards. Doesn't that seem to list 2 of them. Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon and National Defense Service Medal

NOT listed on his discharge papers, only the SAEMR is listed on his official papers. The biography is not an official air force document.

Edited to add: it seems he embellished his biography by the looks of it by adding that award, no surprise.

He certainly hasn't been "debunked". That would require a level of proof I haven't seen yet.

However, he has also not provided a sufficient level of proof to be.. um... "bunked".

This assumes there hasn't been any new info from wither side today.

That's all I wanted to know. :thumbsup:

It just seemed like Walt was down in the dumps about the whole thing. I hope it pans out and makes it big. :bounce:

So there's no way to de-bunk it. Read it & weep. Bu* the poseur.

It's starting to smell in here! :eyes:

makes it even stronger...

RationalRose,

I was only asking an honest question based on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x690033

the tone of the post sounds like evidence had come up to disprove something about Walt's theory.



So you shouldn't jump on people so quickly. Just because you have a little "1000+" next to your name doesn't make your comments any more important than mine. :eyes:

the proof is in the pudding, or as another DUer said, in the Search feature.

It must be heartbreaking to know that this is just another mark against the Great Chimperor.

to impress his decorated daddy and family.

Alabama transfer scam.

http://www.glcq.com/

Thick skin. There are plenty of people here on DU with lots of posts that are not flame warriors, but there are a few who are. It's something your going to have to learn to deal with if your going to hang around here for any length of time. Deleting your post just because somebody didn't like what you had to say is not a good way to go about acquiring think skin.

It wasn't because someone didn't like what I had to say. I posted an honest question because of a thread which led me to believe that Walt Starr's theory had been debunked or discredited or whatever. Read the thread and you'd probably want to ask the same question too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x690033#690120

Then people started attacking me accusing me of flamebaiting and sarcastically linking to story's about Bush being AWOL. I'm sorry, but people with 1000+ posts can get away with everything and anything. The only reason people attacked me is because I have a relatively low postcount, and that's just downright unfair. Those posters had a low postcount at one time too.

Heavens, I thought being you were eager to know the truth about the medal you would surely be eager to know about Bush's other con jobs.:shrug:

And I think you have a legitimate concern, but when somebody accuses you of something that's not true you shouldn't react by deleting your post. You might have got the answer you were looking for had you not deleted it. What you have to do is either defend yourself or ignore the poster in question.

I have no idea about anybody trying to debunk Walt's story and I don't know why he/she wrote a post that seemingly suggested that. Maybe Walt's catching some flack from some freepers.

:-)

:cry:

I asked a legitimate question. All I wanted was a simple answer and instead I got flamed. :shrug:

And as far as the search feature, I'd like you to produce links to any past posts of mine that you think are pro-Bush or anti-Kerry. If you;re going to make accusations against people, you might as well support them. As I said above, other posters have actually tried to dicredit Walt Starr's theory, but since they have 1000+ you just let them off the hook.

Another poster suggested that your other posts may be suspect. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and I apologize for being sarcastic. I'm more curious about your lack of researching skills though. If Bush lied about his service, there's reason to believe he'd fake anything.

And I apologize for what may have been something of a sensationalist question. :grouphug:

I followed Walt's research on the orignal thread
and found it to be exceptionally thorough, well researched and articulately presented. I have several military connections in my family and am aware of the criteria for the awarding of unit citations. Clearly there is merit to the story since the DNC, MSNBC Hardblogger and the Telegraph UK have all picked up on the story.

I was simply concerned when he posted a morose, somewhat defensive thread regarding his theory that sounded to me like people had been trying to discredit it. I guess I'm wrong and I apologize.

I think that, if nothing else, this story will draw more attention back to GWB's guard records - or the lack thereof, or the many inconsistencies within. If the story hits the AP, the White House will be forced to reply to the charges and you can be sure Carville, Trippi and others will bring the hammer down on GWB bigtime. :crazy:

But it really doesn't pay to be too thin skinned, at DU or in the real world.