AWOL reasoning

[RT Atlanta]

Just an observation on *'s reasoning (from the linked article):

"A central issue is whether he showed up for duty while assigned to Guard units in Alabama, where he worked on a political campaign in 1972. "There may be no evidence, but I did report," Bush told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. "Otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-10-bush-records_x.htm

To me, this dovetails nicely with *'s reasoning that he "knows" Saddam had WMDs (even though there is no such evidence to support that assertion).

On this kind of reasoning, at least * and his goon squad are consistent.

[HFishbine]

1. You mean like

"I know Saddam had WMD, otherwise we wouldn't have gone to war?"

[RT Atlanta]

2. correct!

ring ring, we have a winner!

:)

[newyawker99]

5. Hi RT Atlanta!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Bandit]

3. Or how about "There is NO DOUBT that Saddam has WMD".

:shrug: I would suggest there should have been a little doubt anyway.

[Jacobin]

4. LOL!! Nicely put

Logic 101 as taught by the ChimpanzeeInChief.

[ComerPerro]

6. That is funny

But, yes, they are consistent. Gotta give them that, at least....

:puke:

"Otherwise I would have been dishonorably discharged... unless my dad was a prominent political figure..."