BUSH HIDES DRUG USE?

I am becoming weary of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republican posters on this board who are making a stink about the authenticity of the documents produced by CBS News relating to Bush's Guard service (or lack thereof).

They are clearly trying to distract others from the UNDENIABLE FACT that regardless of the provenance of those documents, the principal events the documents relate are undisputed.

It is undisputed that Bush failed to take a required medical exam and lost his flight certification as a result.

The question is, why?

Why would he be so unwilling to take a medical exam that he would prefer to lose his right to fly?

People who go to great lengths to avoid a medical exam usually do so because they are afraid the exam will show something that they want to conceal -- drug use or a serious illness, for example.

What was Bush afraid the exam would reveal? Was it the drug use?

This is the question Republicans NEVER want to discuss. Every time it is raised, they try to change the subject to something else. I'm tired of letting them get away with this. Time to put a stop to it.

It seems that "tarring" a public figure of an unsubstantiated charge is the political norm in this country. But the atempt to allege that President Bush used or even uses drugs is a new bottom. He is a very Christian man with a loving family, not to mention the responsibiity of his job. I feel comfortable to say that President Bush does not use drugs.

Except to those who've spent the past decade or so living under a rock, it's a well known fact that Bush is an admitted abuser of alcohol, and those who know him also say he was a drug-user when he was younger. This is no longer news. It's history.

What mystifies me is why the moralistic, preachy, holier-than-thou types who form Bush's political base have given him a complete pass on this. My only guess is that they're willing to hold their noses and overlook his highly unsavory past to get their anti-gay/anti-choice agenda moved forward. Since the Bushes exist for only one thing (clinging to power so they can siphon off yet more billions for their already filthy rich fellow elite) they're perfectly willing to shill for anyone who'll vote for them. After all, if anti-gay/anti-choice legislation is enacted, it won't affect them in the least. The rich are not like you and me. They'll continue doing whatever they want, sleeping with whoever they want, and pay whatever it takes to their society abortionists, just like they did long before Roe v. Wade. If this is the kind of America you want to perpetuate, go right ahead and vote for Bush. Just don't come whining here when your sister or daughter can't get a legal abortion after she's been raped by some drunken son of the elite, or when your job has been outsourced to Bangalore, or gas goes to $8 a gallon. . .

>He is a very Christian man

I'm sure all the people he put to death in Texas would disagree.

>It seems that "tarring" a public figure of an unsubstantiated

>charge is the political norm in this country. But the atempt

>to allege that President Bush used or even uses drugs is a new

>bottom. He is a very Christian man with a loving family, not

>to mention the responsibiity of his job. I feel comfortable to

>say that President Bush does not use drugs.

How the hell do you know what he did thirty years ago? If he was smoking pot or even using coke or LSD during the late 60's or early 70's that would hardly be unusual for a young man at that time.

But one of the reasons these rumors never seem to go away is because Bush refuses to address them. Has he ever explained why he refused to take the mandatory medical exam needed to keep flying? No. Why not? If there is an innocent explanation for it, why doesn't he simply tell everyone what it is? Well?

Of course, drug use is not the only reason he might be unwilling to take a medical exam. There might be other things such an exam would show that would embarrass him or cause him problems in the future. One example would be that he had a sexually transmitted disease. Ever thought about that?

Who knows... we probably never will because he'll never tell.

For all we know, he could have been dead drunk. A casual friend of mine is a friend of the Bush's and has been for decades. Once, while having drinks at the Boatslip, we started talking about the current George. He said George used to be a "falling-down, sloppy drunk". And that was from personal observation.

BG

>>He is a very Christian man

>

>I'm sure all the people he put to death in Texas would

>disagree.

You appear to be quite confused about how the judicial system works. The Governor of a State does not "put anyone to death."

A prosecutor charges the individual with a crime. A jury of the defendant's peers then decides that he's guilty. And a judge or a jury then sentences the individual to death. The law providing for the death penalty is enacted by the legislature.

So given these facts, where the fuck do you get off talking about people whom Bush "put to death"?

>I am becoming weary of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the

>Republican posters on this board who are making a stink about

>the authenticity of the documents produced by CBS News

>relating to Bush's Guard service (or lack thereof).

Do you think it's notable and worthy of discussion that one of the network news organizations in this country used apparently fabricated documents to attack the President of the United States, and now refuses to acknowledge their fakeness?

Although I haven't been one of the people talking about that, I think that's story pretty significant not as it pertains to Bush, but as it pertains to CBS and Dan Rather and their credibility. What could possibly be "dishonest" or "hypocritical" about discussing THAT?

>They are clearly trying to distract others from the UNDENIABLE

>FACT that regardless of the provenance of those documents, the

>principal events the documents relate are undisputed.

I don't think anyone is trying to distract from that. I have never heard anyone express doubt about the fact that Bush's family used influence and connections to get him into the National Guard. I certainly don't doubt that. But that doesn't excuse or diminish the significance of the use of these apparently fabricated documents by one of our national media organizations.

>It is undisputed that Bush failed to take a required medical

>exam and lost his flight certification as a result.

>

>The question is, why?

Who the fuck knows why? Your gossipy speculation may be one reason- or it may not be. Maybe he knew he woudln't be flying because he'd be in Alabama and so there was no need to stay current on his requirements. Or maybe he was a herpes-ridden cokehead and was afraid to take the exam, as you recklessly imply.

So what? Bush has admitted that he's a recovered alcoholic who did things in his past that he wasn't proud of. His conduct from 30 years ago didn't stop him from getting elected in 2000 and - now that Americans have had 4 years to see him as President - is surely not going to stop him from being re-elected, and it's obviously not stopping him from leading in every poll.

I realize Democrats are getting desperate because Kerry is running the worst campaign in probably 100 years of electoral politics, at least, but if you think that this sort of rumor-mongering hysteria about speculative events from 30 years ago is going to stop Bush and salvage Kerry, I think it's sensible to question what YOU were doing 30 years ago that has so clouded your judgment.

RE: Attention, Dance Enthusiasts. . .

See how Dougie tries to shuffle and slide, shifting attention from the original topic of this posting (Bush's alleged past drug use) to the by-now-boring topic of the allegedly phony memos used by CBS news? Dougie uses a particularly slick maneuver to acknowledge (finally) Bush's dodging Vietnam by using pull to get into the National Guard (a much more interesting, significant and undisputed fact about Dubya) but then tries to get you not to focus on that by trying to shift your attention elsewhere.

The sparkling lights, the fancy footwork, and the flittering ostrich feather fans are meant to be dazzling, but they keep slipping now and again to reveal that the dancer is an ugly, aging pachyderm in a tawdry old hall that's about to collapse on itself. Smart audience members will get the hell out before the desperate artiste sets fire to the house to keep them from noticing the slips in her performance. . . :+

>So given these facts, where the fuck do you get off

I get off in many places; it's not just limited to the bedroom and it doesn't have to involve fucking.

By the way, you seem a bit angry, Doug. Is anything the matter?

There has never been a shred of evidence that Bush has used drugs. This is just a Dem lie that they keep repeating over and over until they believe it is well know. He long ago admited that he had abused alcohol and that was well known before his first election. But the forged documents are more important than the Dems would like us to know. Why is CBS so unwilling to disclose how the supposed documents came to them? Who was responsible for the forgery? Who stood to benefit from the forgery? How close was Kerry himself to the forger and the forgery? If Kerry claims Bush was responsible for the Swift Boat disclosures, why should we not hold Kerry responsible for the NG forgeries?

>There has never been a shred of evidence that Bush has used

>drugs. This is just a Dem lie that they keep repeating over

>and over until they believe it is well know. He long ago

>admited that he had abused alcohol and that was well known

>before his first election. But the forged documents are more

>important than the Dems would like us to know.

As it stands right now, I haven't see "a shred of evidence" that the documents you refer to are really forged. In fact, it seems now that there is a growing accumulation of evidence that they are not forged.

The original claim they were forged was based on typographical features that some people felt could not have been produced with equipment available at the time. This has been disproved -- the IBM typewriters available at the time (and, in fact, much earlier) could produce such fonts, spacing, superscripts, etc. And the proportional spacing was also available on IBM equipment for many years prior to the dates in question.

Yet you refer to them as "forged documents", as if it's a fact that they are forged. I find this to be interesting, given that it's in a post where you decry Democrats repeating something over and over until they believe it's well-known. Isn't this exactly what you are doing when you refer to the documents as "forged documents"?

I'm not trying to hammer you here, but this is a really easy trap to fall into. We're all used to journalists calling people "alleged" criminals to avoid potential liability. But how many of us temper our own statements so carefully instead of simply stating something that we believe to be true (or want to be true) as if it were factual?

>Why is CBS so

>unwilling to disclose how the supposed documents came to them?

>Who was responsible for the forgery? Who stood to benefit from

>the forgery? How close was Kerry himself to the forger and the

>forgery? If Kerry claims Bush was responsible for the Swift

>Boat disclosures, why should we not hold Kerry responsible for

>the NG forgeries?

Again, the above paragraph is more of the same:

1. You refer to the documents as "supposed documents".

2. You ask who was responsible for the forgery, as it has been determined to be a fact.

3. You ask how close Keyy was to the forgery.

4. You then suggest that Kerry should be held responsible.

But you're suggesting that Kerry be held responsible for something that hasn't even been proved to exist.

This is slippery logic at its worst. When the subject is something as critical and important as the destiny of our nation, we should all try to be a little more careful with what is indeed a fact and what is an opinion. An honest dialog and an honest debate during the national election would serve us all well -- if only it would happen.

BG

>As it stands right now, I haven't see "a shred of evidence"

>that the documents you refer to are really forged. In fact,

>it seems now that there is a growing accumulation of evidence

>that they are not forged.

I haven't been able to get myself to care enough about this forgery issue to follow the controversy with sufficient diligence to be able to argue the ins-and-outs of 1973 fonts and superscripts, but I did read this Op-Ed column from the usually fair Bill Safire in yesterday's Times, which makes it appear rather untenable to claim - as you do - that there is no evidence to support the contention that these documents are forged. To the contrary, at least based on this column, there is ample and quite compelling evidence to support (but not to dispositively prove) this claim:

__________________

THOSE DISCREDITED MEMOS

By William Safire

9/13/04

Washington — Alert bloggers who knew the difference between the product of old typewriters and new word processors immediately suspected a hoax: the "documents" presented by CBS News suggesting preferential treatment in Lt. George W. Bush's National Guard service have all the earmarks of forgeries.

The copies of copies of copies that formed the basis for the latest charges were supposedly typed by Guard officer Jerry Killian three decades ago and placed in his "personal" file. But it is the default typeface of Microsoft Word, highly unlikely to have been used by that Texas colonel, who died in 1984. His widow says he could hardly type and his son warned CBS that the memos were not real.

When the mainstream press checked the sources mentioned or ignored by "60 Minutes II," the story came apart.

The Los Angeles Times checked with Killian's former commander, the retired Guard general whom a CBS executive had said would be the "trump card" in corroborating its charges. But it turns out CBS had only read Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges the purported memos on the phone, and did not trouble to show them to him. Hodges now says he was "misled" - he thought the memos were handwritten - and believes the machine-produced "documents" to be forgeries. (CBS accuses the officer of changing his story.)

The L.A. Times also checked out a handwriting analyst, Marcel Matley (of Vincent Foster suicide-note fame), who CBS had claimed vouched for the authenticity of four memos. It turns out he vouches for only one signature, and no scribbled initials, and has no opinion about the typography of any of the supposed memos.

The Dallas Morning News looked into the charge in one of the possible forgeries dated Aug. 18, 1973, that a commander of a Texas Air Guard squadron was trying to "sugar coat" Bush's service record. It found that the commander had retired from the Guard 18 months before that.

The Associated Press focused on the suspicion first voiced by a blogger on the Web site Freerepublic.com about modern "superscripts" that include a raised th after a number. CBS, on the defense, claimed that "some models" of typewriters of the 70's could do that trick, and some Texas Air National Guard documents released by the White House included it.

"That superscript, however," countered The A.P., "is in a different typeface than the one used for the CBS memos." It consulted the document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines of Paradise Valley, Ariz., and reported "she could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

The Washington Post reported Dan Rather's response to questions about the documents' authenticity: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill" and questioned the critics' "motivation."

After leading with that response, Post media reporter Howard Kurtz noted that the handwriting expert Matley said that CBS had asked him not to give interviews, and that an unidentified CBS staff member who had examined the documents saw potential problems with them: "There's a lot of sentiment that we should do an internal investigation."

Newsweek (which likes the word "discredited") has apparently begun an external investigation: it names "a disgruntled former Guard officer" as a principal source for CBS, noting "he suffered two nervous breakdowns" and "unsuccessfully sued for medical expenses."

It may be that CBS is the victim of a whopping journalistic hoax, besmearing a president to bring him down. What should a responsible news organization do?

To shut up sources and impugn the motives of serious critics - from opinionated bloggers to straight journalists - demeans the Murrow tradition. Nor is any angry demand that others prove them wrong acceptable, especially when no original documents are available to prove anything.

Years ago, Kurdish friends slipped me amateur film taken of Saddam's poison-gas attack that killed thousands in Halabja. I gave it to Dan Rather, who trusted my word on sources. Despite objections from queasy colleagues, he put it on the air.

Hey, Dan: On this, recognize the preponderance of doubt. Call for a panel of old CBS hands and independent editors to re-examine sources and papers. Courage.

>For all we know, he could have been dead drunk. A casual

>friend of mine is a friend of the Bush's and has been for

>decades. Once, while having drinks at the Boatslip, we

>started talking about the current George. He said George used

>to be a "falling-down, sloppy drunk". And that was from

>personal observation.

Ditto. Two acquaintances of mine, both weekend guests at Walker's Point for decades, report the same thing. And that Poppy (never Bar) used to mutter dejectedly about W.'s snorting of the white lines.

Poppy is said by both these sources to be quite the imbiber himself. Likely, they believed (though neither source was on the scene), a factor in his upchucking into the lap of the Japanese P.M.

Last month I saw the most pleasing thing. To get to the Bush compound from the south you must drive past a store in the town center that has posted a large banner reading "Kennebunkport for Kerry/Edwards 2004".

As a Christian man myself, I am insulted to hear you refer to Bush as a fello Christian. Just because he goes to church (To please the Christian right) doesn't make him a Christian.

A Christian doesn't send young boys and girls into a war for his own personal agenda.

A Christian man doesn't Lie to millions who voted him into office about his reasons for going to war.

A Christian doesn't continue to find ways to divide people instead of bringing them together.

A Christian would not sign into law the highest Medicare premium increase in history that will further hurt our seniors.

A Christian would not Steal a Presidential election and then have his father call his friends on the supreme court to radify it.

President Bush is in fact Anti-Christian in every way I can imagine.

Please don't insult us or our Lord that way again.

>

>People who go to great lengths to avoid a medical exam usually

>do so because they are afraid the exam will show something

>that they want to conceal -- drug use or a serious illness,

>for example.

>

>What was Bush afraid the exam would reveal? Was it the drug

>use?

>

>This is the question Republicans NEVER want to discuss. Every

>time it is raised, they try to change the subject to something

>else. I'm tired of letting them get away with this. Time to

>put a stop to it.

>

Unfortunately, no one is going to put a stop to it. In all essence, to those who support Bush will continue to see this as a political witch hunt to bring down the Bush Presidency. To those who dont like Mr Bush, this another barrage of ammunition being utilised to show the hypocracy of the current Administration, and why they should be voted out of office. It really wont change too many minds.

The Kerry Campaign is trying to rethink strategy with James Carville and Paul Begella on board. The Bush Campaign, like them or not, have been absolutely brilliant in deflecting at every level of criticism aimed at their candidate. I never thought I would ever see the time when a campaign would argue the authenticity of a brand of typewriter used in the early 1970's. Let alone where CBS got their info from in the first place and whether the letter is really authentic.

They keep on responding in hopes that their arguements will stick with the general public. The irony being, their approach seems to be working. The public doesn't seem to care. Perhaps when Michael Moore's docudrama " Fahrenheit 9/11 " hits becomes available on DVD and VHS soon, then the Bush Campaign may have something very big to worry about. This could really energise the Democratic base in the final weeks of the campaign. Only time will tell what happens in the coming weeks ahead.

Rohale

>It seems that "tarring" a public figure of an unsubstantiated

>charge is the political norm in this country. But the atempt

>to allege that President Bush used or even uses drugs is a new

>bottom. He is a very Christian man with a loving family, not

>to mention the responsibiity of his job. I feel comfortable to

>say that President Bush does not use drugs.

i feel comfortable saying this "very christian man with a loving family",supports you as much as you do him...ROTFLMFAO...yea right,to him and his un-christian ilk ...you my pitiful geek, are just another dick sucker that deserves to burn in hell.

>As a Christian man myself, I am insulted to hear you refer to

>Bush as a fello Christian.

Who the fuck cares if you're "insulted?" You're exactly like Pat Robertson - using your alleged Christianity to justify your deranged political agenda, even going so far as to claim that Christianity compels a person to have a particular view with regard to Medicare premiums and an interpretation of Florida's election laws and the Equal Protection Clause (and, needless to say, Christianity just so happens to dicate that someone adopt political views on these issues which - wow! what a coincidence - happen to be the exact political views that you have).

In case you didn't know, Jesus caused enormous divisions among the people and groups in the time he lived, and there is nothing in Scripture that speaks, one way or the other, to the proper role of Government in economic policy, the ideal foreign policy, the circumstances under which war is just - or any of the other issues which people like you, just like the Religious Right, want to distort the Bible into speaking to in order to support your selfish political ideology and agenda.

And saying that you're "insulted" isn't an argument against what anyone said. It's just a pitiful whine of the Stupid and the Odorous.

This is just yet another example illustrating that the Religious Right is just the opposite side of the same odious coin as the Far Left - when Jesse Jackson or Bill Clinton stand up and cites Scripture regarding Mary and Joseph as a basis for supporting his welfare policies, that's really inspiring and beautiful - but when Jerry Falwell or George Bush cite Scripture to support their political views, why - that's an outrageous threat to liberty and a violation of the separation of church and state.

Usually, when people hate each other so vehemently, it's because they're really more alike than different. That, I believe, explains that unending animosity - which is really, at this point, an addiction - between the Religious Right and the Far Left.

>It's just a pitiful whine of the Stupid and

>the Odorous.

Is that a spinoff of Young and the Restless? You gals and your soaps.

SoBch Btm, Bush has not done a single one of the things you listed. Most of them are based upon your very unChristianlike attributing bad motives for which you have no evidence. These have been debated over and over. The Mediare increase was not a law which Bush signed or had any power to effect. The Medicare law was adopted years ago and provides a formula for the premium which Bush had no power to change. He did not vote for the law, BUT KERRY VOTED FOR IT. Telling lies as you do is also not Christian.

>Do you think it's notable and worthy of discussion that one of

>the network news organizations in this country used apparently

>fabricated documents to attack the President of the United

>States, and now refuses to acknowledge their fakeness?

It sure would be if the evidence showed what you claim. But like the other Republican shitmongers on this board you keep ignoring all the evidence on the other side of the issue because of your tremendous desire to kiss Bush's ass.

>Although I haven't been one of the people talking about that,

>I think that's story pretty significant not as it pertains to

>Bush, but as it pertains to CBS and Dan Rather and their

>credibility. What could possibly be "dishonest" or

>"hypocritical" about discussing THAT?

Try to follow this. We have just been through a period of weeks in which Kerry was attacked by a group of veterans who claimed he did not earn his medals. Virtually all of their claims have by now been proved lies by official records and by the uncovering of discrepancies in their accounts that they can't explain. Where was the outrage among the Republican posters on this board during that time? They were silent about that, but are full of outrage over what CBS has done. Such disgusting, dishonest hypocrisy deserves severe censure.

>>They are clearly trying to distract others from the

>UNDENIABLE

>>FACT that regardless of the provenance of those documents,

>the

>>principal events the documents relate are undisputed.

>I don't think anyone is trying to distract from that. I have

>never heard anyone express doubt about the fact that Bush's

>family used influence and connections to get him into the

>National Guard. I certainly don't doubt that. But that

>doesn't excuse or diminish the significance of the use of

>these apparently fabricated documents by one of our national

>media organizations.

Of course it does. None of the people who are slamming CBS here gives two shits about journalistic integrity or objectivity. If they cared about that sort of thing, they would be posting daily on this board about the whoppers told on Faux News (thank you, Bucky). Thus, their only possible motive for attacking CBS is their desire to distract from the real story.

>>It is undisputed that Bush failed to take a required medical

>>exam and lost his flight certification as a result.

>>

>>The question is, why?

>Who the fuck knows why?

He does, obviously. So why won't he answer the question?

> Maybe he knew he woudln't be

>flying because he'd be in Alabama and so there was no need to

>stay current on his requirements.

That doesn't make sense. His transfer to Alabama did not include an exemption from flying.

> Or maybe he was a

>herpes-ridden cokehead and was afraid to take the exam, as you

>recklessly imply.

>So what? Bush has admitted that he's a recovered alcoholic

>who did things in his past that he wasn't proud of.

Please don't lie. I don't believe Bush has ever termed himself "a recovered alcoholic." If you can find anyplace where he has said that, let's see it. In fact, he has done everything possible to downplay and minimize whatever excesses he committed in his past.

> His

>conduct from 30 years ago didn't stop him from getting elected

>in 2000

Actually, it did. Many pollsters who have analyzed the 2000 vote theorize that Gore pulled ahead in the last few days before the election and won the popular vote because of the revelation of Bush's DUI arrest.

>I realize Democrats are getting desperate because Kerry is

>running the worst campaign in probably 100 years of electoral

>politics, at least, but if you think that this sort of

>rumor-mongering hysteria about speculative events from 30

>years ago is going to stop Bush and salvage Kerry, I think

>it's sensible to question what YOU were doing 30 years ago

>that has so clouded your judgment.

Unlike you, I have not repeatedly advocated on this board the use of mind-altering substances that were never intended for human consumption and whose effects on the nervous system are thus completely unpredictable. I think if we are going to question the judgment of anyone here, someone like you, who has advocated that sort of thing again and again and again, should be the first subject of such questions.

Are you going to start the New York chapter of "Meth Addicts for Bush"?

The swiftboat vets have been vindicated in many respects and have not been show to have lied. It is now clear that Kerry was not in Cambodia on Christmas eve in 98 as he repeatedly claimed. He now thinks he was on the border at some time. His organization now admit that one of the purple hearts was unmerited because it was for an unintentional self injury, and that therefore he did not deserve his 4 month exit. The after action report, prepared by Kerry shows that the Silver Medal was awarded for shooting an injured viet in the back as he was escaping. It is also clear that the other two purple hearts were for tiny injuries. The big question is a difference between all of the swift boat vets and Kerry vets on the question of whether there was small arms fire at the time Kerry pulled Rassmussen out of the water. The SB vets merely remember it differently than the Kerry vets, and the numbers in agreement are strongly on the side of the SB vets. The records agree with Kerry, but it appears that he as an officer wrote the incident discriptions. So in the balance there is no evidence that the SB vets lied. At best there is evidence that on the one point--small arms fire--their memory disagrees with that of the others and the records. No cause for outrage unless it is outrage at Kerry for thinking he is entitled to be President because of his actions 40 years ago.

>The swiftboat vets have been vindicated in many respects and

>have not been show to have lied. It is now clear that Kerry

>was not in Cambodia on Christmas eve in 98 as he repeatedly

>claimed. He now thinks he was on the border at some time.

Where was Bush??? Somewhere on the Georgia/Alabama border toking and coking up?

>His organization now admit that one of the purple hearts was

>unmerited because it was for an unintentional self injury, and

>that therefore he did not deserve his 4 month exit.

Am I missing something? Injury of any type, even slicing one's thumb with a can opener while working the mess tent in a combat zone, is grounds for awarding of a purple heart, isn't it?

>No cause for outrage unless it is outrage at Kerry for thinking he is entitled to be President because of his actions 40 years ago.

The hell with either of their actions of 40 years ago, of which Kerry's, no one could possibly dispute, definitely outshined Bush's. The biggest outrage is that Bush feels he is entitled to be President based on his actions of the last 4 years!!!! But then again, the Bush supporters don't believe in discussing that do they? They just believe in a smear campaign based upon 40 year old non-issues, to deflect the voters from a closer inspection of the ineptitude that is Bush II?

>>He is a very Christian man

>

>I'm sure all the people he put to death in Texas would

>disagree.

We're still waiting for your response to Doug's question.

Patiently yours,

FFF

>We're still waiting for your response to Doug's question.

>

>Patiently yours,

>

>FFF

>

Can't speak for Rick, but to my knowledge, the governor of any state has the right to pardon any criminal and to stop the execution of any criminal on death row, up until the the last moment prior to execution.

During Bush's term of governorship in the state of Texas, did he pardon/stop the execution of anyone? Did he stop: the execution of mentally incapcitated (i.e. retarded) people, leading to a Supreme Court ruling on such executions; the execution of innocent people by denying modern day DNA techniques that would cast doubt on the guiltiness of the person being executed solely on the basis of "antiquated procedures"; the execution of the first woman in over 100 years despite her stellar moral and personal reformation?

During his governorship, did he make Texas the biggest executioner of prisoners in the entire history of America, at a time when many Americans question the right of the state to execute someone, and despite the condemnation of capital punishment by the rest of the world?