CBS

[Atrocities]

I could careless about this story, but I do find it funny that CBS would run a 60 minute story on documents that could be so easily disputed. What where they thinking?



[/quote]Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, called on the network to apologize, saying: "The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it."

[/quote]

I tend to agree.

[Will]

It is not at all apparent that the memos are faked. There are self-proclaimed "experts" saying they were created with MS Word, there are experts saying it is just as possible (and more likely) that a 1970s era typewriter was used. Just about everything else is a bunch of people with agendas of their own saying what they think a dead man would or would not have written. So while the evidence in the report seems shakey, it is not automatically a "hoax and a fraud".

I personally find it funny that the Bush Administration's PR wonks still haven't said much about his National Guard service other than he served. Claims that Bush got into the Guard through ties to the Old Boy's Club (or WASPs, or whatever term you prefer), was insubordinate and didn't show up for duties, etc., are anwered with simple claims that the accusations are false, as if that makes it all go away. It reminds me a bit of Monty Python...

The Dead Collector : Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body : Here's one.
The Dead Collector : That'll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector : What?
Large Man with Dead Body : Nothing. There's your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector : 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body : Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm not.
The Dead Collector : He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Body : Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body : No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector : Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body : Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector : I can't take him.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body : Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector : I can't.
Large Man with Dead Body : Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector : I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Body : Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector : Thursday.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body : You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn't : I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body : Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector : Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body : Right.

So, just whacking the memos with a club doesn't make them go away. Show everyone that a man with a criminal record, a history of drug use, a less-than-stellar academic career, a failed businessman, and a background that suggests silver-spoon upbringing -- show everyone that a man like that is responsible enough to run the United States, then the nay-sayers go away. More than half the country, and a very significant portion of the world, believes that Bush is not responsible enough to run the country (the remainder presumably believe that he is reformed now, or else they are simply ill-informed to begin with). The only thing that will get him re-elected is if a large chunk of those who believe he is not responsible enough also believe that all other options are even less responsible. The jury is still out on that one... we'll find out in 49 days.

[Atrocities]

Will, nearly every expert from Adobe through the Media Research Center have concluded that these documents are more likely than not forgies. In fact the mans own family has stated that they feel they are not authentic.

Additionaly, why should Bush talk about his service record. He has nothing to prove or clearify. Bush did not win his race against Gore because of his military record. No, the only reason this is an issue is because the DNC wants pay back for what happened with the Sift Boat vets. LOL, they - the DNC - denounce the Swift Boat vets actions and cry foul because Bush won't tell them to stop, and then they attack him on his TexANG record at the very moment CBS runs that story on the memo's. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Sounds very suspicious to me. And the funny thing is, Bill Clinton advised that they NOT make an issue out of Bush's service record and the DNC went ahead and did it any ways. Then they go on national television and say all kinds of derogatory things that they cannot back up. LOL. The DNC's "win at any cost, damn the ethics, just win" tactics will most likely win Kerry the Whitehouse, but honestly, its not right.

And we both know that we can swap nasty things to say about both Bush and Kerry's past discresions, so what do you say about us just leaving the mud slinging and character bashing to the people who get paid to do it.

[PvK]

Er, check MSNBC's recent articles about it. Some associates were discussing this, and saying that documents (maybe not the same as 60 Minutes'?) came from the White House, and show discussions between Air Force superiors discussing Bush's absences, incompetence, etc., and the pressure they were receiving to let it slide.

PvK

[rextorres]

Atrocities,

If you care less about this story why even bring it up!?

The Media Republican Group is hardly a non-partisan source especially since their mission statements explicitly states that they are a conservative group and they are proud of what Rush Limbaugh amongst others have to say about them.

Adobe had nothing to do with those fonts. The font used in the memos is Times Roman and was invented in 1931 for the NY Times.

Anyway I don't if these memos are fake the validity of the memos is totally irrelevant.

Fact: John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. He served, was wounded in combat, didn't like what he saw while over there and came home to address those issues. Thirty years later, SBVT and the Republicans are trying to crucify him and his record.

Fact: George Bush did NOT volunteer to go to Vietnam. He chose to serve in the Air National Guard and probably got in via special treatement. Thirty years later, portions of his Official Record, conveniently, come up missing.

Which raises the question, why after 30 years is John Kerry's record complete AND available for all to see AND FALSE & George Bush's record is not?

[Azselendor]

Here's a question for you, why is the GOP Lending Ultra-Liberal Ralph Nader some lawyers?

Why is it none of the major issues have been defined except with some obscure and clever catch phrases.

The sad part is that kerry will not win and bush will have another four years in office. Like Reagan and his father, thier adminsitrations will end the same. With some of the largest tax hikes in history, a collapsed ecomony, and a series of wars, that while winning, prove fruitless and shows more weakness than strength.

[Will]

Well, all the reports I've seen say that it is merely possible that the documents are forgeries, which is a moot point, since a graphics suite on a computer is more than capable of re-creating a document in the style of a typewriter, flaws and all. If these documents were presented in a criminal case, it would be about 50/50 chance that a judge would admit them into evidence (depending on how solid the forgery arguement is), and in a civil case, they certainly would be admitted as evidence. Because it apparently cannot be proven one way or the other, the burden is on the Bush Administration to convince everyone that they are false, not simply claim it and expect it to be so.

Bush should talk about his service record because it is part of his character. Past history has a large influence on current behaviour, and that is a very important thing to consider when giving a person authority over one of the largest militaries in the world. Clinton recommended not bringing up military service because he knew that was an invitation for more attacks on Kerry because of his actions as a war protestor.

Kerry, as far as I have seen, has only been calling for Bush to release his full service records, like Kerry has already done. There hasn't been any attacks coming from Kerry along the lines of "Bush is a coward for joining the ANG instead of going to war with the rest of us". Other liberal Groups are calling it another form of draft dodging, and saying that Bush was a spoiled kid (most likely true) that had strings pulled to get out of an uncomfortable situation (evidence is leaning toward this). These attacks have also been coming for years, before Bush was even elected... not just when CBS runs a story on some memos about Bush's "service". The Swift Boat ads, by comparison, were flat out lies and slander (the doctor who "treated" Kerry, the men who "served with" Kerry but in a different area of Vietnam, etc) concocted by a group that is probably just pissed off that Kerry didn't think that war was such a great thing after returning. And I personally think anyone who believes war can be a good thing needs their head checked; this includes several in the Bush Administration, all of which, I may point out, have never been in a war.

And finally, I believe I've made it clear in other Posts that I don't like Kerry as President either. I think both of them are not good for the job, but as the current election system favors only one of the two getting the job, I would rather Kerry give it a shot than have Bush continue screwing things up (while being on vacation, no less!) for four more years.

[Atrocities]

Atrocities,

If you care less about this story why even bring it up!?

I thought it an interesting topic Rex.

The Media Republican Group is hardly a non-partisan source especially since their mission statements explicitly states that they are a conservative group and they are proud of what Rush Limbaugh amongst others have to say about them.

I don't know about this. I don't listen to talk radio.

Adobe had nothing to do with those fonts. The font used in the memos is Times Roman and was invented in 1931 for the NY Times.

Adobe was primarily responsible for creating the Times Roman font for word processing. They compared the fonts to those of current word processors and such. They concluded that these documents were most likely made with a current day word processor. Read this MSNBC Artilce

Anyway I don't if these memos are fake the validity of the memos is totally irrelevant.

I am sorry, but I don't follow you??

Fact: John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam. He served, was wounded in combat, didn't like what he saw while over there and came home to address those issues. Thirty years later, SBVT and the Republicans are trying to crucify him and his record.

Actualy the people who are crucifying him are not the RNC, but the Swift Boat Vets. http://www.swiftvets.com/ From what I have seen, the Republicans are the ones who are being attacked by the DNC over Bush's record.

Fact: George Bush did NOT volunteer to go to Vietnam. He chose to serve in the Air National Guard and probably got in via special treatement. Thirty years later, portions of his Official Record, conveniently, come up missing.

The word probably is not a fact. So aside from the assumed fact that Bush did not volunteer to go to vietnam, the rest of the statement is opinion. There is a big differance between fact and opinion. And in most cases that would be the truth.

Which raises the question, why after 30 years is John Kerry's record complete AND available for all to see AND FALSE & George Bush's record is not?

John Kerry's record is not complete and available for inspection. I don't know if Bushes record is or is not.

[Atrocities]

Here's a question for you, why is the GOP Lending Ultra-Liberal Ralph Nader some lawyers?

I really do not know. I do wonder however why CNN anker men are lending support, unpaid that is, to the Kerry camp. To me that would be a conflict of interest.

Why is it none of the major issues have been defined except with some obscure and clever catch phrases.

Good question. The next time I talk to Bush or Kerry I will ask them.

The sad part is that kerry will not win and bush will have another four years in office. Like Reagan and his father, thier adminsitrations will end the same. With some of the largest tax hikes in history, a collapsed ecomony, and a series of wars, that while winning, prove fruitless and shows more weakness than strength.

Reagons term ended with the end of the cold war. We were at war really with no one. And our economy was beginning to strengthn. Bush's term ended without incident. The berlin wall had come down, and our economy was on the verg of a boom.

The record is clear that Clinton road the economic wave started in the Reagon era and that Bush Jr. has inhereted Clintonomics. And for the record, it was Clinton who implemented the largest tax increase on a population in the history of the world. You can look that up if you wish.

[Atrocities]

Well, all the reports I've seen say that it is merely possible that the documents are forgeries, which is a moot point, since a graphics suite on a computer is more than capable of re-creating a document in the style of a typewriter, flaws and all. If these documents were presented in a criminal case, it would be about 50/50 chance that a judge would admit them into evidence (depending on how solid the forgery arguement is), and in a civil case, they certainly would be admitted as evidence. Because it apparently cannot be proven one way or the other, the burden is on the Bush Administration to convince everyone that they are false, not simply claim it and expect it to be so.

I tend to agree.

Bush should talk about his service record because it is part of his character. Past history has a large influence on current behaviour, and that is a very important thing to consider when giving a person authority over one of the largest militaries in the world.

Indeed, my point exactly about Kerry. www.swiftvet.com clearly state that he is unfit to command. Who better to judge a man by his past service record then the men who served with him.

And Bush has been the president for four years now, so this debate about his service record is mute. It should have been an issue in 2000, but it was not. It is mearly pay back by the DNC over what the Swift Boat Vets had to say about Kerry.

Additionally, why knock Bush when Clinton out and out fled the country to avoid duty in Vietnam. That issue clearly cracks this arguements foundation that Bush is not fit to lead the country. And Clinton's decision to leave to avoid duty has never been disputed. In fact it worked for him in his 1992 bid for office.

So in essence, what the DNC is saying is, "What is good for the goose is not good for the gander." This kind of attitude really annoys me because it seems to be how the DNC thinks. Bush never attacked Kerry's military record, the swift boat vets did, and the DNC cried like little spoiled rotten children over it. Now, in pay back, the DNC is attempting to whip up a debate over Bush's service record at the very same time that CBS comes out with its story and more likely than not, fake documents.

Most people are not fouled by this text book example of a "COOKED" story designed by the DNC as pay back over the Swift Boat Vets stance against Kerry. It is cheap politics and mud slingling at its best. A brillant manuaver to be sure, but never the less one that clearly demonstrates why the DNC should be denied the White House for the next four years.

Clinton recommended not bringing up military service because he knew that was an invitation for more attacks on Kerry because of his actions as a war protestor.

Clinton is a smart man and they should have listened to his recommendation. He did win two terms you know.

Kerry, as far as I have seen, has only been calling for Bush to release his full service records, like Kerry has already done.

Kerry too has not released his full service records. But I agree, if Bush has not, then he should.

There hasn't been any attacks coming from Kerry along the lines of "Bush is a coward for joining the ANG instead of going to war with the rest of us". Other liberal Groups are calling it another form of draft dodging, and saying that Bush was a spoiled kid (most likely true) that had strings pulled to get out of an uncomfortable situation (evidence is leaning toward this).

I think both men grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths. And yes, strings were pulled for bush, but no more than what has been done for other rich kids who went on to be senators and such. This really is a pointless arguement. It should have been an issue in 2000.

These attacks have also been coming for years, before Bush was even elected... not just when CBS runs a story on some memos about Bush's "service".

The authenticity of these memo's is in question. Therefore they should be viewed as a mute point until they can be proven real.

The Swift Boat ads, by comparison, were flat out lies and slander (the doctor who "treated" Kerry, the men who "served with" Kerry but in a different area of Vietnam, etc) concocted by a group that is probably just pissed off that Kerry didn't think that war was such a great thing after returning.

The book "Not Fit For Command" has been on the NY Best Sellors list for over two weeks now and Kerry has said nothing about it. He has offered no rebuttle to the statements in the book, nor has the DNC been able to question it.

The DNC has however, come out and attacked the SBV's and taken statements out of context. This has been proven and repeatedly embarassed the DNC.

Kerry made his service a part of his run for the office. Bush did not make his service an issue in the 2004 election other than to say that he is proud of his time as a TexANG'er.

And I personally think anyone who believes war can be a good thing needs their head checked; this includes several in the Bush Administration, all of which, I may point out, have never been in a war.

I would like you to list names and proof that they think War is a good thing. Additionally, FDR had never served in a war nor had many of his administration. The same thing goes for Clinton. I think in this regard the point of view that because they have never been in a war disqualifies them to run the county is wrong.

And finally, I believe I've made it clear in other Posts that I don't like Kerry as President either. I think both of them are not good for the job, but as the current election system favors only one of the two getting the job, I would rather Kerry give it a shot than have Bush continue screwing things up (while being on vacation, no less!) for four more years.

I say this, if Kerry is elected, then we will most likely have him and his lawsuite happy vice president for eight years. Given Kerry's record, and the fact that he has been in office for over a decade and done nothing about the very issues he now says he will do something about, just announces that he is not the right man for the job.

If Bush wins, we only have to deal with him for four more years and then perhaps the DNC can offer us a valid canadate for President. We all know that Dick won't run, and if he did, he would not win.

I say pick the battle, go for 2008. Better to suffer four more years of Bush than eight years of Kerry.