Slashdot Mirror

Washington Post

The typography isn't the only problem.

Okay, I'm going to do you a favor, and recommend you check out a film called "Castle In The Sky". It's anime, but it's been released by Disney over here so you can find it in any video store under "animation" or "childrens films". Given what you said you liked about "Sky Captiain", you'll probobly like "Castle in the sky".

It doesn't have the funny irrellevance of the serials, but it does have the sense of adventure and mystery that a lot of action and sci-fi films lack these days. Plus, many of the design elements (flying ships, robots, air pirates) are shared, and the robots even look similar. The main plot is about a girl who has a mysterious jewel and a boy who becomes her friends, as they run from vaious people who want to take advantage of the powers of the jewel.

It's more like Indiana Jones and Star Wars than a direct copy of the old serials, but that's not nessecerily a bad thing. If you think no movie in 70 years has lived up to those, you should try looking harder : )

A couple of reviews here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longter m/movies/videos/laputacastleintheskynrharrington_a 0aac9.htm
http://www.abcb.com/laputa/lap_apga.htm
http://www.btinternet.com/~lawrencium2/laputa.html

"the people at WTVT trying to work with the correspondents regarded them, especially Wilson, as combative, contentious, insulting, and unprofessional. The Fox lawyer participating in the editorial review complained to them that they were stating "in almost every way possible that you are fed up with our process of legal and editorial review."

It should be noted that people under 25 are disproportionately conservative

It should be noted that Republicans disproportionately refuse to answer polls in general for a variety of reasons, and that polls taken over the weekends in particular favor Democrats.

My guess from looking at the trends and comparisons to past voting patterns and their relationship with polls at that time is that Bush has an overall 4-6% lead, and it's growing.

And this doesn't even consider the fact that using the 2000 party IDs for resampling is almost certainly too conservative! Democrats will be out in force this year, certainly much more than in 2000 when they were in full retreat after the Clinton scandal. They hate Bush with a passion and will vote vote vote.

I would not be surprised if Bush gets 55-57%, unless the course of the election changes dramatically in the next 6 weeks.

Holy crap! You know that You've shown ineptness in understanding polling trends three times now, so it's time to dismiss you.

This article may help support my comment. To be fair, that age group tends to be pretty volatile. Earlier this year, I think they were fairly evenly tied. In recent months, the war on Iraq is making a greater difference in that age group, probably due to worries about a potential draft.

Well, call me crazy but that's not pro-life.

If you support Bush, you support what he's doing in Iraq. Which is, he is losing the illegal war, which was unjustified as they have conclusively reported that there was no WMD in Iraq.

Do you have any sources you can cite for that? Where did President Bush ever oppose this investigation? And what evidence might be destroyed? Novak had a verbal conversation with a "Senior Administration Official". What records are going to exist of that? And how is President Bush in any way controlling this investigation? If he wanted to hide things and was controlling the investigation or its timing, why would he be allowing reporters to be subpoenaed to testify about off-the-record conversations they had with administration officials? How exactly does that constitute "keeping it out of the public eye"?

1. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution

Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.

You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".

How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.

Imagine you live far away from the U.S. Most of your news comes from the clearly biased BBC (remember the big battle they lost with Tony Blair, when it turned out there reporter misquoted the expert who wound up committing suicide) or Al Jazeera. Then you stumble on to this site.

You read the descriptions of George Bush and John Kerry. Kerry is described in glowing terms, as the Vietnam war hero who led the fight against the war, while Bush consistently supports tax cuts "despite the increasing budget deficit".

Kerry is described as being for free trade and "led the effort" for permanent normal trade relations with China, and sponsored a bill to commit $100 million to fight AIDS in Africa. While giving Kerry glowing credit for these modest proposals, the article refuses to mention the $15 billion in African AIDS assistance proposed by President Bush in his last State of the Union address. And, of course, it does not point out that Kerry is more for "fair trade" than "free trade".

How would you wind up voting then? The electorate works just like computers it follows the old GIGO rule. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. Fortunately in the U.S. there are plenty of news media outlets to get information to counteract blatant untruths, but the rest of the world is not always so fortunate.

Kerry pledges more money, while Bush spends it.

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade. A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Feynman: For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled.

Dr. Robin: In my opinion, the Bush administration's failure to understand this concept presents a grave danger to our country and to the world.

AH, but you missed something: The ultra-conservatives have long-since hijacked the phrase "Sound Science". They take advantage of the fact that most science is really just probabilities and management of uncertainties, to spread REAL uncertainty and doubt among the people. Thus, things that help the environment, based on "sound science", are really only happening because the damage has already been done (think Bush's recent grants to florida's everglades, prior to hurricane season).

Otherwise, they use "Sound Science" as an excuse to postpone ANY regulation of the environment (a-la the mountaintop-destroying mining going on in West Virginia right now, destroying millions of miles of rivers that will eventually have a direct impact on their own grand Potomac). Until is proven to be "Sound", it means nothing to them.

Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush

NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.

I don't exactly know how much BG has given away, although I'd doubt it would be significantly above and beyond what George Soros has given away. BG isn't the only billionair giving away large amounts of his money.

Don't make me take out the poking stick!

I thought Bush has created more jobs, and that the recession was over. I can't believe the Washington Post would try to sneak such false statements into the transcript of the Presidents address at the RNC. They must be French owned.

BTW, Here is a login for the Post.

And before anyone get's pissy, may I remind people that flamers are joyless, humorless, SOB's. Don't trust a person who can't laugh.

A good summary is here

Badnarik doesn't have much on the topic on his official website. According to this transcript of an interview he supports intellectual property for the life of the creator but doesn't give much detail. (What about something from a corporate employee? Does it last for the length of his employment, his life, or the existence of the corporation?)

It's a very important question. Ayn Rand was generally looney, but I very much like her suggested 7 year limit on all forms of intellectual property ownership. On the other hand, many libertarians supported unlimited ownership of intellectual property.

The basis of authority for Social Security is not morality. It's a recognition that we are not willing to let old people simply starve and die in the streets. If we believe that a person has the right to emergency health care, regardless of ability to pay, then it makes sense to pursue policy that decreases the amount of emergency care required by those who cannot pay. Leaving old folks to fend for themselves creates an environment

Your right about the safety net functions, but this is a recognition of a more advanced and complex society and the rights that must be recognized in order to achieve growth in this modern world. I believe that is a more accurate description of the heart of the New Deal. No law in the US, no matter how "good" or "moral", can use morality as it's basis for authority and remain valid. Laws who's only basis of authority is moral violate the principle of equal protection under the law.

The GOP economic policy of so-called ownership is about taking ownership of risk, not providing opportunity. If you look at all of their proposals and replace the word opportunity with risk they start to match with reality instead of looking like some ideologue's fantasy. Check out this column by Harold Meyerson, which lays out this concept very clearly.

Not to mention:
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
-John Kerry
Source: Washington Post, In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War, Aug. 10 2004

Some choice we've got.

And into this ring he poured his cruelty, his malice, and his will to dominate all life.

This is the voice-over narration that begins "The Fellowship of the Ring", and though it describes the pyschology of Sauron, a villian of almost Satanic proportions, it also describes the mentality of most Muzlims, whose biggest dream is to conquer the world in the name of Muslim "glory". Don't let the PC, self-hating Western apologists like Karen Armstrong fool you into thinking that jihad means inner moral struggle. Read the definitive scholarly treatment of "Djihad" in the Encyclopedia of Islam, basically the RFC of Islamic studies:

The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force.

...
The duty of the djihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. "Until the day of the resurrection", and "until the end of the world" say the maxims. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.
...
Finally, there is at the present time a thesis, of a wholly apologetic character, according to which Islam relies for its expansion exclusively upon persuasion and other peaceful means, and the djihad is only authorized in cases of "self defence" and of "support owed to a defenceless ally or brother". Disregarding entirely the previous doctrine and historical tradition, as well as the texts of the Koran and the sunna on the basis of which it was formulated, but claiming, even so, to remain within the bounds of strict orthodoxy, this thesis takes into account only those early texts which state the contrary.

You say:

Please show me how 9/11 was an attempt to "take over the world." ... Yes, there are dreamers on the fringe that talk of a "Muslim world" and a "new Muslim empire". That kind of rhetoric even works with some people. The reality is cells working in the dark.

Muzlim terrorists do not work in isolation; they are not outlaws hounded by their own societies. They have the material support of thousands who give them money and resources and protect them from their own countries' legal authorities. And then there are the millions (perhaps the majority of Muslims?) who approve of what they do, call them "martyrs", call them heroes, and give them moral support.

And if you doubt that this notion of jihad and Muslim conquest still has widespread support, I suggest you haven't been doing much reading, because I have found countless sermons by "moderate" Muslim clerics and heads of Muslim organizations not just admitting, but gloating on how they plan to conquer the entire world. From yesterday's Washington Post:

Many [Muslim] Brotherhood leaders advocate patience in promoting their goals. In a 1995 speech to an Islamic conference in Ohio, a top Brotherhood official, Youssef Qaradawi, said victory will come through dawah -- Islamic renewal and outreach -- according to a transcript provided by the Investigative Project, a Washington terrorism research group. "

Conquest through dawah, that is what we hope for," said Qaradawi, an influential Qatari imam who pens some of the religious edicts justifying Hamas suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. "We will

I believe the only candidate which can offer the security the world needs at this vital point in history is Bush.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - EDMOND BURKE

Europe right now is in the same place it was in the 1930's (and I don't just mean rising anti-Semitism). It is a demoralized civilization that has outlived the "God that failed" (socialism) and so sees no reason to defend Western civilization against its enemies, no matter how awful they might be. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some German or Scandinavian attack the current administration for America for its supposed "religious fanaticism", yet when I point out the rising Islamic fundamentalism among their Arab & African minorities, how indifferent they are, and their typical answer of "yeah, it's bad, but it would be wrong to impose my culture on these other people" (as if immigrants have no responsibility to try and assimilate to the culture they have been generously let into, and away from the one which they fled!). I especially remember one Swedish guy who was anguished by the spate of "honor killings" among Turkish immigrants in his country. His solution? To do everything not to set-off the male relatives of the victims, because "even though I don't like their customs, I don't feel right imposing my own culture on them".

The President of America needs to convince "old Europe" that the West, liberal decmocracy, and freedom are worth fighting for, and that this is real and not some cover for U.S. hegemony. Bush, with his arrogance, has done nothing to address this problem and much to exasserbate it.

Here's a little history for you: the Bush administration has already decided North Korea is a nuclear power. What we are doing is #4, not #3. The Axis of Evil crap pissed off those countries and severely limited our diplomacy options (especially with Iran), while our Iraq adventure has limited our military options. Bush is not the foreign policy expert his "War on Terra" would lead you to believe.

this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.

At this point, CNN is reporting that the documents are very likely forged, including the opinion of a guy who is specifically an expert on IBM Composers.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/bush.gua rd.ap/index.html

Dr Phil Bouffard, one of the top experts in the field, is nearly conclusively certain that they're forged.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000851.php

MSNBC is reporting experts in several areas who say they're forged.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5963843/

The Washington Post has a number of experts who strongly believe the documents were forged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A996 7-2004Sep9.html

And you've got Kos.

Read the stories. Think for yourself.

And for crying out loud learn to post a link. There's even a little crib in the edit window on Slashdot, for God's sake.

They weren't typewriters. They were low cost typesetting machines. The word breaks and line spacing are identical because they are both imitating typesetting machines, and Times New Roman, a famous font since 1932.

It's not called line spacing. In typesetting it is called leading, or, more recently, ledding, because originally they used pieces of lead to make the line space.

Here's the latest revision of my remarks:

When I saw the Bush documents, I laughed because they are obviously genuine. They have a defect that I learned to recognize: Baseline shift of repeated characters. A long time ago, I talked to an IBM service technician and he explained why it happens in machines like the IBM Selectric and IBM composer.

For an explanation of how this was and is connected with humor, see below.

I examined the documents in PDF format that can be seen on the Washington Post web site.

Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. People are saying the proportional spacing is an indication of forgery, because the letters look like Microsoft Word documents.

However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.

The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a one-use carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest printer.

I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines, apparently IBM Composer. (Back then I wrote computer manuals which were prepared on those upscale machines.) The more expensive machines, the IBM Composers, used much bigger type balls than the Selectrics, but they were all designed around the same basic idea.

There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.

There's a funny side to the self-consistency in my guess about the machine used to prepare the memos. Back then anyone writing and publishing computer user manuals really struggled with the publishing. Whenever something needed to look professional, we had it typeset. To do that, we did what is called "spec type". On one occasion I spent 11 hours specifying typesetting values for one particularly complicated page.

After you have spent many, many hours worrying about the look of type, you begin to be extremely sensitive to everything about it. (Either that, or you wouldn't be successful.)

Looking at the letters discussing preferential treatment for George W. Bush brings back strong memories. The Selectric was an unbelievably complicated machine that needed frequent service because it depended on everything being adjusted to extremely fine tolerances.

Anyone familiar with this can see something funny about the letters immediately. It's obvious to me. Whoever had the typing machine did not have the maintenance contract. It's easy to know this because the letters are not all level with the baseline.

Also, when you pull a section directly from a Washington Post front page story, you should probably cite that, otherwise you look pretty shifty. You might also want to read the rest of that article.

Tsk tsk, bad reporting by you.

You really shouldn't take CBS's denial at face value. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations. That's how it works.

An intellectually honest person would leave open the POSSIBLITY that they are wrong. You are backing yourself into a corner here.

From Drudge:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 09, 2004 22:45:32 ET XXXXX

CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED

**Exclusive**

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.

and ABC News now have stories about it.

From the ABC News article:

Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.

The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.

The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.

The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas -- the bible of fonts -- does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.

CBS seriously screwed up on this one.

PAGE A01 Washington Post

Also the president explicitly did NOT denounce the ad; instead, he attacked all 527 campaign ads (changing the subject), and quite pointedly refrained from attacking the swift boat ad in particular. He simply said they were all "bad for the system."

Most importantly, the Bush connection is not just Ben Ginsburg but also Kenneth Cordier, Merrie Spaeth, and, less directly, Karl Rove. And everyone in DC knows this crap has Karl Rove's M.O. all over it.

Finally, you keep claiming that Bush "denied, debunked, and dismissed" these claims in 2000, yet NOBODY has stepped forward to tell anyone what Bush was actually doing during his missing year. That's because he spent the year partying.

Which really wouldn't bother me so much if he and Cheney were not painting him as some kind of freaking war hero just because he strutted around in a flight suit pretending we had won Iraq! All the while supporting the aspersions cast on Kerry's war record. By the way, Cheney's comment that voting for Kerry will lead to terrorism in the US tells us all we need to know about whether the Bush Administration is willing to capitalize politically on the Swift Boat Veteran lies.

I'm not saying this is the only possible explanation, but this is what I thought of when I looked at the Bush documents in PDF format that can be seen on the Washington Post web site. The documents brought back strong memories of working with those machines.

Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. People are saying the proportional spacing is an indication of forgery, because the letters look like Microsoft Word documents.

However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.

The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a one-use carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest laser printer.

I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines. (I wrote computer manuals which I typed on a Selectric and were prepared on those machines.)

There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.

There's a funny side to the self-consistency in my guess about the machine used to prepare the memos. Back then anyone writing and publishing computer user manuals really struggled with the publishing. Whenever something needed to look professional, we had it typeset. To do that, we did what is called "spec type". On one occasion I spent 11 hours specifying typesetting values for one particularly complicated page.

After you have spent many, many hours worrying about the look of type, you begin to be extremely sensitive to everything about it. (Either that, or you wouldn't be successful.)

Looking at the letters discussing preferential treatment for George W. Bush brings back strong memories. The Selectric was an unbelievably complicated machine that needed frequent service because it depended on everything being adjusted to extremely fine tolerances.

Anyone familiar with this can see something funny about the letters immediately. It's obvious to me. Whoever had the typing machine did not have the maintenance contract. It's easy to know this because the letters are not all level with the baseline. That's what would happen when the Selectric or other typing machine from the same family was not adjusted.

The funny self-consistency is this. It's easy to guess that they got the machine from the general's office after some civilian secretary there decided that the new machine was too complicated to learn. But, since an office of lower rank was not allowed to have such a machine, they did not have the maintenance contract. That could be why the baseline of the type is so messy.

Someone said that the letters were forgeries because they were obviously done with Microsoft Word. It is impossible to simulate the variation of baseline with Microsoft Word; Word is too basic a tool, it is not able to do many of the functions of real typesetting. People who are sensitive to the beauty of type certainly don't use MS Word.

I use Ventura Publisher. It is possible t

We're talking different levels of stupidity here -- one involves premeditated illegal and deceptive action; the second is a moment of anger.

You're going to have to back up your claim about Barnes in 1999 -- I don't see anything on this as I'm researching it. You may be right but it is strange that the only one mentioning it is someone on slashdot, and that no real reporters happened to notice it. Actually the only reference I've seen to his claims in 1999 are almost the opposite -- apparently he said then that the Bush family did not ask him for help! (See here for example; and here is an article from 1999).

The reason Barnes is in the news today is because he's got this shit-hot new documentary evidence. Except the evidence turns out to be forged.

Actually, the legitimate news sources -- sorry, but "Free Republic" and other crackpot right wing conspiracy sites don't count for me -- seem to be treating the confession itself as major news, and certainly CBS did.

We agree this is a distraction; I do blame Dems but also the Repubs, who started this crap with the claims that Kerry didn't serve well enough in the Vietnam War (2 tours of duty, 3 purple hearts, two other medals, as opposed to Bush's possible honorable discharge from the Air Guard and Cheney's 5 deferments... hmmmm). The Republicans made this an issue and yet Cheney stated flat out that he had other priorities than fighting for his country. Bush was too busy getting wasted at the time to have an opinion about it one way or another. So, yeah, I do think it's a distraction, but I am happy to see the republicans hoisted on their own petard here.

We're talking different levels of stupidity here -- one involves premeditated illegal and deceptive action; the second is a moment of anger.

You're going to have to back up your claim about Barnes in 1999 -- I don't see anything on this as I'm researching it. You may be right but it is strange that the only one mentioning it is someone on slashdot, and that no real reporters happened to notice it. Actually the only reference I've seen to his claims in 1999 are almost the opposite -- apparently he said then that the Bush family did not ask him for help! (See here for example; and here is an article from 1999).

The reason Barnes is in the news today is because he's got this shit-hot new documentary evidence. Except the evidence turns out to be forged.

Actually, the legitimate news sources -- sorry, but "Free Republic" and other crackpot right wing conspiracy sites don't count for me -- seem to be treating the confession itself as major news, and certainly CBS did.

We agree this is a distraction; I do blame Dems but also the Repubs, who started this crap with the claims that Kerry didn't serve well enough in the Vietnam War (2 tours of duty, 3 purple hearts, two other medals, as opposed to Bush's possible honorable discharge from the Air Guard and Cheney's 5 deferments... hmmmm). The Republicans made this an issue and yet Cheney stated flat out that he had other priorities than fighting for his country. Bush was too busy getting wasted at the time to have an opinion about it one way or another. So, yeah, I do think it's a distraction, but I am happy to see the republicans hoisted on their own petard here.

This is complete BS. I've seen O'Reilly quite a few times, and the only times he's cut someone's mike is when either (a) they were passing off completely unsubstantiated lies or (b) they were completely dodging O'Reilly's questions.

Thanks. You just confirmed that O'Reilly does say "Shut up" to his guests in a unprofessional manner. All you did is try and justify it with your weak and twisted reasoning. O'Reilly isn't a man who can listen to facts or reason. He just likes to shout and cause a lot of drama. I have very little regard to people like O'Reilly. I'd rather see two intelligent well informed and respectful opponents debate things out. With O'Reilly its about him shouting and getting in the last word. You can't take an immature guy like him seriously

Yes. The fact that you aren't aware of them just means that you don't pay enough attention. The fact that Fox News watchers probably have other sources of news as well (other than Fox or the traditional media) is not what the traditional media wants. For information on Iraq's WMD finds, see here and here, not to mention the WMD that were shipped to Syria and used in an attempted assassination of King Hussein of Jordan.

You really buy into this don't you. Look, go read a real newspaper or something that has standards in journalism. Quote me something from the Wall Street Jounral or another conservative newspaper that has similar standards, not the radical news sources you've quoted me. Both Colin Powell and David Kelly have both said that WMDs will probably never be found in Iraq. Fresh doubts over Iraq's arsenal. Its a shame and tragic that Hans Blix was not allowed to finish his job and the administration was just itching to get into Iraq, damn the consequences.

Rice "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11 "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida

Previous comment: "Is there a connection between Iraq and 9/11 ?"

Yes! Hussein Al-Hussany, who helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing, was a member of the Republican Guard, and after the OKC bombing went to work for Logan national airport. Hussein Al-Hussany sued Jayna Davis for slander for publishing reports about this, AND LOST. Ramzi Youssef, one of the ones who carried out the first WTC bombing, was being employed by Iraq at the time. Anyway, it's a long connection, but the imminent connection is between the larger war on terror and Iraq, and between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which noone denies exist

Apparently, I'm separated from the President by two people from two different sets of people. Guess what? It doesn't mean much. John Walker Lindh (American Taliban) and Richard Reed (shoe bomber) are citizens of the U.S. and the U.K. yet do we claim that our country and others harbor terrorists? What kind of asinine argument are you trying to pull when you say that a country is responsible for terror because the terrorist lived there. Well, didn't Mohammad Atta live in Hamburg, Germany. Maybe, we should invade Germany, just in case they forgot their lesson right? Listen buddy, maybe you should take a closer look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, instead of barking up the wrong tree (or country so to speak) and lay of the crack. The irony of me arguing this with you is that you are the polar opposite of a Islamic fundamentalist. You'r

The problem being that Barnes' own bio mentioned the Geneva gig only for that period.

Maybe it's like you say. Who are you going to believe, CBS or Barnes?

If Barnes, then you should also believe Barnes' own statement:"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said.

Barnes has to be lying in one of his statements. So, do you believe the one in 1999, or the one now, when Barnes is a major contributor and vice chair of Kerry's campaign in Texas?

As I keep saying, read all the sources and then think for yourself.

The problem being that Barnes' own bio mentioned the Geneva gig only for that period.

Maybe it's like you say. Who are you going to believe, CBS or Barnes?

If Barnes, then you should also believe Barnes' own statement:"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said.

Barnes has to be lying in one of his statements. So, do you believe the one in 1999, or the one now, when Barnes is a major contributor and vice chair of Kerry's campaign in Texas?

As I keep saying, read all the sources and then think for yourself.

If all the records have been released they why does he still refuse to sign FORM 180?

What about the December spot reports? (Cambodia)

What about the January '69 spot reports? (Sampan incident)

DD214 is for only 3mos 27day?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A401 10-2004Aug27.html

"The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control.

"I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything," he said. "If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone." The exclusivity agreement, he said, simply requires "that anybody quoting any of the material needs to cite my book."

By Ann Gerhart Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, August 28, 2004; Page C01

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips2 7.html

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

*skip*
94 pages of records unreleased?

Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

---000---

The notion that Bush necessarily had any obigations in Alabama is a basic mistake. As long as you persist in making that basic mistake, you're going to be confused.

Now, with that said, there are a few little points tat ought to be noted:

John Calhoun remembers Bush in Alabama, and Bush's dental records from Alabama have been found and discussed in the Washington post.

But .. I thought "no one remembers Bush in Alabama"?

Oh, wait, the guy who does remember Bush is "unreliable".

But what about his dental records?

The usual comeback is that this proves Bush went to the dentist but not that he was on base.

Except that the dentist was on base.

And how is it that Ben Barnes' story -- "I helped Bush into the Guard as Lt Gov ... six months before I was elected" -- is any more believable now than it was in 1999? It's not like someone has discovered new records saying Barnes really wasn't in Geneva and was LTGOV after all.

As usual, the real answer is read both sides and then think for yourself.

Anyone can walk around freely and voice opinions in a police state, just as anyone can commit crimes in a law-abiding society. The real question is: what rights can you fall back on when the police take exception to your activities? If the law and the courts can protect you against the police, then you live in a reasonably free society. If not, then you live in a police state, even if it's a comfy, prosperous police state where few people ever find themselves in that position.

You want facts? If the police arrest you without cause, hold you without trial or even charges, deny you access to counsel, conduct secret proceedings, and contradict the courts, then citizens are fundamentally defenseless.

I have traveled in the Middle East, eastern Europe, and Cuba, all of which have a much higher police presence and authority than the U.S., and I traveled freely, spoke freely, and spent freely in all of those places. Of course, I was never arrested, so I never had the opportunity to experience the police state apparatus directly. And so my experience of those countries was universally that they were warm, beautiful places full of nice people. A lot like America.

If you oppose the Iraq war, don't vote for someone who supported and continues to support it.

We know Bush supports it.

We also know that Kerry supports it. In the Washington Post article, In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War, Kerry makes it abundantly clear that he is not an anti-war candidate.

"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."

Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate. Don't waste your vote on one of those two other guys.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

So what, Rush is dating Kagan. That doesn't make her a conservative any more than marrying James Carville made Mary Matalin a liberal. When the Washington Post reported on the story, they described Kagan as "part of the liberal media axis and a feminist -- but, then again, opposites attract."

And Pat Buchannan, who worked at CNN, casts Judy Woodruff as a liberal.

Biden told Ashcroft that prohibitions against torture are intended to "protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That's the reason, in case anybody forgets it."

Ashcroft said he needed no reminder, because his own son has been on active military duty in the Persian Gulf.

Washington Post

You don't have to support President Bush to know that Michael Moore is a vile human being whose only motivation is hatred of America and who drags down the political discourse with his lies and distortions (even anti-war activists never claimed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was some kind of kite-flying utopia). Intelligent liberals realize this:

Stanley Kauffmann's wise--and, at times, generously angry--criticism is one of The New Republic's strongest assets. It is therefore deeply disappointing that he chooses to go easy on such a crude propaganda effort as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, whose anger has no generosity and whose opposition to George W. Bush's war, like his opposition to Bill Clinton's war against Slobodan Milosevic, is motivated by a hatred of the United States that is, at bottom, deeply illiberal ("Accusation," July 19). Bush hatred is not an excuse for failing to call the poison of our own era's Father Coughlin by its true name; as liberals, the responsibility for doing so rests squarely on our shoulders. Moore's garbage immeasurably degrades the quality of public discourse and undermines the struggle against Islamist fascism.

Letter to the Editors, The New Republic 09.06.04

Bush would disagree. He has run up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt (trillions in the long term) claiming his tax cuts would add jobs. Hasn't happened (they claimed we'd be adding 300,000 a month at this point. Um, no.)

The president also thought he could save jobs by using steel tariffs and lumber tariffs (this from a "free trade" president). Didn't work. Bush flip-flopped and dropped the steel tariffs after nearly setting off a trade war.

Herald Tribune
Washington Post, answers critics
Might be redundant cache
Dems want aditing Where have we heard this b4?Hmmmm...
F-L-O-R-I-DeU-H wants papertrail

Herald Tribune
Washington Post, answers critics
Might be redundant cache
Dems want aditing Where have we heard this b4?Hmmmm...
F-L-O-R-I-DeU-H wants papertrail

How about we let felons vote first?

Never have I heard of a more extraordinary law being made, and one severely violating the spirit of our Constitution, than laws preventing felons from voting while they are serving their sentence -- it's *easier* to locate felons for voting day than anyone else. Futhermore, a few states even prevent convicted felons from voting *after* they get out of jail.

Here's some discussion. Disallowing felons from voting is really primarily a Republican tool (since felons vote overwhelmingly Democrat). Isn't it a wonderful system? (Elected) Legislators get to decide what constitutes a felony, and then prevent people who violate laws that they pass from voting in future elections.

That's a distortion of Kerry's position. He voted to give the president the authority to use force but only on the condition that (1) we went in with global support (2) it was honestly the only option left, and (3) they posed an immediate threat. Kerry opposed the war because, well, we went in unilaterally, we didn't exhaust diplomatic means, and Iraq posed no immediate threat. Disagree all you want with his position (I know I do) but don't distort it.

According the Washington Post, it's not a distortion:

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War

Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

is that the Bush Administration, notorious for needlessly classifying thousands of documents more than any other previous Administration, just likes things being secret because then they have to explain less.

I stopped using Reason to try to determine the Bush Adm's motivation for its actions and switched to pure cynicism. Since then it's gotten so much easier.

From the Washington Post article entitled, 'Secrets' Perplex Panel, Classified Data Growing to Include 'Comically Irrelevant'

"The tone is set at the top," Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said.

"This administration believes the less known, the better," added the Connecticut Republican, noting sadly he was speaking of a GOP administration. "I believe the more known, the better."

Btw, is everyone registered to vote, by absentee ballot where possible? I only ask because, in our current situation, it might be useful information, MAYBE

I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post.

Ah, yes. Salon is a great source of unbiased news. The others aren't nearly as biased as Salon, but they aren't exactly fair and impartial either. Incidentally, I've read most of the articles in the Washington Post and New York Times and their "debunking" of the Swift Boat Veterans claims isn't exactly convincing.

Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire.

Why don't you go to the source on this one and check out Thurlow's response. In all likelihood the language from his citation came directly from John Kerry's after action report since Kerry seems to be the only one that filed a report describing the incident.

Also, Kerry's citation claims that they were under constant small arms and automatic weapons fire for 5000 meters while they fled the scene. I'm sorry, but if that were true they would probably all be dead. Also, how did they rescue and repair the damaged PCF-3 boat if they were under constant fire?

-- Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?

He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.

Um, no he hasn't. Look for "Standard Form 180" and "FOIA"; the Washington Post only received six of about 100 pages. And "review papers" seem to be pretty important if we're trying to figure out if this guy deserves to be President.

Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia.

It was actually John O'Neill, not Thurlow, that was recorded speaking to Nixon. Also, O'Neill, unlike Kerry, does a pretty good job of clarifying the recording. Keep in mind that we don't get to hear the entire conversation from the recording.

Also, the statements you provided are both 1) nothing like what Kerry has said about Cambodia, and 2) don't address Kerry's lies about Cambodia. This isn't just a small, little claim. This is something that Kerry says was "seared -- seared -- in [him]." He has repeated this story many times for over 15 years at least, and now that it has been proven to be a total fabrication, he has been forced to change it.

First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war".

No, I mean served WITH him. Like on his boat, next to his boat during combat, and as his commanding officers. While not all of the Swift Boat Veterans served as closely with Kerry, I'm addressing and talking about those that did. These guys (the vocal ones of the SBVT) were eye witnesses to Kerry and their accounts should be heard.

Kerry's campaign has been forced to backtrack on his fraudulent Christmas in Cambodia story and they have now been forced to backtrack on his first Purple Heart, admitting that his wound may have been self-inflicted. From what I've seen the Swift Boat Vets have been solid in their claims and have forced Kerry to backtrack. This goes to show that there is at least some tr