Saddam had enough U235 for 70 nukes. Hope that's not an issue.
LOL. I'm glad that with all the American forces and the world's media in Iraq scratching their heads because they can't find any evidence of WMD (and certainly no nuclear weapons), that someone named ElectricRook has found the missing WMD. You better alert the White House right away, they will be pleased to hear this.
By the way, how many did North Korea have when we invaded Iraq?
My main problem with HAVA is it institutionalizes the inaccurate voter purges that led to thousands of minorities being unfairly excluded from the voter rolls in Florida. HAVA makes such purges nationwide. Read this essay for a quick rundown; search the web for "HAVA" and "disenfranchisement" for much more.
At least when we talk to George W Bush, we know where he stands, and we know he'll do his level best to keep his promises.
You're nuts. Did you listen to his acceptance speech in New York? Half the shit he promised are liberal ideas that he promised before he was elected in 2000. Education, health care; promises he immediately reneged on in 2001 in his rush to give handouts to the rich. The only promises he will keep are the promises he made behind closed doors to his buddies in the oil business.
You're right, though, we do know where Bush stands. More tax cuts for the wealthy, more preemptive wars, more terrorism, fewer civil liberties...
Read his proposal for genocide from this thread. I know he calls himself "Marxist Hacker" but Stalinist would be closer to the truth (though even Stalin didn't want to kill as many people as this guy advocates).
In response to your comments, I'm sure you're aware that calling John Kerry a "slave to France" is equally as inane as calling Bush Hitler.
Sigh.... I don't know why the hell I expect intelligent political discussion on slashdot anyway....
Re:Actually, it does not at all promote filesharin
on
NYT Promotes File Sharing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is stupid. File sharing means file sharing. If you want to talk about "illegal file sharing" or "sharing copyrighted files," fine, but file sharing is about sharing files.
How do you propose to nuke terrorists living in London, New York, Hamburg? What do you propose we do about the non-terrorists living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East? What do you propose we do about global economic interdependence? Where shall we get our oil after your Final Solution?
By the way, in case you didn't notice, terrorists are not a "race." "Genocide" means destroying a race. What race do you wish to destroy? Muslims? (A religion, not a race, that spans many races, including whitey). Arabs? (What about all the terrorists in non-Arab Muslim nations like Indonesia or Iran?)
Finally, what the fuck are you talking about "historically proven to reduce terrorism." Which historical genocide has proven that? You've backed off of native America and Japan; perhaps you support the German genocide of Jews? Or the Armenian genocide?
Under genocide, we will lose our moral superiority as a nation, guaranteed, but nobody will ever fsck with us again.
That's right, look how nobody ever fucked with us after we killed off the American Indian. Err... I mean after we nuked Japan... Err, just forget it, ok?
You are trolling, right? you don't really believe in genocide? Never mind, I don't want to know.
I can see it now. Orrin Hatch yelling out "First Post!!" while Barbara Boxer moderates him "Troll." Ted Kennedy shouting "In Soviet Russia, the Senate confirms You!!" Arlen Specter pouring hot grits down his pants.... Yeah, this is gonna be great for democracy.
LOL. Poor baby. forced to cite his own sources but can't seem to think of any to cite so he just whines at me to go to google.
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you read reputable accounts instead of Salon-magazine hatchet jobs?
Hey moron - here's a suggestion, why don't you cite one if you want me to read it?? Salon is reputable as far as I am concerned, as is the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, CBS, CNN, NPR, and similar sources, all of which seem to agree the swift boat vets are lying. Look, I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am on this; I'll read an article if you suggest it, but you seem to prefer to whine about what I'm saying and call me names rather than actually suggest an article. I have read a number of articles on this and they seem to conclude that the SBVFT are lying.
You're talking about people who worked with other people.
I'm talking about people who worked for the Bush Administration and/or campaign. That is not just "people who worked with other people." Your crap about Move On and other 527s is irrelevant. As I said the Swift Boat stuff has Rove's handwriting all over it. You can't say the same of Move On. Even if you could though, it's irrelevant; Move On did not fabricate or outright lie like the swift boat ads did.
No, CBS did not. Nightline did, albeit briefly
I was watching CBS tonight in Los Angeles, and you're wrong; they did mention the charges that the documents were fake. They didn't say much about it one way or the other but they did mention it. I read tomorrow's Post article (assuming you mean the Washington Post and not the New York Post, LOL), and it raises all the questions that were raised here. If it turns out these documents are fake, and really bad fakes at that, I will be very curious to see who faked them. Your theory that "CBS" did it is of course ridiculous; it is possible that some random Jason Blair-like reporter at CBS did this, but it seems bizarre that CBS would not catch such an obvious forgery. It is possible that the Kerry campaign did it too but that too seems ridiculous when the forgery is so obvious (if what some people are saying about typewriters is true). I remember typing on a typewriter in the 70s that had a ball for the type and it did the little th thing, so I don't know. But I'm no document expert here. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it all turns out; but it doesn't matter to you since you've already made up your mind.
No he fucking does not, you ignorant fuckwit.
Calling me names doesn't change what the quote says. Even given your explanation, it amounts to the same thing -- blatant fearmongering. "Kerry can't protect us from the terrorists." It's crap, and you know it, which is why you resort to calling me names. What is really sad about all this is that Cheney has already proved that his administration can only encourage terrorism.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
If you quoted what I said completely, I said that there is no evidence that Kerry will treat it as a crime and not a war AS IF IT COULDN'T BE BOTH. Re read the quote you quoted from Kerry -- he will use our military when necessary. Better yet, read the quote in context of his position on the war on terrorism rather than just the one line you found quoted in the Washington Times. Are you saying that things like "intelligence gathering, law enforcement, [and] public diplomacy" are NOT essential in the war on terrorism? Sorry, man, but I agree totally with Kerry in that quote -- the very problem the current administration has is treating the war on terrorism as solely a military operation and ignoring the rest! Meanwhile we wind up letting terrorists go because we can't build a case against them because we haven't focused on that. And attacking countries that are not involved in al Qaeda thereby
I'm not going to continue point by point refutation since you just ignore my arguments and say "that's not true! this was covered in hundreds of places!" and you don't bother to cite them. This all comes from your blog perhaps?
Look, I feel trapped into defending Kerry here, I don't particularly like him, and I don't think any of this debate over who was better in the 60s is relevant, but having read quite a bit about the swift boat charges, I am quite convinced that they were lying. I havent seen snopes, or salon.com, or any other source that make this claim, convincingly refuted. If you have a source that is convincing I'd like to see it -- the consensus of sources that cover legitimate news seems to be that they are lying, so you have a burden of proof to overcome here, but I'm willing to read it with an open mind rather than being shouted out by someone called "Twirlip" (yeah my nick is silly too but I'm not claiming to be a respected journalist). But don't claim that the "connections" I mentioned above are not legitimate without addressing them specifically. They are not "6 degrees of separation."
As for the memos, maybe they are fake, maybe they're not. Both CBS and ABC Nightline covered the charges that they were phony tonight. It's interesting to me that they haven't either pulled out the original memos or invited more experts to check them out; I assume we will get a more satisfactory answer in the next couple days.
About the Cheney quote - I don't see what is different about what you said and what I assumed it meant. The second sentence just explains his reasoning. The point is the same -- he thinks (or claims to think) that a vote for Kerry will lead to more terrorist attacks (not "bad in the event of attack" like you say, but will lead to attack). It's blatant fear-mongering, and it's silly. There is no evidence Kerry will treat terrorism as a "crime" and not a "war" (as if it couldnt be both), and there's no evidence that will lead to more terrorism if the president does treat it that way. It's an assertion without evidence and it's being used to scare people.
Not one statement made by SBVFT has been shown to be false.
They all have been shown to be false. You have a doctor claiming to have treated Kerry's wounds whose name appears nowhere on the records. You have someone claiming the opposite of what he claimed after the war. And more. Snopes did a fine job summarizing the lies; you can find the evidence plenty of other places too. Also, that was quite subtle how you shifted from claiming there's no link between the swift boats and bush to claiming that the swift boat ads are true. Where do you stand exactly?
He said he denounces these ads and all other soft-money issue ads.
No; he did not specifically denounce the SBVFT ads for being false; he simply said that all such ads are bad for the process. In other words, he evaded the real issue.
There is absolutely no connection between SBVFT and the GOP, the White House or the Bush campaign
Hmm, repeating your assertions won't make them true -- I cited, with links to evidence, three separate connections apart from Ginsburg, which you never refuted or even addressed.
What "missing year?"
That would be 1972. Read the article instead of re-asserting falsities.
Find me one statement that anybody in the administration or the campaign has made to that effect.
Watch the Republican Convention again; I'm sure you videotaped the whole thing. That's practically all these people could talk about, what a strong leader Bush will be compared to that french-looking wimp Kerry. Or you can start with Cheney's assertion that without Bush at the helm after November, terrorists will attack us. All of this horseshit is what I'm talking about; quit pretending Bush is such a strong leader. He's not. He's just simple-minded.
Finally, you quoted the Cheney quote yourself. How do you read it, other than to say that the danger is if we make the wrong choice (in november, i.e. voting for Kerry), the danger is that we'll get hit again? I mean, that is what he's saying, isn't it? And I don't even read the daily Kos! Just what bizarre interpretation do you have for that quote? (Something you read in the Free Republic perhaps?)
I wasn't the guy who responded to you above but I'm curious; what's your problem with the Move On ads? The problem with the SBVFT ads are that they are airing blatant lies that have been clearly disproven in order to slander the candidate. I don't know of any Move On ad that represents such a concerted and fallacious smear campaign.
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.
May I suggest that you try that new-fangled research tool, the Internet? I know it seems kind of like a fad, but trust me; there's some good stuff on there.
LOL, sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. But this clears it right up, a condescending comment about how you can't be bothered to back up your own outrageous claims, that I should go use the internet to back them up myself, when in fact I included two links in my post that refute your assertions.
Everybody else on planet earth said, "CBS released forged documents." You said, "They can't be forged. The media is taking them seriously, especially CBS."
I was referring to Barnes' testimony, not the documents. But you knew that; you're just looking for crap to act condescending about.
Anyway, it's obvious that you want really badly to believe the documents are forged; I'm sure the legitimate media will clear that question up in the next couple days. They may or may not be forged; personally, I doubt it, and I really doubt that CBS would have forged them -- that, in fact, was your position that I was originally responding to here. In any case, I don't think it has much impact on this debate -- the fact is, Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, and the fact is that Bush got drunk when other people his age were serving their country. Like I said, I think Bush's unprovoked war in Iraq and the resulting disaster for the war on terrorism are much more relevant than his partying and rich-boy privileges from 3 decades ago.
when you put a group of bored, unsupervised men in front of live video screens and allow them to zoom in on whatever happens to catch their eyes, they tend to spend a fair amount of time leering at women. ''What catches the eye is groups of young men and attractive, young women,'' I was told by Clive Norris, the Hull criminologist. ''It's what we call a sense of the obvious.'' There are plenty of stories of video voyeurism: a control room in the Midlands, for example, took close-up shots of women with large breasts and taped them up on the walls. In Hull, this temptation is magnified by the fact that part of the operators' job is to keep an eye on prostitutes. As it got late, though, there weren't enough prostitutes to keep us entertained, so we kept ourselves awake by scanning the streets in search of the purely consensual activities of boyfriends and girlfriends making out in cars. ''She had her legs wrapped around his waist a minute ago,'' one of the operators said appreciatively as we watched two teenagers go at it.
It was profoundly stupid for Dan Rather to get into a shouting match with the sitting vice president of the United States on live television, too. But he did it, in 1988.
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.
But the possibility exists that these forgeries were manufactured by CBS News. And that possibility is way too scary to dismiss out of hand.
The possibility also exists that they were manufactured by raiders from Remulak, and with only slightly less probability. CBS has nothing to gain from such a forgery, and everything to lose. Their reputation as a reliable source of news -- "liberal bias" or no -- is quite strong, and for them to make up documents like this would be profoundly stupid, especially since the documents themselves do not really add a whole lot to the case already made in the Ben Barnes interview. If anything, the controversy over these documents has distracted attention from the interview itself, which seems to have settled the question about whether Bush pulled strings to avoid military service. All the documents add to this is evidence that there were others in the military who thought this was wrong and that Bush was skipping out on duty.
Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I think this is all a distraction from the real issue which is where will these candidates lead us in the future, not what mistakes might they have made thirty years ago.
What are you talking about? I watched 60 Minutes last night, and CBS did consult documents experts. Just because there are other experts who disagree does not mean CBS did not do their job. They may have been hoaxed here, but it is unclear by whom -- even the white house is not questioning the authenticity of these documents which suggests they are consistent with what the white house knows about Bush's (lack of) service at the time.
What's interesting to me is that these documents have already undergone more scrutiny than the Niger documents that came out almost 2 years ago.
Actually, CBS released the document and provided the white house with copies. The documents released by the white house are the same that they got from CBS. Not that that proves anything; I think the documents are real. CBS had documents experts check the handwriting and typing and concluded they were authentic. 60 minutes is not prone to wild speculation, especially with information as politically volatile as this.
I recall using an electric typewriter in the mid-70s that had proportional font and did the little "th" superscript thing, as well as "st" and other such stuff. But I'm no typewriter expert, I don't know what kind it is or whether it existed in the early 70s. But the question is why would someone forge this? The fact that the white house does not dispute it suggests that the documents are believable and consistent with what they know of Bush's service (or lack thereof) at the time.
Did George W. Bush really earn his Varsity Letter for cheerleading in college? Their website is now down, but a group called Cheerleaders for Truth has established that there is some doubt about the authenticity of this award. How can we vote for a president who might have lied about his cheerleading record??
This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
Such as what? Kerry has three purple hearts, as well as a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. He did two full tours of duty. I don't know anything about Bush 41's awards, if any, but Bob Dole has admitted that his injuries were self-inflicted. In any case, do you even know what a purple heart is? Have you met any vets decorated with the purple heart? This is not an award you compete for, or a recognition that you apply for; this is not a merit badge in the boy scouts. It is given to recognize the recipient was wounded in battle. Questioning the circumstances of someone's purple heart is ridiculous; the person never applied for it and never asked for it. The real problem the Swift Boat people and their ilk have with Kerry is not about his bravery under fire; it is about his bravery after he returned home, when he had the courage to publicly denounce the war itself. Some soldiers took that personally, which is too bad, but looking at things over 30 years later, we should be able to see pretty clearly that his beef was with the government that got us into the war, not with the soldiers who fought in it ("bravely" or not).
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience. OK, a year ago it was good to remind us you served honorably under fire. That counts for something in my book, but what has he done recently?!
Ummm, in case you didn't notice, Kerry was not hyping his Vietnam experience much at all until the Swift Boat Veterans came along and started attacking him on it! I personally agree that what happened 30 years ago is a poor basis on which to choose a president -- especially since his opponent has sent over 1,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq with no end in sight. That should be the real issue in 2004, and it is the Republicans who have diverted the issue to what happened during Vietnam. In which case, Bush's sorry record of dodging service -- while never showing the kind of courage Kerry showed both during and after his service in the war -- becomes a legitimate issue to discuss in the campaign. Sorry, Bush, but while you were bragging every day about how much you drank the night before, Kerry was actually taking fire in Vietnam, and later taking fire in front of the US Congress for opposing US involvement in that war. I much prefer a leader who has thought seriously about these issues from either side than one who was just getting wasted the whole time.
I don't particularly like how Kerry is running either -- I wish he would come out more clearly against Bush's policies in Iraq, on terrorism, on the economy, etc. He should be saying what everyone studying the issue honestly has seen -- that Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster in terms of the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, he's letting Bush get away with murder in terms of pretending the two wars are one and the same. I want to vote for Kerry, I really do, but I think you're right -- I will be on the list of people voting "against Bush" instead, and that is the Kerry campaign's fault. But I don't think you can pin the Vietnam distraction on him.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm; either genocide or surrender. That's the kind of nuanced thinking we really need in these difficult times.
LOL. I'm glad that with all the American forces and the world's media in Iraq scratching their heads because they can't find any evidence of WMD (and certainly no nuclear weapons), that someone named ElectricRook has found the missing WMD. You better alert the White House right away, they will be pleased to hear this.
By the way, how many did North Korea have when we invaded Iraq?
Actually, we do have his four miserable years as president as proof.
My main problem with HAVA is it institutionalizes the inaccurate voter purges that led to thousands of minorities being unfairly excluded from the voter rolls in Florida. HAVA makes such purges nationwide. Read this essay for a quick rundown; search the web for "HAVA" and "disenfranchisement" for much more.
I miss Jimmy Carter.
Of course, I miss his brother Billy even more....
You're nuts. Did you listen to his acceptance speech in New York? Half the shit he promised are liberal ideas that he promised before he was elected in 2000. Education, health care; promises he immediately reneged on in 2001 in his rush to give handouts to the rich. The only promises he will keep are the promises he made behind closed doors to his buddies in the oil business.
You're right, though, we do know where Bush stands. More tax cuts for the wealthy, more preemptive wars, more terrorism, fewer civil liberties...
In response to your comments, I'm sure you're aware that calling John Kerry a "slave to France" is equally as inane as calling Bush Hitler.
Sigh.... I don't know why the hell I expect intelligent political discussion on slashdot anyway....
This is stupid. File sharing means file sharing. If you want to talk about "illegal file sharing" or "sharing copyrighted files," fine, but file sharing is about sharing files.
LOL
Your genocidal rantings go well with your sig.
How do you propose to nuke terrorists living in London, New York, Hamburg? What do you propose we do about the non-terrorists living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East? What do you propose we do about global economic interdependence? Where shall we get our oil after your Final Solution?
By the way, in case you didn't notice, terrorists are not a "race." "Genocide" means destroying a race. What race do you wish to destroy? Muslims? (A religion, not a race, that spans many races, including whitey). Arabs? (What about all the terrorists in non-Arab Muslim nations like Indonesia or Iran?)
Finally, what the fuck are you talking about "historically proven to reduce terrorism." Which historical genocide has proven that? You've backed off of native America and Japan; perhaps you support the German genocide of Jews? Or the Armenian genocide?
(Why the hell am I arguing with you?)
That's right, look how nobody ever fucked with us after we killed off the American Indian. Err... I mean after we nuked Japan... Err, just forget it, ok?
You are trolling, right? you don't really believe in genocide? Never mind, I don't want to know.
I can see it now. Orrin Hatch yelling out "First Post!!" while Barbara Boxer moderates him "Troll." Ted Kennedy shouting "In Soviet Russia, the Senate confirms You!!" Arlen Specter pouring hot grits down his pants.... Yeah, this is gonna be great for democracy.
LOL. Poor baby. forced to cite his own sources but can't seem to think of any to cite so he just whines at me to go to google.
Here's a suggestion. Why don't you read reputable accounts instead of Salon-magazine hatchet jobs?
Hey moron - here's a suggestion, why don't you cite one if you want me to read it?? Salon is reputable as far as I am concerned, as is the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, CBS, CNN, NPR, and similar sources, all of which seem to agree the swift boat vets are lying. Look, I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am on this; I'll read an article if you suggest it, but you seem to prefer to whine about what I'm saying and call me names rather than actually suggest an article. I have read a number of articles on this and they seem to conclude that the SBVFT are lying.
You're talking about people who worked with other people.
I'm talking about people who worked for the Bush Administration and/or campaign. That is not just "people who worked with other people." Your crap about Move On and other 527s is irrelevant. As I said the Swift Boat stuff has Rove's handwriting all over it. You can't say the same of Move On. Even if you could though, it's irrelevant; Move On did not fabricate or outright lie like the swift boat ads did.
No, CBS did not. Nightline did, albeit briefly
I was watching CBS tonight in Los Angeles, and you're wrong; they did mention the charges that the documents were fake. They didn't say much about it one way or the other but they did mention it. I read tomorrow's Post article (assuming you mean the Washington Post and not the New York Post, LOL), and it raises all the questions that were raised here. If it turns out these documents are fake, and really bad fakes at that, I will be very curious to see who faked them. Your theory that "CBS" did it is of course ridiculous; it is possible that some random Jason Blair-like reporter at CBS did this, but it seems bizarre that CBS would not catch such an obvious forgery. It is possible that the Kerry campaign did it too but that too seems ridiculous when the forgery is so obvious (if what some people are saying about typewriters is true). I remember typing on a typewriter in the 70s that had a ball for the type and it did the little th thing, so I don't know. But I'm no document expert here. Anyway it will be interesting to see how it all turns out; but it doesn't matter to you since you've already made up your mind.
No he fucking does not, you ignorant fuckwit.
Calling me names doesn't change what the quote says. Even given your explanation, it amounts to the same thing -- blatant fearmongering. "Kerry can't protect us from the terrorists." It's crap, and you know it, which is why you resort to calling me names. What is really sad about all this is that Cheney has already proved that his administration can only encourage terrorism.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
If you quoted what I said completely, I said that there is no evidence that Kerry will treat it as a crime and not a war AS IF IT COULDN'T BE BOTH. Re read the quote you quoted from Kerry -- he will use our military when necessary. Better yet, read the quote in context of his position on the war on terrorism rather than just the one line you found quoted in the Washington Times. Are you saying that things like "intelligence gathering, law enforcement, [and] public diplomacy" are NOT essential in the war on terrorism? Sorry, man, but I agree totally with Kerry in that quote -- the very problem the current administration has is treating the war on terrorism as solely a military operation and ignoring the rest! Meanwhile we wind up letting terrorists go because we can't build a case against them because we haven't focused on that. And attacking countries that are not involved in al Qaeda thereby
Look, I feel trapped into defending Kerry here, I don't particularly like him, and I don't think any of this debate over who was better in the 60s is relevant, but having read quite a bit about the swift boat charges, I am quite convinced that they were lying. I havent seen snopes, or salon.com, or any other source that make this claim, convincingly refuted. If you have a source that is convincing I'd like to see it -- the consensus of sources that cover legitimate news seems to be that they are lying, so you have a burden of proof to overcome here, but I'm willing to read it with an open mind rather than being shouted out by someone called "Twirlip" (yeah my nick is silly too but I'm not claiming to be a respected journalist). But don't claim that the "connections" I mentioned above are not legitimate without addressing them specifically. They are not "6 degrees of separation."
As for the memos, maybe they are fake, maybe they're not. Both CBS and ABC Nightline covered the charges that they were phony tonight. It's interesting to me that they haven't either pulled out the original memos or invited more experts to check them out; I assume we will get a more satisfactory answer in the next couple days.
About the Cheney quote - I don't see what is different about what you said and what I assumed it meant. The second sentence just explains his reasoning. The point is the same -- he thinks (or claims to think) that a vote for Kerry will lead to more terrorist attacks (not "bad in the event of attack" like you say, but will lead to attack). It's blatant fear-mongering, and it's silly. There is no evidence Kerry will treat terrorism as a "crime" and not a "war" (as if it couldnt be both), and there's no evidence that will lead to more terrorism if the president does treat it that way. It's an assertion without evidence and it's being used to scare people.
Not one statement made by SBVFT has been shown to be false.
They all have been shown to be false. You have a doctor claiming to have treated Kerry's wounds whose name appears nowhere on the records. You have someone claiming the opposite of what he claimed after the war. And more. Snopes did a fine job summarizing the lies; you can find the evidence plenty of other places too. Also, that was quite subtle how you shifted from claiming there's no link between the swift boats and bush to claiming that the swift boat ads are true. Where do you stand exactly?
He said he denounces these ads and all other soft-money issue ads.
No; he did not specifically denounce the SBVFT ads for being false; he simply said that all such ads are bad for the process. In other words, he evaded the real issue.
There is absolutely no connection between SBVFT and the GOP, the White House or the Bush campaign
Hmm, repeating your assertions won't make them true -- I cited, with links to evidence, three separate connections apart from Ginsburg, which you never refuted or even addressed.
What "missing year?"
That would be 1972. Read the article instead of re-asserting falsities.
Find me one statement that anybody in the administration or the campaign has made to that effect.
Watch the Republican Convention again; I'm sure you videotaped the whole thing. That's practically all these people could talk about, what a strong leader Bush will be compared to that french-looking wimp Kerry. Or you can start with Cheney's assertion that without Bush at the helm after November, terrorists will attack us. All of this horseshit is what I'm talking about; quit pretending Bush is such a strong leader. He's not. He's just simple-minded.
Finally, you quoted the Cheney quote yourself. How do you read it, other than to say that the danger is if we make the wrong choice (in november, i.e. voting for Kerry), the danger is that we'll get hit again? I mean, that is what he's saying, isn't it? And I don't even read the daily Kos! Just what bizarre interpretation do you have for that quote? (Something you read in the Free Republic perhaps?)
"That's no moon!"
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.
LOL, sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. But this clears it right up, a condescending comment about how you can't be bothered to back up your own outrageous claims, that I should go use the internet to back them up myself, when in fact I included two links in my post that refute your assertions.
Everybody else on planet earth said, "CBS released forged documents." You said, "They can't be forged. The media is taking them seriously, especially CBS."
I was referring to Barnes' testimony, not the documents. But you knew that; you're just looking for crap to act condescending about.
Anyway, it's obvious that you want really badly to believe the documents are forged; I'm sure the legitimate media will clear that question up in the next couple days. They may or may not be forged; personally, I doubt it, and I really doubt that CBS would have forged them -- that, in fact, was your position that I was originally responding to here. In any case, I don't think it has much impact on this debate -- the fact is, Kerry served honorably in Vietnam, and the fact is that Bush got drunk when other people his age were serving their country. Like I said, I think Bush's unprovoked war in Iraq and the resulting disaster for the war on terrorism are much more relevant than his partying and rich-boy privileges from 3 decades ago.
Excellent point. If the goal is to deter crime, rather than, say, to spy on people.
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.
The possibility also exists that they were manufactured by raiders from Remulak, and with only slightly less probability. CBS has nothing to gain from such a forgery, and everything to lose. Their reputation as a reliable source of news -- "liberal bias" or no -- is quite strong, and for them to make up documents like this would be profoundly stupid, especially since the documents themselves do not really add a whole lot to the case already made in the Ben Barnes interview. If anything, the controversy over these documents has distracted attention from the interview itself, which seems to have settled the question about whether Bush pulled strings to avoid military service. All the documents add to this is evidence that there were others in the military who thought this was wrong and that Bush was skipping out on duty.
Anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I think this is all a distraction from the real issue which is where will these candidates lead us in the future, not what mistakes might they have made thirty years ago.
What's interesting to me is that these documents have already undergone more scrutiny than the Niger documents that came out almost 2 years ago.
I recall using an electric typewriter in the mid-70s that had proportional font and did the little "th" superscript thing, as well as "st" and other such stuff. But I'm no typewriter expert, I don't know what kind it is or whether it existed in the early 70s. But the question is why would someone forge this? The fact that the white house does not dispute it suggests that the documents are believable and consistent with what they know of Bush's service (or lack thereof) at the time.
Did George W. Bush really earn his Varsity Letter for cheerleading in college? Their website is now down, but a group called Cheerleaders for Truth has established that there is some doubt about the authenticity of this award. How can we vote for a president who might have lied about his cheerleading record??
Such as what? Kerry has three purple hearts, as well as a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. He did two full tours of duty. I don't know anything about Bush 41's awards, if any, but Bob Dole has admitted that his injuries were self-inflicted. In any case, do you even know what a purple heart is? Have you met any vets decorated with the purple heart? This is not an award you compete for, or a recognition that you apply for; this is not a merit badge in the boy scouts. It is given to recognize the recipient was wounded in battle. Questioning the circumstances of someone's purple heart is ridiculous; the person never applied for it and never asked for it. The real problem the Swift Boat people and their ilk have with Kerry is not about his bravery under fire; it is about his bravery after he returned home, when he had the courage to publicly denounce the war itself. Some soldiers took that personally, which is too bad, but looking at things over 30 years later, we should be able to see pretty clearly that his beef was with the government that got us into the war, not with the soldiers who fought in it ("bravely" or not).
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience. OK, a year ago it was good to remind us you served honorably under fire. That counts for something in my book, but what has he done recently?!
Ummm, in case you didn't notice, Kerry was not hyping his Vietnam experience much at all until the Swift Boat Veterans came along and started attacking him on it! I personally agree that what happened 30 years ago is a poor basis on which to choose a president -- especially since his opponent has sent over 1,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq with no end in sight. That should be the real issue in 2004, and it is the Republicans who have diverted the issue to what happened during Vietnam. In which case, Bush's sorry record of dodging service -- while never showing the kind of courage Kerry showed both during and after his service in the war -- becomes a legitimate issue to discuss in the campaign. Sorry, Bush, but while you were bragging every day about how much you drank the night before, Kerry was actually taking fire in Vietnam, and later taking fire in front of the US Congress for opposing US involvement in that war. I much prefer a leader who has thought seriously about these issues from either side than one who was just getting wasted the whole time.
I don't particularly like how Kerry is running either -- I wish he would come out more clearly against Bush's policies in Iraq, on terrorism, on the economy, etc. He should be saying what everyone studying the issue honestly has seen -- that Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster in terms of the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, he's letting Bush get away with murder in terms of pretending the two wars are one and the same. I want to vote for Kerry, I really do, but I think you're right -- I will be on the list of people voting "against Bush" instead, and that is the Kerry campaign's fault. But I don't think you can pin the Vietnam distraction on him.