PeterDavid.net

The problem being, of course, that creationists do cite Piltdown Man as an argument against evolution.

A deliberate choice for analogy here, since the same sort of rhetoric spikes the ideologically driven parts of the neo-Con movement, IMAO. And certainly, creationists find the right to be more hospitable than the left....

I dunno, I'm actually seeing comments on other forums from conservatives/Republicans saying that this is now officially a Democratic conspiracy.

Looks like we're going to be back on McCarthy again before long.

"....conservatives/Republicans saying that this is now officially a Democratic conspiracy "

Yes, as a registered Democrat I approved the whole thing. I must admit I never thought I'd be found out. Now if you'll excuse me I must go kill my subordinates for fucking this up. :)

One look at the last two presidential campaigns should invalidate any theories about Democratic conspiracies. Speaking as a registered Dem, I don't think we've shown the organizational ability necessary for a conspiracy.

"One look at the last two presidential campaigns should invalidate any theories about Democratic conspiracies. Speaking as a registered Dem, I don't think we've shown the organizational ability necessary for a conspiracy."

For a conspiracy? I don't think we've shown the organizational ability necessary for a clam bake.

PAD

I find Rather's justification rather revealing. In essence, he said the statements/allegations were true, so the memo's must be. Normally you must have the evidnece before you believe whether on not something is true.

Since it is overwhelmingly clear that the memos are not real but are fakes, it does serve as further evidence that CBS (and perhaps more of the media) has a bias against the right/republicans/conservatives. That is the most logical reason why they would run with memos against objections from some of their own experts. (The irony is not lost on me that this is the same logic some use against Bush and his belief that there were WMD's.)

Jim in Iowa

Clam bakes are hard to put together, PAD. :-)

The Dems are up against one of the best political machines in history. While I think Karl Rove is the devil incarnate, I have to give the guy props for knowing how to run campaigns. And, y'know, we keep bringing knives to gun fights.

Hopefully we'll get it together soon, but I'm not sure there's enough time left to mount a winning campaign.

Take a moment to read the full article at CBS. If the memos are fake, and I'm not convinced they are, there has still been collaboration of their content plus Knox says she did indeed type memos that stated the same thing for Killian.

This is a partial text transcript of the interview.:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

Knox is 86 years old, and completely comfortable in the eye of a storm. She spent more than two decades keeping pilots and officers in line at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Now, she wants to set the record straight about the memos that CBS News obtained.

Knox says she didn’t type these memos, but she says she did type ones that contained the same information.

“I know that I didn’t type them," says Knox. "However, the information in those is correct.”

Knox says the information in the four memos that CBS obtained is very familiar, but she doesn't believe the memos are authentic. She does, however, remember Killian being upset over Mr. Bush's failure to take a physical.

“Did or did not Lt. Bush take a physical as ordered by Col. Killian,” Rather asks Knox.
“The last time, no he didn’t,” says Knox. “It was a big no-no to not follow orders. And I can’t remember anyone refusing to. Now for instance, with the physical, every officer knew that before his birthday he was supposed to have that flying physical. Once in a while they might be late, but there would be a good excuse for it and let the commander know and try to set up a date for a make-up. If they did not take that physical, they were off flying status until they did.”

Did Knox ever hear Killian talk about this, or did he write memos about Bush not taking the physical?

“He was upset about it. That was one of the reasons why he wrote a memo directing him to go take the physical,” says Knox. “I’m going to say this, but it seems to me that Bush felt that he was above reproach.”

Knox remembers Lt. Bush well, and saw him often as he showed up for weekend training in 1971 and 1972.

“He was always very gentlemanly. He called me by the name of his father’s secretary. He was always apologizing about that,” recalls Knox. “He couldn’t remember my name. I felt that his parents must have been wonderful to have produced somebody as nice as that.”

But did Lt. Bush get into the National Guard on the basis of preferential treatment?

“I'm going to say that he did,” says Knox. “I feel that he did, because there were a lot other boys in there in the same way."

So what kind of officer was Lt. Bush?

“Bush seemed to be having a good time. He didn't seem to be having any problem with the other pilots,” says Knox. “But, his time there, it seemed that the other fellows were, I’m going to say this, sort of resentful of him because of his attitude … that he really didn’t have to go by the rules.”

Knox says that Killian started what she calls a "cover-your-back" file -- a personal file where he stored the memos about the problems with Mr. Bush's performance, his failure to take a physical, and the pressure Killian felt from upstairs.

She addressed one memo, and a reference to retired Gen. Staudt pushing for a positive officer training report on Lt. Bush.

"’Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it.’ Does that sound like Col. Killian? Is that the way it felt,” Rather asked Knox.

“That's absolutely the way he felt about that," says Knox.

She also talked about another memo which she doesn’t believe is authentic -- but she says the facts behind it are very real.

“It's just like a personal journal,” says Knox. “You write things. It was more or less that.”

“These memos were not memos that you typed, and you don’t think they came directly out of his files,” Rather asked Knox.

“The information, yes,” says Knox. “It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn’t get in trouble over it.”

Knox says the fact that then-Lt. Bush was repeatedly missing drills was not lost on his fellow pilots.

“They missed him. It was sort of gossip around there, and they'd [the other officers would] snicker and so forth about what he was getting away with,” says Knox. “I guess there was even a resentment."

She told 60 Minutes again and again that she believed Lt. Bush refused a direct order to take a physical.

“Col. Killian’s son says that this isn’t true,” says Rather.

"He has no way of knowing whether that is true or not," says Knox.

Knox says that working in a senate campaign in 1972 became more important to Mr. Bush than flying for the Guard.

"I think it is plain and simple. Bush didn't think that he had to go by the rules that others did,” says Knox.

"He had this campaign to take care of, and that's what he was going to do -- and that's what he did do.”

My cospiracy theory is that Karl Rove is the one behind the letters. It fits when you consider Rove reportedly bugged his own office and blamed it on the other party during a Texas governors race he ran just to generate sympathy for his own candidate.
I bet Rove sent the letters to CBS knowing full well that in this day of sloppy journalism and "I got the scoop first!" mentality that Rather and his buddies would rush it through to air even though there were questions about the letters veracity.
The man is just evil that way.

I do agree with Rathers one pint that despite all the outrage and defensive tactics no one (to my knowledge) from the GOP has ever come straight out and said that the content of the letter is false.
Ed Gillespie was on CNN this afternoon and when faced with the question did a masterful dodge to keep from giving a yes or no answer.

No. This is no Democratic conspiracy. On the otherhand if you see an article that indicates that Shrub is Bin Laden's boytoy....

Politicians and supporters who swallow whole anything the Swifties say are suddenly demanding hearings because of the CBS reports.

Whereas the Democrats who brought us moveon.org and 100x the number of anti-Bush ads were crying foul over the Swifties and the Kerry campaign was trying to get networks to pull the ads. Enough hypocrisy to go around on both sides of this.

I didn't comment on the story when it was released because, frankly, it didn't interest me all that much.

On that, at least, we can agree.

So what kind of officer was Lt. Bush?

“Bush seemed to be having a good time. He didn't seem to be having any problem with the other pilots,” says Knox. “But, his time there, it seemed that the other fellows were, I’m going to say this, sort of resentful of him because of his attitude … that he really didn’t have to go by the rules.”

compared to this:

Last week, Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others.

Maybe she remembered things, maybe not. We'll never know. But when a registered Democrat suddenly "remembers" things that will harm a Republican president she opposes, she's not going to be seen as credible.

"my conservative friends (and I use the term insincerely)"

Which is sad. From some of the other things you've written I don't doubt that you probably have a hard time accepting the idea that any of us on the right could have any affection for you...but it ain't so. What do we have to do? Donate a kidney? Take a bullet? Vote for Kerry? (And you can forget that. I've got 2 kidneys but, not living in Chicago, I only get one vote).

But hey, let's go to The Land Of Make Believe, where, on this square shaped planet, Britt Hume of Fox News reveals a bunch of memos "written" by the members of a fringe anti-war group planning to assassinate members of the Nixon administration, where, the memos "reveal", a young John Kerry was present.

They also present a member of the Bush campaign team who "remembers" that, oh yeah, he was there and that he and Kerry did nothing to discourage this talk.

Within the day, left wing bloggers like Josh Marshall, Eric Alterman, and, um, everyone with an nervous system above that of a planarian worm point out that the "papers" have characteristics far more consistent with Microsoft word than with the only known machine capable of producing said document in 1972 (a malevolent supercomputer known as Colossus). The references in the memos to George Lucas dicking around with the original Star Wars trilogy also raise suspicion.

Hume replies that while the memos may be fake, the information contained in them is accurate and only a partisan would suggest otherwise. He refuses to release the name of the forger. Democrats suspect it might be the republicans but republican commentators point out that this is not possible since they are far far too stupid to have come up with anything this clever.

Anyone think that Hume would still have a job?

And I have to love the "we're too stupid to pull this off" excuse.
1- if the Democrats are as stupid as their supporters claim, why should we vote for them?
2- One could argue that the forgeries were so poorly done that only a very stupid person would have made them, so stupidity is actually not a very good excuse.
3- how sad is it when your defense is NOT "we would not do such a thing, being as it is unethical and just plain wrong." but "we wouldn't do such a thing because we are so incompetent that we couldn't find our asses with both hands and a flashlight."?

Speaking as someone who sincerely believes that both sides of this (and most of the other campaign "issues") come off as gaping assholes, I do have to agree that I couldn't care less about this one. By now we can all agree that G.W. Bush didn't do much to serve his country (and ain't doing so hot now either), and that Kerry, who could have used his family's connections to get out of the war, didn't. While I admire that aspect of his personality, I'm really having a tough time seeing any other characteristics worth voting for at this point. Frankly, I do not want either of them in the white house; I don't see either being even remotely qualified - I'd have a bit more faith in Bush if he'd followed through in Afghanistan, and then, y'know, NOT invaded Iraq. As for Kerry, the man is a cipher. The most compelling argument for him is that he isn't Bush, and I just don't know if that's good enough.

Anyway, back to the topic itself. Are the memos fake? I don't know. Does it matter if they are? Probably not. Is Dan Rather so completely obsessed with making Bush (and all Republicans) look like evil little monkey-puppets that he can no longer be regarded as any kind of journalist? In my opnion, definitely.

"Since it is overwhelmingly clear that the memos are not real but are fakes, it does serve as further evidence that CBS (and perhaps more of the media) has a bias against the right/republicans/conservatives. That is the most logical reason why they would run with memos against objections from some of their own experts."

Oh, bullshit. Reporters get hosed all the time. Newspapers, TV have been hoaxed on monumental levels. It has jack-all to do with bias and everything to do with one simple fact: News gathering organizations, in their attempt to be the first to nail a juicy story, get sloppy. And then they wind up paying for it. Everyone from the liberal New York Times to the conservative New York Post screw the pooch every so often. It's not bias. It's just bad journalism, period.

PAD

For some bizarre reason, my conservative friends (and I use the term insincerely) on this board

Why do you use the term insincerely? We're here because we admire your writing and have some degree of interest in you as a person. What on earth have we done to merit disrespect, apart from disagreeing with you on public policy?

Look, I'm not saying ANYBODY'S stupid. What I'm saying is that the Kerry & Gore campaigns seem unfocused and reactionary (as opposed to my views on the current administration, which I feel is way too focused on the wrong things and reactionary). Karl Rove is a genius at campaigning, the kind of guy that knows just what buttons to push and can correctly assess any opponent. The Dems don't have anybody that good right now, and are reeling from the attacks. It's my opinion that being good at campaigning and being a good administration are two separate qualities. Will Kerry, if elected, manage a good administration? I think he will. Will Bush manage an administration as good as Rove manages a campaign? I have four years of experience there, and I have to say "no." That's just my opinion; you don't have to agree with it.

Dan Rather has been odd since day one. He's got this creepy thing going that even when he actually didn't look like a Star Wars muppet, I couldn't stand to look at him nor trust him. And since he got his ass handed to him by GHB in the '90s a couple of times he has a personal axe to grind. And he also did a documentary in the '80s about VN vets that was a complete lie and the truth never totally came out. But now, we have more sources and things get out. Face it, this guy built his rep on "getting to the truth" and helped destroy Nixon and tried to hurt every Rep admin since then. And now, guess what? He has become Nixon. Isn't that just the richest irony outside of fielding a Democratic "war hero" when before, it was an "illegal, criminal war" and those men that came back were "baby-burners". Except Kerry of course...

I have to ask too, like David B., man, I am conservative and love your books. And repeat, I met you, your family and well, hell, if you asked me to donate to a cause you believed in or needed help, I would be glad to do what I could (I'm not rich and have a family so my personal money's gone on Wednesday, after the comic arrive). And "The Rather's Last Stand At Li'l Big Forgery" has nothing to do with my love of your books. The only thing is does is finally pull the mask off some people that keep telling us they are unbiased reporters instead of political activists. Hell, man, if someone ran in and pulled Rather's face and there was a Skrull under there, I would not be surprisied one bit. So, this hurts 'cause I am not going to let politics take the sheer joy out of reading my Peter David books. So, damn your politics sir........but keep writing...

As a European, I don't care that much either way about the CBS story, but I do think Peter's original comment is correct. Regardless of the authenticity of the memo(s), Bush's service record doesn't stand up well against Kerry's.

But what I want to know is, why do you all seem to concentrate on a war that's decades in the past? Is it because both candidates are so pro-Iraq-War that there's no real difference between the two?

Perhaps some conservatives might go back and read PAD's actual comment before getting all paranoid:

"my conservative friends (and I use the term insincerely) on this board. . ."

Now, note exactly where PAD explains with the parenthetical comment. He's using the word "friends" insincerely--not "conservative". Very few of us who read and comment on PAD's blog are *really* his "friends". We're "acquaintances" at the very best (those of us who've actually been lucky enough to meet him in person and possibly converse with him--one of these days, PAD, I hope to get that chance--can rightfully claim that), "guests" at the very least, but very few of us can rightfully claim the honor of being his "friend". Think about it. Anyone, though, who thinks PAD's attacking their being conservative in the comment may be in need of a quick refresher course in English syntax.
(If I'm in error, I'm certain PAD will so advise us all.)

But what I want to know is, why do you all seem to concentrate on a war that's decades in the past? Is it because both candidates are so pro-Iraq-War that there's no real difference between the two?

It's the gotcha-game. GWB has been on record for years that he was a hell-raiser in his youth, so the Democrats go to his youth to find ammo (like the Democrat who waited until three days before the 2000 election to reveal that GWB had a drunk driving report). Kerry spent so much of the campaign promoting his Vietnam service (to try and show he can play tough on terror) rather than his political record, that the Republicans are trying to undermine that service.

GWB has said publically that Kerry's service was more heroic than his own. At the end of the day both were honorably discharged, so that's all that matters to me.

On the plus side for Bush, he's running on his political record - for better or worse. Kerry won't talk much about his political record in the Senate because it won't play well in middle America where he needs votes.

When I first heard about the CBS story, it reminded me of the O.J. case, where Mark Fuhrman was framing a guilty guy and he got off because of it.

"But what I want to know is, why do you all seem to concentrate on a war that's decades in the past? Is it because both candidates are so pro-Iraq-War that there's no real difference between the two?"

Perhaps this serves as a reminder which may point out that the guy who WAS under enemy fire just might be less cavalier about sending people off to die on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate data. That he just might think things through from a soldier's perspective, rather than a weekend warrior's. I think I know which one I'd rather have at the helm.

Yes, as a registered Democrat I approved the whole thing. I must admit I never thought I'd be found out. Now if you'll excuse me I must go kill my subordinates for fucking this up. :)

You damn Rosenbergs. Do we have to try you all for treason?

Posted by Jim in Iowa

I find Rather's justification rather revealing. In essence, he said the statements/allegations were true, so the memo's must be. Normally you must have the evidnece before you believe whether on not something is true.

The Left learns from the Right -- during Clinton's Starr Chamber persecution, at least some of "investigators" were saying, essentially, that the total lack of evidence of wrong-doing on his part was in itself proof of their claims, since, after all, they knew he did it, and, if he wasn't guilty, why cover it up so thoroughly?

PAD said:

But trying to pretend that Bush's dubious military service is somehow legitmized if the CBS story is indeed false is like saying that Piltdown Man being a hoax invalidates evolution.

This is one of the reasons that i have been suspecting that the memos were actually "black" propaganda from the RNC...

Other motives i suspected were (A) Discredit CBS. Rather and "60 Minutes" who, despite all efforts on the part of others and (sadly) themselves to discredit them, still have some cred with the public, and (B) to create suspicion that the DNC may have put out the fake memos as a sort of Nixonian dirty trick...

Face it, this guy built his rep on "getting to the truth" and helped destroy Nixon and tried to hurt every Rep admin since then.

Nixon got what he deserved, and Reagan probably would've gotten worse had things been able to "stick" to him - that guy seemed to be made of Teflon.

I mean, really, when you look at the Iran stuff, what was the truth of the matter? Was GHB involved? I would think these are legitimate questions.

Sometimes, people just have it coming.

I don’t watch CBS News, so I can’t comment about what they have done/are doing, but I have a question about these alleged memos.

Do we KNOW for certain that they’re forgeries? From what I’ve read, certain IBM Selectric typewriters around in 1972 were capable of producing the superscripted “th” and other features that have raised suspicions about the memos’ authenticity. Has this been confirmed? Has the paper and ink been tested to determine their age? I should think it wouldn’t be too hard to determine if a typewriter extant in 1972 could have written the memos, and if they are indeed 32 years old.

Of course whether the vast majority of the public will pay attention to the findings (whichever way they go) if they contradict their pre-conceived belief about the memos’ validity or falsehood remains to be seen.

But I doubt it. A mind is a difficult thing to change.

I’m reminded of the “Bloom County” sequence about Milo Bloom’s “discovery” of the “Lost Elvis Diaries” (a parody of the so-called “Hitler Diaries” later discovered to be forgeries). Milo had Opus forge them, and they initially pulled the wool over the eyes of a group of Elvis handwriting experts (including Dagwood Bumstead; who knew he had skills other than making sandwiches and crashing into the mailman?), who declared “it’s the real McCoy.”

However, Milo’s house of cards came crashing down when further investigation revealed the “Elvis Diaries” had been written on “official Dukes of Hazzard Stationary.”

“What?” Milo screams.

“Well, Kmart had a sale,” Opus said.

Shortly thereafter, the “lost diaries” of Margaret Mead appeared and experts claimed that this time they’re real.

They were, of course, more Milo forgeries.

Rick

Questions by Rick Keating:
"Do we KNOW for certain that they’re forgeries? From what I’ve read, certain IBM Selectric typewriters around in 1972 were capable of producing the superscripted “th” and other features that have raised suspicions about the memos’ authenticity. Has this been confirmed? Has the paper and ink been tested to determine their age? I should think it wouldn’t be too hard to determine if a typewriter extant in 1972 could have written the memos, and if they are indeed 32 years old."
From discoveries made, the only machines in '72 that were capable of making the sub and superscripts shown on the memo were only available in large printing houses. They were typesetting machines, not typewriters. The IBM Selectric with changeable type were few and far between (and wouldn't have been able to adjust the letter kerning seen on the memo).

CBS claims not to have the original, only the copy they have shown (which isn't only a copy, but a faxed copy).

When faxing, an image is converted into a bitmap picture, making it smaller for faster transmission and at the same time lowering the image quality.

And yes, I was having Bloom County flashbacks also...LOL

Posted by Mike Weber:

"But trying to pretend that Bush's dubious military service is somehow legitmized if the CBS story is indeed false is like saying that Piltdown Man being a hoax invalidates evolution."
Then you're missing the entire point of the uproar. CBS took info that they should have investigated FIRST, then ran with it. Instead, they ran with it, and are caught up in the investigation of the memo. Especially if, as you say, it was "black" propoganda from a Republican operative, CBS should have investigated the source first. This lack of investigation puts a serious hit to any credibility CBS has on their reporting.

Two things point to me that they are forged:

1) The fact that a named individual was, in fact, retired at the time of the "memo".

2) Yes, some expensive typewriters were capable of this, but when you match up the typeface of those typewriters, they do not match this memo. However, when you type the same document in Word, it matches up almost exactly bit-by-bit on the page - making it much more likely that this was a Word file.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument the memos (or is just one memo?) are authentic, that some typewriter manufacturer had a machine out in 1972 that could produce superscripts. If that’s the case, then you’d think whomever is in possession of the original document (presumably the same source that sent it to CBS News) would produce said document for authentification. If this hasn’t been and/or is not done, it should raise some red flags. It wouldn’t disprove their authenticity, but would raise doubts.

And yes, CBS should have investigated further. Is the memo legitimate? If not, who forged it and why? Unfortunately, as others have said, this rush to be the first to report something often leads to sloppiness.

In other news, I recently returned from a voyage into the near future in my new time machine (still have the dealer sticker on the window, and it still has that new time machine smell) and had a chat with my Nov. 3 self (he says, hi, by the way) who let me know the results of the election.

All I can say is, don’t blame me, I voted for Bill and Opus.

Rick

P.S. PAD, speaking of time travel, for whatever it’s worth, I liked the Rick Jones answering machine message, “I’m travelling through time right now, but if you leave a message I will already have gotten back to you” you put in an issue of “Hulk”; so I sometimes use that same message on my machine, complete with TARDIS dematerialization sound effect.

I think the weight of the evidence proves that the memos are forged. In fact, they are so obvious forgeries (like the Elvis diary on Dukes of Hazard stationary), that it begs the question:

Who could possibly want to make such an obvious forgery and expect it to hold up? Unless of course, that was what they intended to do in the first place.

Far fetched? Not for an administration that would issue a terror alert the day after the DNC based on four-year old intelligence.

The problem being, of course, that creationists do cite Piltdown Man as an argument against evolution.

Not the big name ones. Someone (the ICR maybe?) put out a list a while ago of arguments against evolution not to use because they were so easily rebuted, and Piltdown Man was on the list, along with Darwin's Deathbed Confession and some others that don't come to mind immediately.

That being said, nice analogy, PAD.

"The Left learns from the Right -- during Clinton's Starr Chamber persecution, at least some of "investigators" were saying, essentially, that the total lack of evidence of wrong-doing on his part was in itself proof of their claims, since, after all, they knew he did it, and, if he wasn't guilty, why cover it up so thoroughly?"

Actually, the right first learned this from the left. If memory serves me correct, it was Democrat speaker of the house who said that it was the lack of evidence that demanded an investigation. (As I recall, it was the conspiracy theory that the first Bush secretly flew in the Blackbird jet to Iran (or somewhere) to arrange for the hostages to be released, or something like that.)

PAD wrote: "Oh, bullshit. Reporters get hosed all the time. Newspapers, TV have been hoaxed on monumental levels. It has jack-all to do with bias and everything to do with one simple fact: News gathering organizations, in their attempt to be the first to nail a juicy story, get sloppy. And then they wind up paying for it. Everyone from the liberal New York Times to the conservative New York Post screw the pooch every so often. It's not bias. It's just bad journalism, period."

As one of your right wing conservative friends
;-) I suggest you are wrong. My point is not that this disproves the idea that Bush was AWOL, but that Rather was so convinced of this point that he did not care to look at the facts. In fact, the joy of finally having actual proof (since so far it has only been a possible deduction based on the evidence), blinded him to the potential problems. I do not have to guess about this. This is not a supposition. Rather himself said that the real issue is the questions about Bush's service, not the memos. But since there has not been any proof (admittedly one way or the other), he had to have the memos to make this a new story. You may not want to admit his bias, but it is clear.

But take a step back for a moment. You want more proof of the bias? Look at the complete lack of coverage about Kerry's lies about his record. What lies you ask? Simply the lie that he has released all of them. A statement by the Navy is conclusive proof that he has not signed the release form necessary. We only have the papers he has chosen to give out. That is his right. But the double standard is clear. Bush has authorized anything the government has to be released, but he is accused of hiding something. Kerry refuses to release his records, but we are suppposed to trust he has released everything because he says he has. Hmmm. Can't figure out why I think the press is biased.

Jim in Iowa

Clarification: "A statement by the Navy is conclusive proof that he has not signed the release form necessary." I meant to say "As statement by the Navy on Wednesday . . ."

One more thing: A friend suggested that Bush only authorized the release of his records after sanitizing them. If you believe Bush is a liar, than I guess you would believe that as well. But think about it for a minute. The risk still would be enormous. He would at best be taking a gamble. These are not "Enron" files. Your are talking about beauracratic (sp??) red tape from 30 years ago. He would have to be very sure he found everything. And sure that no one would say anything. As conspiracy theories go, I am sure it is possible. But it would make more sense for Bush to have just done what Kerry is doing and refused to have released his records.

Jim in Iowa

Bush has actually little to fear with the release of "all" of his records, since a lot of them were conveniently "lost" years ago.

But let's look at what the memos actually say:

1) Bush was suspended from flying for failing to get the required physical. This is in his official records. What was missing was the reason why skipped the physical. The memos only say that he refused an order to take one. Until he answers the question why he missed it, there will continue to be innuendo about his reason.

2) Bush received preferential treatment in the guard. This shouldn't be shocking at all. Anyone who thinks that the sons of the wealthy and politically connected did not get preferential treatment in the guard during that time period is living in a fantasy world.

As for Kerry, he made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign and has to deal with the criticisms stemming from it. However, from what I've read and seen about the Swift Vets and others, they're more motivated by what he did after he came back from Vietnam than what he did while he was there.

Personally, with our soldiers continuing to get killed over in Iraq a year and a half after Bush declared "major combat operations" were over (and yes, the clear intent of that photo op with the carrier landing, flight suit and banner was to create the image of a military victory celebration) is more important than either of them were doing in there early 20s.

Can we please focus this election on the war we're currently fighting and not the one we fought 35 years ago?

Rick says:

"In other news, I recently returned from a voyage into the near future in my new time machine (still have the dealer sticker on the window, and it still has that new time machine smell)"

LOL....you know, you can get that in a spray can now.

One more thing: A friend suggested that Bush only authorized the release of his records after sanitizing them. If you believe Bush is a liar, than I guess you would believe that as well. But think about it for a minute. The risk still would be enormous. He would at best be taking a gamble. These are not "Enron" files. Your are talking about beauracratic (sp??) red tape from 30 years ago. He would have to be very sure he found everything. And sure that no one would say anything. As conspiracy theories go, I am sure it is possible. But it would make more sense for Bush to have just done what Kerry is doing and refused to have released his records.

Why not? You don't need to silence everyone.

First of all, as you noted, releasing the records or at least appearing to do so, automatically gives him the upper hand.

If anyone comes forward to contradict the sanitized versions, all he has to do is have Rove scream bias and launch personal attacks against him. Worked like charm against his former terrorism czar and the first director of his faith based initiative program.

Den W.

Regarding Bush’s records that were “conveniently” lost years ago, I have no doubt that he (and any politician) would avail himself of the chance to, um.. “misplace” records that might prove embarrassing. Such things would be in a politician’s nature. But if you’re referring to the records of several people, (including Bush) reported to have been lost and/or destroyed back in 1996, I would doubt there’s anything sinister about it (assuming this actually happened in 1996, and not, say, 2002 with a retroactive date put on it).

Now, for the record, I don’t trust the Bush administration, and I don’t trust the people behind the unfortunate direction the Republican party has been taking over the last few decades. But if the records said to have been destroyed in 1996 were in fact destroyed back then, I can’t see any ulterior motive behind it. I mean, who the hell was George W. Bush in 1996? Bob Dole was the Republican candidate for president that year, and I can’t imagine the party wanted him to lose, thus giving Clinton a second term, just so they could groom George W. for 2000.

On the other hand, if these records had been destroyed or lost in 1999, then I would’ve been suspicious of the timing.

Rick

Posted by Jeff

Posted by Mike Weber:

"But trying to pretend that Bush's dubious military service is somehow legitmized if the CBS story is indeed false is like saying that Piltdown Man being a hoax invalidates evolution."

Umm, actuall;y, i didn't say that. I quoted it.

PAD said it, actually, in his original post.

"what I want to know is, why do you all seem to concentrate on a war that's decades in the past?"

I try not to. It's not relevent to any contemporary issues. It might be relevent in some senses but not in... the policy sense that we should examine.

"Is it because both candidates are so pro-Iraq-War that there's no real difference between the two?"

Not do much that as one candidate has a stance that some of the country approves of or willingly overlooks, some of the country actively hates, and basically hopes the rest chooses a view that keeps him in office. The other candidate has not been consistent enough to draw people in aside from those who hate the first guy or think the first guy screwed up; a legitimate reason to choose a candidate.

Personally I think there are TWO sides to this issue and ONLY TWO sides. The first side is CBS and Dan Rather. The second side is the truth; that's represented by Washington Post, the NBC, NPR, and various internet bloggers and whatever media can draw sales and attention from focusing on this.

Formatting and style evidence suggests that the memos are forgeries. Furthermore there's not much stuff corroborating the memos beyond the opinions of people who aren't that reliable to start with.

I don't think any Republicans should get involved because it doesn't technically involve them/us/whomever. I think Democrats getting involved was a mistake because the memos weren't corroborated and if cannot be proven true then the Dems look foolish.

I think all notions of the memos being forgeries "but "the sentiments being accurate'" is just a diversion from the real story. The real story is that CBS picked up phony memos, passed them off as real and still insist that they'r real. The story is whether CBS screwed up... anything else is a diversion. Why? Because the memos are NEW and the sentiments, true or false, is OLD.

I think that the bias is freaking obvious.... I guess not. If CBS News was this obsessed with the 527 group ripping on Kerry as they were with these memos I'd say that there was no bias; but... they obssess with anti-Bush documents, real or not, far more than they did the sentiments and recollections of a few dozen of Kerry's fellows, contemporaries, and ranking officers.

"Do we KNOW for certain that they’re forgeries? From what I’ve read, certain IBM Selectric typewriters around in 1972 were capable of producing the superscripted “th” and other features that have raised suspicions about the memos’ authenticity. Has this been confirmed? Has the paper and ink been tested to determine their age? I should think it wouldn’t be too hard to determine if a typewriter extant in 1972 could have written the memos, and if they are indeed 32 years old."

We can't test the age of the ink because no public entity has the "originals". CBS News possesses Xeroxed copies. The sorts of typewriter in 1972 that could produce memos with super-script, are, I am told, more expensive and more complicated than the military would actually purchase or use. That and the 1972 superscript example that NBC News showed... didn't look anything at all like the stuff from the new "memos".

JosephW wrote: Now, note exactly where PAD explains with the parenthetical comment. He's using the word "friends" insincerely--not "conservative". Very few of us who read and comment on PAD's blog are *really* his "friends". We're "acquaintances" at the very best (those of us who've actually been lucky enough to meet him in person and possibly converse with him--one of these days, PAD, I hope to get that chance--can rightfully claim that), "guests" at the very least, but very few of us can rightfully claim the honor of being his "friend". Think about it. Anyone, though, who thinks PAD's attacking their being conservative in the comment may be in need of a quick refresher course in English syntax.
(If I'm in error, I'm certain PAD will so advise us all.)

PAD doesn't need to. No rational person can believe that's what PAD meant, having read the statement in context. If he merely were calling attention to the exaggeration implied in the use of the word "friend" to refer to his conservative fans, he would have employed a term such as "broadly," not "insincerely." He was clearly reminding us that conservatives are the opposite of his friends. I feel particularly confident saying that, since the "no rational person" epithet is one PAD employed in the previous thread to refer to all Bush supporters, clowns and fools that we are. So I ask again: Why the abuse?

Sorry, Mr Bjorlin, but you cannot rationally suggest that PAD would be using any term other than "friends" insincerely. Only a handful of us can truly number ourselves among PAD's friends--the majority of us he knows only in passing, often just from the comments we leave here. I wouldn't presume to call myself one of PAD's friends, and I wouldn't expect him to think of me as one. If you do make such a presumption, then either you are an actual friend or you are far more daring than I. A real friend is someone you can call on the phone to make a lunch date or take in a movie with or even discuss politics with. (Pardon the ending-with-a-preposition, but quite frankly that rule has nothing to do with English grammar and syntax; it's a contrivance.) A real friend is not just someone whose weblog you visit.
Do any of us know PAD's real circle of friends? I doubt we do. (There may be a few exceptions, of course.) For the vast majority of us, though, we don't know how many *real* "conservative friends" PAD has, only the conservative "friends" he has on this weblog. I'm genuinely surprised that this needs any explanation at all.
PAD may (or may not) have "conservative friends" in the real world (or should I explain how the internet isn't the "real world"?). On this weblog, he may have some "conservative friends", but, by and large, the majority of people who identify themselves as conservatives cannot realistically hope to identify themselves as his friends.
Again, if this is erroneous, then PAD will correct me. Otherwise, I would suggest you conservatives who are so offended by statement, don't be such "girly-men".

To Mike Weber:
Actually I attributed the posting to you, not the quote to you. So there! ; )

I'm JOKING!!!!
It was a long night of reading the thread, and I made an error. No offense was intended to either you or PAD.

I'm of two minds on this one.

1. The conservatives do not have the right to complain about false information since they have been putting out worse stuff then this since Ronald Regan began the whole invade small countries with a pretense of war thingie. They hopped all over Bill Clinton from everything from real estate scandles and dubious ugly women claiming sexual harrassment way after the fact, and sunk to a new low when they made a woman who kept a dress with dried semen on is for months their poster child. So someone did to them what they have perfected for the last 24 years. Gee, I feel so bad.

2. Let's talk honestly here. There's only one reason for the Demoncrats to be acting so weak and shabby lately - they are purposely throwing the election. Okay, its perfectly conspiracy theory, I'll grant that. But it's about the only thing that makes sense.

When the Congressioinal Black Caucus hand gifted a way for the other VP to block Bushes move to the White House, they turned it down on camera.

And now Kerry is hand gifted a question that would have totally separated him from Bush, and where he could have made a legitimate case for himself as opposed to Bush, he pussied out. "If you knew now what you know today would you have still given the President the approval." And he said "yes." So his message is "I'm just like Bush only different." Which NEVER works.

In contrast Bill Clinton came out and made it clear he was different (except when it came to Black people, but for us that called "same old, same old") and the country recognized Bush I's mistakes and punished him for it. If Kerry keeps playing "I'm like Bush only different" bandwagon most people will simply say "So we'll stick with Bush." Especially when Bushes mistakes are far more glaring then his father's, and easy to pick at if you had the balls.

But the democratic part is not showing the balls. These are not stupid people, they are as rich as the Republicans, and have been at the political thing for generations. Suddenly they become retards always having frightenned reactions to the GOP rather then taking decisive action? I'm to believe that this party has suddenly out of now where become that lame? With generational Billionares running thing? Yeah right.

Get ready for 4 more years of GWP, brought to you by the Demoncrats the the Republicans they pretend to not like.

If Kerry loses--and that's still an IF, no matter who quickly he is being written off by his supporters--one good reason is this peculiar mindset that seems to afflict Democrats more than republicans. Umar displays it nicely. As soon as the going gets tough they turn on their guy. We have all this time and 2 or 3 debates to go but to hear the democrats it's over. They are performing the post mortem and the body is still moving.

If the polls showing Bush ahead by double digits are to be believed (I don't) a lot has to be due to the undecided voters seeing the despair of the Kerry folks and wanting to be on the winning team. Meanwhile, some former Kerry supporters now say they are undecided because who wants to identify themselves as a loser? He had his base locked up, united in their hatred of Bush. But hatred is exhausting, I guess. Hard to sustain. And I think it has a major problem--if you really really hate a guy you want very much to beat him...but you absolutely cannot abide the idea that he might beat you. Democrats are so scared of the idea that Bush, this pea brained monkey man with the vocabulary of an African Grey Parrot, will actually beat them that they seem willing to throw the election early. Just so they can say "He didn't win. Kerry lost."

It's madness. Umar's theory may be nuttier than most...but not by much.

Oh, for crying out loud...

The idea that Karl Rove is behind the memos (which the tin-foil-hat brigade on Democratic Underground seem to believe from the bottom of their blackened hearts) is just as crazy as saying that Hillary Clinton is behind it to make sure the way is clear in 2008...

Wait a minute...

Bill Mulligan wrote:

"If the polls showing Bush ahead by double digits are to be believed (I don't) a lot has to be due to the undecided voters seeing the despair of the Kerry folks and wanting to be on the winning team. Meanwhile, some former Kerry supporters now say they are undecided because who wants to identify themselves as a loser?"

Speaking as an independant, I hate people like these.

First, as to Rather's story. No reporter is going to use a single source for confirmation. Rather backed up the information in the memos by collaborating it with other sources. Both a superior of Killian and his sectretary have confirmed those were the comments of Killian. Sadly, Rather believed that was the story instead of the paper. If the memos are forged, and again I don't believe that to be the case, there has already been confirmation of that information by other means.

This next is for jim in iowa and Rick K ,the first believes all the records have been released by Bush and the second who can see no ulterior motive:

If Bush has been so forthcoming and released all his records, if there was no deliberate tampering then why on September 15th did Scott McClellan say this?:

[B]White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." [/B]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15_2.html

Bush is releasing his information as it is expedient, not as thoroughly as Jim would like us to believe.

Bill Mulligan wrote:

"If the polls showing Bush ahead by double digits are to be believed (I don't) a lot has to be due to the undecided voters seeing the despair of the Kerry folks and wanting to be on the winning team."

Totally wild analogy:

Can you imagine in the height of Nazi Germany's reign they stopped murdering Jewish people and Gypsies and said "We're going to have a democratic Nazi Germany. So election time comes and Hitler is running after having just murdered millions saying "I did the right thing." Himler is running against him saying "I'm just like Hitler only people like me better." Jewish People and Gypsies would have EXACTLY the same reaction the "undecided" voters are having. "Screw this, either one is going to send us to the Gas chamber."

I'm tired of people putting the blame on this crap on "undecided" voters. For any race, creed or color in this country who fought for one freedom or another, the blood spilled for that freedom does not translate to excercising that freedom no matter what. Everyone has this "YOU MUST VOTE OR YOU ARE BETRAYING/DISRESPECTING THE PEOPLE WHO DIED TO BRING YOU THAT RIGHT TO VOTE." Up that crap. People did not die so that we could ONLY have a choice of one screw job or the other. Who wants to keep voting for people that are going to do them in.

Undecided people do not want Bush or Bush lite. They don't want Bush and Nicer Bush. (Though what ever Bushes mistakes are, I don't see him as not a nice guy. He's a bad president, but he does it with that goofy smile that makes you want to let him tag along to the fishing pond.) I thought the idea was that we have a clear cut chioce between opposing sides. Democrats are acting particulary "opposing" these days.

In fact they are acting weak. Pretending that Nadar's little 8% actually means something. It was ONLY 8%. I believe this year it's about 3%. And they're actually saying they need the 3% and its all Ralph's fault they don't get it. When the hell did 3% every mean anything in an election. Candidates who get 8% or 3% are usually mentioned only in passing.

Democrats? HELLO! They are hand giving you the way to win the election. The Republicans, I mean. They are laying it out there and gift wrapping it for you as if they KNOW you want do nothing with it. Gee, Democrats, why does it look like the Republicans are right about this one?

Maybe because they are.

JosephW writes: Sorry, Mr Bjorlin, but you cannot rationally suggest that PAD would be using any term other than "friends" insincerely.

I think it's funny that I'm being lectured in grammar by someone who wrote a sentence that incoherent. JosephW, your grasp of grammar and syntax seems to be matched only by your understanding of the connotations of the word "insincere." Either that or you believe PAD has never before or since made an insincere statement. (Yes Joseph, I think I know what you meant, but go back and look at what you wrote.) The debate is not what word was insincere, but what causes that insincerity. The sarcastic use of the word "friends" evinces hostility toward conservatives. Under your theory, PAD seems to have some form of aphasia, such that he not only could not think of a more precise word than "friend" when he meant "acquaintance," "fan" or "reader," but that he used the word "insincere" to mean "imprecise." When a skilled writer uses a word in an unusual context, he does it for a reason, and when he specifically draws attention to it, he emphatically does it for a reason. I have nothing but respect for PAD as a writer, and I think he communicated his opinion quite clearly. I just don't understand the opinion, and I'm requesting clarification.

"First, as to Rather's story. No reporter is going to use a single source for confirmation. Rather backed up the information in the memos by collaborating it with other sources. Both a superior of Killian and his sectretary have confirmed those were the comments of Killian."

Rather did NOT interview the secretary until the memos blew up in his face--AFTER the story ran. The superior of Killian says that they read the memos to him and implied that they were written in his handwriting and that he replied something to the effect that "If that's what he wrote it must be how he felt."

CBS denies this and claims that he said that Killian DID feel the way the memos said. He said/she said time, though CBS is in a weak position to be casting doubt on others.

Sooooooo....they worked on this story for 5 years, we are told and NEVER interviewed the secretary. They gave their "experts" only 2 days to examine selected copies of some of the memos. At least one of them says she raised doubts.

Whether they screwed up over gross imcompetance or partisan bias, you have to wonder how these people ever got this far.

Catori wrote:

"This next is for jim in iowa and Rick K ,the first believes all the records have been released by Bush and the second who can see no ulterior motive:

If Bush has been so forthcoming and released all his records, if there was no deliberate tampering then why on September 15th did Scott McClellan say this?:

[B]White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." [/B]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15_2.html

Bush is releasing his information as it is expedient, not as thoroughly as Jim would like us to believe."

You appear to have misunderstood my post. I can see no ulterior motive to the destruction or loss of several records, including Bush's in 1996, when Bush was not yet a candidate for president. I CAN see ulterior motives behind the loss, destruction or refusal to release his records more recently than that.

Rick

My apologies, Rick. I did misunderstand.

Bill, again the comments were verified as being expressed by verbal conversations with Killian. I don't have time to dig through old history to find the story link now. If time permits later I will post. Later the superior in question adjusted his comments but it was verified. Even had it NOT been, it has been time and again NOW yet the facts behind the memos are ignored.

Now, to the theory that this might have been done by the GNC as a means to make Kerry and his supporters look bad? I suggest you view this recent story.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20040918/ts_latimes/gopactivistmadeallegationsoncbsmemos

An excerpt. The entire article is at the page above.
By Peter Wallsten Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — It was the first public allegation that CBS News had used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush (news - web sites)'s Air National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted on the Web within hours of airtime, citing proportional spacing and font styles.

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history, as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who had helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton (news - web sites) after the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

The identity of "Buckhead" — a blogger previously known only by his screen name on the site freerepublic.com and since lifted to folk hero status in the conservative blogosphere — is likely to fuel speculation among Democrats that the effort to discredit the memos was engineered by Republicans eager to undermine reports that Bush received preferential treatment in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago.

Republican officials have denied any involvement among those attempting to debunk the CBS report.

Reached by telephone Friday, MacDougald, 46, confirmed that he was Buckhead but declined to answer questions about his political background or how he learned so much about the CBS documents so quickly.

Catori said:
"Now, to the theory that this might have been done by the GNC as a means to make Kerry and his supporters look bad? I suggest you view this recent story."

I'm sorry, and I know it was just a typo, and I know it's unbelievably nit-picky (not to mention occasionally rude) to point it out, but I must have stared at that for thirty seconds wondering, "Now what the hell does a vitamin store have to do with this?"

Ok, just so I understand:

#1- Democrats belive that the memos are genuine, have been verified by experts and have been affirmed by witnesses who agree that they accurately reflect what the writer believed....

#2- but they might just possibly be FAKES, created by the RNC. Then the RNC exposed them as fakes, which was easy to do because the are OBVIOUSLY fakes, which sort of contradicts the premise of #1, but what the hey.

(there are also those who think #3--some Democrat faked the memos, CBS ran with them, they got caught...but gee, THAT'S far fetched...)

When you hear hoofbeats, expect horses, not zebras.

More stupidity out of Bush's mouth:

President Bush questioned the authenticity of documents aired by CBS News that said he received special treatment during his Vietnam-era service in the National Guard, according to a Bush interview published on Saturday. "There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered," Bush told the Union Leader newspaper of Manchester, New Hampshire, after a week in which some experts questioned whether the documents had been fabricated by those seeking to damage Bush in his re-election race.

This coming from a man who's own record can't be verified nor questions answered. Pathetic.

Catori, regarding the article you linked to:

Well, the problem here is that all Buckhead did was point out, a half hour after the memos were shown on tv, that they used proportional space fonts. The article you posted claims that Buckhead's response was "a highly technical explanation."

I know that the article quoted most of this, but here's what he posted, verbatim, and in response to suggestions that the memos were forgeries:

"To: Howlin
Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively."
(SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/posts)

There's NOTHING technical there, really. If you were going into this hoping that these were forgeries, the spacing would be the first thing you notice, I would imagine. And, while I didn't know what it was called, I knew exactly what he meant...I had a dot-matrix printer back in the day and I know the difference between those and inkjets. But maybe that's just something he knows. I can look identify scores of comic artists just by looking at a page in a comic, but that doesn't make me an EXPERT...just someone who knows some useless stuff.

I like this other line from the yahoo article:
"While bloggers and some conservative activists have hailed Buckhead as a hero in their longtime effort to paint the mainstream media as politically biased, some Democrats and even some conservative bloggers have marveled at Buckhead's detailed knowledge of the memos and wondered whether that suggested White House involvement."

Trust me on this one, nobody's "marveled" at his "detailed knowledge." After he posted that one thing, others started chiming in on superscript, kerning, and the REAL technical stuff. In fact, Buckhead later says that he might be wrong about the proportional spaces (the only thing he KNEW about) beause he didn't know about the IBM Selectric. Marvel at his detailed knowledge. What you WILL see if you read the original thread is that people were just thrilled that he was the first to notice it. NOT that he was a type and font expert, which is what the author of this article is desperately making him out to be, because that would be more suspicious.

Note his reply when people congratulated him for being the first to notice it: "As for my part, this tsunami would, without any doubt whatsoever, have happened w/o me, so it ain't no big thang."

The article from Yahoo you reference was VERY frustrating. It tried to create a story where there wasn't one, which would be evident if the original thread had been read.

But hey, every Olympics bombing needs a Richard Jewell to pin it on, and besides, he's probably a bad father too.

Craig said:
"This coming from a man who's own record can't be verified nor questions answered. Pathetic."

Yeah! Why the hell is Kerry refusing to release his records and hasn't answered questions from the press for 47 days! Double pathetic!

Oh, wait...

I guess it must be a hard blow to those of you questioning Kerry's service that the Navy came out and said his medals were awarded properly. No one in the Navy has yet come out in response to questions about Bush's service. Now can we get past this and and concentrate on the real issues that affect us today? What is the conservative response to Bush's rosy outlook on the war when he had intelligence to the contrary back in July? I guess he isn't misleading us again. I'm sure you all will come up with a "reasonable" explanation as to why he is "mistaken". Again.

Actually Karen, if you think about it, there's a good reason the Navy hasn't commented on Bush's service in the Air National Guard. : )

Catori wrote:

"This next is for jim in iowa and Rick K ,the first believes all the records have been released by Bush and the second who can see no ulterior motive:

If Bush has been so forthcoming and released all his records, if there was no deliberate tampering then why on September 15th did Scott McClellan say this?:

[B]White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." [/B]"

To Catori: You miss the point. Release of these records is now out of Bush and White House control. Bush signed away that right. Keep in mind a few facts. These records are roughly 30 years old. This is back in the days before widespread use of computer records, etc. This is the red tape bound US military we are talking about! It is not as simple as going an pulling one file out of a drawer or one box off of a shelf.

The White House (and other reporters) are aware that the military is looking everywhere it can for anything they missed the first time. This is not unusual. And that is why I made my point about Kerry's records. Bush signed away his ability to stop these from being disclosed (unless, of course, you believe he is using influence behind the scenes). Kerry, on the other hand, has not given permission for his official records to be released. That is his choice and right, but it is apalling that the press portrays Kerry as having released everything (which he has not), and treat Bush as hiding something when he no longer has the ability to do so.

Jim in Iowa

What is the conservative response to Bush's rosy outlook on the war when he had intelligence to the contrary back in July? I guess he isn't misleading us again. I'm sure you all will come up with a "reasonable" explanation as to why he is "mistaken". Again.

Why don't you try telling us exactly what YOUR candidate is going to do differently? Tell me why I should vote FOR Kerry, not why I should vote AGAINST Bush. And in your response, I don't want to hear any mention of the OTHER candidate.

Rick,

Bush may not have been a candidate for president in 1996, but he was governor of Texas and his guard service could have been made an issue then.

EClark,
Go to johnkerry.com. On the left side of the home page is a list of each section of his plan. Read exactly what he wants to do in office. And I suspect, if Kerry gets intelligence that does not meet his expectations as to the situation, he will re-evaluate his expectations. The nuances that are being complained about are something that can make a strong leader. He can read the reports and evaluate the situation based on the latest info. I would dearly like to see that in the leader of America. See, no mention of anyone but Kerry.

If anyone does go to JK's website to read about his plan and checks out his blog... well, read the main blog entries, but skip the comments. It's mostly partisan cheerleading. I read a few when I'm feeling down about polls, but there is no info or discourse about the issues.

Karen,

I always knew I could go to JohnKerry.com. just as you keep asking us to explain Bush when you could just as easily go to his website and read what he has to say. I wanted to hear what YOU think about what Kerry wants to do. do you agree with EVERYTHING he has to say? If not where do you differ? Why do you differ with him on that point and what is your opinion on the matter or what should be done?

So far all I'm hearing you say is John Kerry will wait and see what happens and then make up his mind about what to do at that time. Wow, what a LEADER!

PAD,
will the recent hurricanes in florida
and the upcoming disaster relief that bush will provide tip florida in his favor or is florida still in play?

EClark,
I don't agree with everything he says, especially in regards to the war. I think we need to get out sooner rather than later and concentrate more on Afghanistan. Are you looking for complete details on everything he plans to do? Is Bush doing that? Yes, Kerry does need to see what is happening before deciding what needs doing. Unlike Bush, who decided what needed doing in Iraq and made everything fit into his scenario. Kerry will get all the info he can and make an informed decision. He will not make an uninformed decision and ask for info that backs up his decision.

Do you want a list of why I believe you should vote for Kerry? Here you go:
1 He will not assault our environment in the intersts of big corporations.
2 He will make scientific decisions based on science, not his version of the bible.
3 If he pushes a bill for education, he will see that it gets fully funded.
4 He will not hold closed door meetings with energy corp. head honchos to decide our energy policy.
5 He will use diplomacy instead of arrogance with our allies and enemies alike and use force as a LAST resort.
6 He will work to bring healthcare to all Americans.
7 He will not gut social security for privatization.
8 He will roll back tax cuts for the wealthy to help pay for his programs.
9 He may appoint some supreme court judges and I trust him much more than I would any appointees by Bush.
10 He would probably hold a few press conferences to let us know what is going on in our government.
11 He would stop this ridiculous marriage amendment talk.
12 He will give tax incentives to companies who keep jobs here and for those who are working on alternate sources of energy.
13 He will work on getting the deficit under control.

I disagree fundamentally with most, if not all, of Bush's policies. Most of his appointments within his adminsitration come from people who worked in corporations that gave him big donations. Now, I'm not going to say that I will agree with all that Kerry will do once he's in office. I reserve the right to complain, just like any other American. The reason I am voting for Kerry, more than any other, is that I think he really cares about what happens to ordinary people, like me, and will work in our best interests. I really think he wants to make this country and all the people in it stronger and more secure. I hope I've made a strong enough case for you.

A clarification, I am not asking anyone to explain Bush. I think I've read enough about him to know what he believes and wants. I asked people why they support him when his policies have been so detrimental. Since no supporter will admit that Bush has done anything that isn't wonderful and fantastic, I've stopped asking.

Karen Posted:

"A clarification, I am not asking anyone to explain Bush. I think I've read enough about him to know what he believes and wants. I asked people why they support him when his policies have been so detrimental. Since no supporter will admit that Bush has done anything that isn't wonderful and fantastic, I've stopped asking."

The answer is simple. The GOP sound strong and the democrats sound weak. No matter who's fault it is people are scared. And if you are in a fear situation you'll always look to the one(s) who seem strong to lead you through the fear.

Kerry has been on this "lets not be mean" kinda thing for far too long. Because he's dealing with very mean and viscious people who have demonstrated for 14 years that they don't give a damn at all. With only a few weeks before the election Kerry needs to distinguish himself, and stand out more.

Before you say he is, I will point out that he is not. Until you posted that list I was not sure what the guy was for. And I don't have to go to GWB's website to know what he's about. Nor does he need his voters to explain him, because the GOP is doing the job of explaining him clearly. They are not looking weak. I didn't even know who the man was before he got in the race. Same went for George W, until the day he started running I had never heard of him. But within four days of his first campaign I knew more about him then I really wanted to - and I don't watch FOX news and I refuse to listen to any conservative radio (including Howard Stern). So what this tells me is that the GOP put out their agenda. The democrats agenda seems to be reacting to the GOP all the time.

Until that changes, you're man Kerry ain't got a chance of winning.

And frankly I don't think he nor the demoncrats want to win. They sure don't act like they they want to win.

Umar,
I can't argue that the republicans aren't dominating the rhetoric race. I wish I could. They are very good at manipulating the conversation. They take strengths and make them appear to be weaknesses. They take their own weaknesses and make them appear to be strenghs. I wish we had some of their PR people. Still, when it comes to the truth, when you cut through all the soundbites, Kerry will do better for this country. I'm not sure how he can get his message across, I only hope he finds a way. We are so distracted by Vietnam and memos that the media seem tho think are much more important than the real issues. The war is obviously going south, but turn on the TV and you see program after program talking about CBS and Rather. The Republicans don't even have to lift a finger. The news organizations are doing a great job of ignoring the issues. I have great hope for the debates. I want to see the young John Kerry who testified before Congress with such passion. I, unlike PAD, do not believe this contest is all sewed up. Most polls put them at a statistical dead heat. Even with all the brilliant PR the Republicans have been throwing, negative and positive. The American people can only be fooled so long. Nixon, for all his faults was a very good environmental and international president. But he was caught up in the pursuit of power which was his downfall. Those in office now are more interested in stying in power than what they can do for the American people. One day they will make a mistake and "misunderestimate" us. I hope that day comes before November....

From Karen:
Do you want a list of why I believe you should vote for Kerry? Here you go:
1 He will not assault our environment in the intersts of big corporations.
- Please point out when and where this is happening in the current administration. This is just another democrat talking point that follows the rule of "if you say it enough, people will believe it".
2 He will make scientific decisions based on science, not his version of the bible.
- And what kind of scientific decisions are you talking about? Stem Cell Research? Bush is the ONLY President that has pushed for funding of stem cell research, but he did put a limit on the types of research the government would fund. However, it's still legal for biotech companies to do research on any kind of stem cells they can get ahold of.
3 If he pushes a bill for education, he will see that it gets fully funded.
- Civics 101. Congress approves all government spending, not the President. He may push for it, but he only gets to either sign or veto the bill.
4 He will not hold closed door meetings with energy corp. head honchos to decide our energy policy.
- And hopefully he won't do the same with businessmen and no doctors to try to change the healthcare system. Who would be better to discuss energy policy than people that are actually involved in that business?
5 He will use diplomacy instead of arrogance with our allies and enemies alike and use force as a LAST resort.
- Does this mean he will sit on his butt for 8 years while a madman tortures and murders his countrymen and gets more money from the ever effecient UN in another food-for-oil debacle? If sanctions against Iraq were working so well, how did Saddam get all the wealth to build his many palaces over the previous few years? Saddam had been committing acts of war against the US and allies for years (daily firing of anti-aircraft weapons at planes patroling the no-fly zone). It was time to finally put an end to the Gulf War once and for all.
6 He will work to bring healthcare to all Americans.
- No American is going without healthcare! If you don't have insurance or can't pay out of your pocket, then just go to an emergency room. By law, they have to treat you. If you're looking for full state payed healthcare, take a good look at the hole countries that have that are digging themselves into. Or better yet, go spend some time at a VA hospital and see how well socialized medicine works in this country. I'm not talking about the medical personnel, but the beauracracy involved.
7 He will not gut social security for privatization.
- Congress has been gutting social security since the program has begun. There is no lock-box holding vast amounts of money in it waiting for us to retire. There's a huge IOU that's about to come due, and we probably won't get any of the money back that we're FORCED to pay into it.
8 He will roll back tax cuts for the wealthy to help pay for his programs.
- Wouldn't it have been better if Kerry, as a Senator, would have worked to spend our money a little more efficiently in the first place? Even with the tax cuts, the wealthy are still paying more than their fare share in actual dollars to the government.
9 He may appoint some supreme court judges and I trust him much more than I would any appointees by Bush.
- Unfortunately too many judges on the "left" have been proving themselves to be activist judges instead interpreting the law. I would rather have judges that don't think of themselves as the legislature as well. I see Kerry as someone that would appoint activist judges as opposed to interpreting judges.
10 He would probably hold a few press conferences to let us know what is going on in our government.
- Few being the operative word, based on the mount of press conferences (or even interviews) Kerry has given during his campaign.
11 He would stop this ridiculous marriage amendment talk.
- Again, a dead issue. You're being played like a fiddle if you think that this has a chance in hell of ever passing. Just look at the steps that have to be done just to get a constitutional ammendment on a ballot, then you have to get a majority of states to agree with it. It ain't gonna happen. You're actually helping Bush by focusing your energies on this instead of something important.
12 He will give tax incentives to companies who keep jobs here and for those who are working on alternate sources of energy.
- Some jobs kept here, merchandise costs more money. That's a proven fact. Why else would companies be moving their manufacturing out of the country?
And you know, lots of companies are working already to develop alternative sources of energy. Problem is, none have proven as save and reliable as the ones currently in use. But, when a company finally comes up with a hydrogen powered engine, I'm sure they will be more than happy to make a huge profit off of it (and then folks on the left can hate them for making a profit).
13 He will work on getting the deficit under control.
- See the Civics 101 answer above. The President can only submit a budget. Congress has to approve any spending.

Jeff,
1 Clear skies anyone?
2 See 1 Also he is about the only person on earth that still does not think there is any global warming. He let stem cell research go through on his terms. Not the needs of science.
3 17 states have opted out of this flawed bill. The reasons given are that since they are not getting the money anyway, why worry about the provisions that take the money away for not performing. And this congress has been doing his bidding for a long time. He does not work to pass bills. It's his way or the highway.
4 People who don't stand to make a profit based on policy decisions.
5 Palaces do not equal WMD's. Are you telling me we went to war because he was living large?
6 How many people go into debt, lose everything because they can't pay for medical care? And the ER does not treat everyone. People get turned away all the time. I have visited a VA hospital. My husband has had surgery in one. He has been treated many times. All with professionalism and excellent results. Don't ever bash the VA. They do great work for many ex-military, who have served our country and have no other healthcare.
7 Privatization is not an answer. Investing in the stock market is in addition to not a result. What part of "security" do you not understand. You think the stock market will provide that?
8 Oh, let's blame Kerry for the taxe cuts this republican congress passed. You people are unreal.
9 Judges interpret the law. They do NOT create it. As such there is no such thing as an"activist" judge. This is Orwell speak for "They aren't doing what we want them to do.
10 How many press conferences has Bush held. Much less than any other president EVER? Are you trying to tell me this most secretive administration we've ever had is keeping us informed? Nixon was more open.
11 The marriage amendment was a bone thrown to the religious fundamentalists. That's the ticket. I want a president who panders to certain relogious groups. And if he knew it wasn't going to pass, then I guess that just proves how manipulative he is.
12 They move out of this country to places they can get away with paying slave wages and don't have to worry about worker benefits. You don't think they can afford it? Have you seen CEO salaries lately?
13 Clinton did it. If it were a priority he would have done it, too. Instead of more corporate welfare and tax breaks to his fans.

You are either misinformed or an apologist that believes Bush can do no wrong. He is the leader of the USA. Don't tell me congress has the power. Not when he has a republican house and senate that have worked so hard to pass every whim he's had.

I was asked why I'm voting for Kerry. Those are my reasons. When you decide to take off the blinders and realize that Bush has made more than his share of mistakes, then maybe we can have a rational conversation. Bush is not worthy to be president.

Jeff, I have to get to work, so I haven't time just now to refute all of your points above. However, in reference to #1, I will cite the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocols, the previously-mentioned Clear Skies Act, the push to pave and raze forests, the push to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge despite the fact that the rosiest estimates of field production there still don't amount to more than a few days' consumption in the US...

And, of course, with #2, there is the directive that prevents any Federal funding from going to any international aid programs that even mention abortion. I can't come up with any logical position that supports keeping these women in bondage to men who are raised to think that rape is just a fun way to spend a slow weekend evening. The only arguments I have found being made are those made on a religious basis, as there is no scientific consensus on when life begins - or even what life is.

This is just another democrat talking point that follows the rule of "if you say it enough, people will believe it".

Sure, sure, and if Bush uses the words "Saddam Hussein" and "9/11" in the same sentence enough time, people will believe it to.

Don't believe me? Ask around.

3 If he pushes a bill for education, he will see that it gets fully funded.
6 He will work to bring healthcare to all Americans.
7 He will not gut social security for privatization.
8 He will roll back tax cuts for the wealthy to help pay for his programs.
12 He will give tax incentives to companies who keep jobs here and for those who are working on alternate sources of energy.
13 He will work on getting the deficit under control.

The only revenue-generating item you have is rolling back tax cuts. That's not going to be enough to increase education spending, give more health care, save social security, and give tax breaks to businesses.

So, how exactly is the deficit going to get under control with these programs? It looks more like a deficit increase to me.

Karen:

I pretty much have to agree with Jeff. And to address the other concerns you pointed out....

1 Clear skies anyone?

Yep. Clear as a bell. Most smog happens around areas where there is poor air circulation or concentrated amounts of it . Your average active volcanco like spews more toxic fumes than in one year than any industry in America.

2 See 1 Also he is about the only person on earth that still does not think there is any global warming. He let stem cell research go through on his terms. Not the needs of science.

Not true. Bush has acknowleged that there is some global warming. He disagrees with how much mankind is actually causing, and the evidence shows that most of earth's warming temperature is actually coming from the sun.

3 17 states have opted out of this flawed bill. The reasons given are that since they are not getting the money anyway, why worry about the provisions that take the money away for not performing. And this congress has been doing his bidding for a long time. He does not work to pass bills. It's his way or the highway.

Bush along with Ted Kennedy, pushed for a 15 billion dollar increase in spending during his first year in office. The largest educational increase in history. He was rewarded with a knife in the back by Senator 90 Proof.

4 People who don't stand to make a profit based on policy decisions.

Yeah, you know, cause why should the people who are taking the risks and providing the service in an industry make any money off of it, or have any say in how they run things?

5 Palaces do not equal WMD's. Are you telling me we went to war because he was living large?

Straw man argument.

6 How many people go into debt, lose everything because they can't pay for medical care? And the ER does not treat everyone. People get turned away all the time. I have visited a VA hospital. My husband has had surgery in one. He has been treated many times. All with professionalism and excellent results. Don't ever bash the VA. They do great work for many ex-military, who have served our country and have no other healthcare.

As Jeff has said, by law the ER has to take care of someone. If they were "turned away" , it was most likely because they either couldn't be helped, or didn't need immediate help. In which case an appointment is usually made for them at the nearest health clinic. And like any bureacracy, the VA isn't a shing example of efficiency.

7 Privatization is not an answer. Investing in the stock market is in addition to not a result. What part of "security" do you not understand. You think the stock market will provide that?

If properly managed, and diversified, yes. You may actually have to, you know, THINK about the best places to put your money, and anybody that has all their eggs in one basket is an idiot. Just ask the employees of Enron and Global Crossing.

8 Oh, let's blame Kerry for the taxe cuts this republican congress passed. You people are unreal.

This Republican congress was aided by those Democrats, who didn't want to be voted out of office for not going along with the tax cut by the public. I hope you weren't a hypocrite and gave yours back.

9 Judges interpret the law. They do NOT create it. As such there is no such thing as an"activist" judge. This is Orwell speak for "They aren't doing what we want them to do.

Which, of course, is what you want the ones Kerry appoints to do. Do what you want .

10 How many press conferences has Bush held. Much less than any other president EVER? Are you trying to tell me this most secretive administration we've ever had is keeping us informed? Nixon was more open.

This is a no win scenario. If he holds a press conference everyone says he's lying. If he doesn't hold one, he's being secretive.

11 The marriage amendment was a bone thrown to the religious fundamentalists. That's the ticket. I want a president who panders to certain relogious groups. And if he knew it wasn't going to pass, then I guess that just proves how manipulative he is.

Oh please. Mr.Say-what-they-want-to-hear Kerry? Not pander? He'll do the same thing Mr. Haitian-Refugees-won't -be-sent-back, Gays-will-be-allowed-to-serve-openly-in-the-military, I-won't-raise-taxes-on-anyone-making-under-$100,000-dollars Clinton did to get elected.

12 They move out of this country to places they can get away with paying slave wages and don't have to worry about worker benefits. You don't think they can afford it? Have you seen CEO salaries lately?

They should be forced to stay here and go broke or raise the prices of good so high that no one can afford them. Then we can have government subsidized toys for Christmas.

13 Clinton did it. If it were a priority he would have done it, too. Instead of more corporate welfare and tax breaks to his fans.

Clinton was forced into it by that Republican Congress. It cost Newt Gingrich his office, and Republicans were cast as villains for cutting programs willy nilly, left and right. And finally had to shut down the government. When the budget finally comes back with a surplus, suddenly it's "Clinton did it!"

"will the recent hurricanes in florida
and the upcoming disaster relief that bush will provide tip florida in his favor or is florida still in play?"

Jeb's running the state. It was never in play.

PAD

Karen wrote:

>>>Also he is about the only person on earth that still does not think there is any global warming.

The folks who argue we are not currently in a period of global warming just aren't paying attention to the plentiful indications that in fact, we are.

However, any scientist who tells you that the current global warming period is definitely due to greenhouse emissions or any other man-made factor, is blowing smoke (no pun intended). Geologically speaking, the Earth has followed regular cycles of heating and cooling for eons -- without any help from us. Any scientist who has the gall to claim that we can actually manipulate such cycles at a whim is just pushing a personal agenda based on an unproveable theory, in my opinion.

And while I personally feel we should err on the side of caution when it is reasonable and prudent to do so (particularly when it comes to reducing pollutants), I don't believe we should cripple our economy while China and a number of other industrialized nations ignore such things.

For example, if we can mass produce reasonably-priced motor vehicles that no longer use petroleum-based fuel, then great -- we help the environment and we reduce dependence on foreign oil. But to regulate our industries out of business so they relocate to countries who do not have any such environmental overregulation is just plain stupid. All that is happening, in effect, is that the emissions (or even emissions that are far WORSE) are moving to someone else's back yard, and all the decent-paying jobs are moving with them.

We produce most of the polllution. China is catching up, but we are number one. There are many companies that work to make their production and products environmentally friendly and they still make a profit. Pick up the last National Geographic (that bastion of liberal bias) and get a true picture of global warming. We are a major factor this time.

I think I'm done arguing about the excesses and untruths of the current administration. Many of you refuse to listen to facts or spin them to be positive. Bush does not have our best interests in mind. He never has. He is actively turning this country in a direction that is apalling. Go ahead and vote for him. If he wins and continues to move this country in his neo-con slant, we will continue in an unwinnable war, the environment will be trashed, and the middle class will shrink to nothing. Have fun living in W's America.

And now it is official: Dan Rather lied to the US public. Dan Rather misled us. He failed to tell the truth.

What? You say he was misled? How so? There is an *overwhelming* amount of evidence from both within CBS and from the supposed experts who Rather claimed supported his story. They all say warned Rather of the problems with his story.

For those of you who don't get "subtle" irony, I simply turning around the argument back on those of you who say Bush lied about the WMD's. Unlike those who attack Bush, I admit I don't know Rather's motives for doing so. I earlier speculated in this thread that Rather is biased. That seems to be a possible conclusion, but I admit it is not the only one. Rather may just be plain incompetent. Take your pick.

PAD is correct in saying this does not validate Bush's service, but that is the easy way out. Why was a hoax necessary in the first place? Because there is no *proof* about the allegations. You have a few people on both sides making opposing claims. No one can say definitively that he was there, and no one can say defnitively he was not. You have people saying they don't remember seeing him, and people saying their father or husband thought Bush served his time. Hardly conclusive either way.

Unlike PAD's evolution analogy, this hoax is central to this issue. It was, finally, the holy grail of proof. So when the proof is shown to be a fraud, it is legitimate to question whether the original allegation is perhaps incorrect as well.

One other thought: If this was Fox News making this mistake, it would be all over. They would not be seen as reliable by both liberals and by many conservatives. I am waiting to see what happens with CBS and with Dan Rather. Whether it is a bias or incompetence, this was not a minor mistake. Their pursuit was for something other than the truth. If I had to guess, which I will, I would suggest it was first for ratings and second because of a dislike for Bush, but that is just an opinion based on the facts as I see them.

Jim in Iowa

You have a few people on both sides making opposing claims. No one can say definitively that he was there, and no one can say defnitively he was not. You have people saying they don't remember seeing him, and people saying their father or husband thought Bush served his time. Hardly conclusive either way.

You have an honorable discharge of both Kerry and Bush. That should have been the end of the discussions.

As far as CBS goes, they've been hurt in the ratings. This has hurt them dramatically in the short run. In the long run, they will rebound.

Sorry, Karen, GWB actually acknowledged the false theory of global warming and give it legs. And we are not the worst pollutors, we actually clean up our messes while the rest of the world skates. Did you know during the height of the Cold War, the USSR dumped their toxic and nuclear waste in our fishing grounds? I don't know where you get your ideas hon (DNC talking points maybe) but they don't seem to be grounded in much reality...

Many of you refuse to listen to facts or spin them to be positive. Bush does not have our best interests in mind. He never has. He is actively turning this country in a direction that is apalling.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. A perfectly valid opinion, too. Equally valid is the one that Bush is a better man to fight the war since he will be proactive rather than reactive. At the end of the day, the biggest issue right now is national security. Bush and Kerry have different ways they want to fight it - and that's what people are voting on.

From Karen:

[b]"I can't argue that the republicans aren't dominating the rhetoric race. I wish I could. They are very good at manipulating the conversation. They take strengths and make them appear to be weaknesses. They take their own weaknesses and make them appear to be strenghs. I wish we had some of their PR people. Still, when it comes to the truth, when you cut through all the soundbites, Kerry will do better for this country."[/b]

Truth? This country is not nor has ever been interested in the truth. Please.

Take the weapons of mass destruction garbage for example. Iraq has been bombed since the first BS so-called war against it. UN inspectors have been in there so many times a collection of the articles would rival the pages of the Great American Novel. Now I don't know if my map is wrong but Iraq is not THAT big that for so many years inspectors come in, get kicked out, then the place gets bombed then inspectors go in again, yadda-yadda-yadda - and no weapons were ever found. So when Bush made the excuse everyone but me was surpised that he lied. Why? They did not find any back after Desert Storm, they did not find any all those other years therefore it stood to reason that they would not find any now. Yet everyone is like surprised that Bush lied. Bush KNEW he could lie too because he knew that this country head is so far up it's self-congradulatory asses that he could have said anything and the citizen would have bought it.

That is not the only thing, but its a glaring example. So if you think Kerry is going to win on truth, forget about it. If truth mattered, Al Sharpton, who won every democratic debate, would be the candidate right now. So much for truth. So much for Kerry.

Umar wrote:

"Truth? This country is not nor has ever been interested in the truth. Please.

Take the weapons of mass destruction garbage for example. Iraq has been bombed since the first BS so-called war against it. UN inspectors have been in there so many times a collection of the articles would rival the pages of the Great American Novel. Now I don't know if my map is wrong but Iraq is not THAT big that for so many years inspectors come in, get kicked out, then the place gets bombed then inspectors go in again, yadda-yadda-yadda - and no weapons were ever found. So when Bush made the excuse everyone but me was surpised that he lied. Why? They did not find any back after Desert Storm, they did not find any all those other years therefore it stood to reason that they would not find any now."

Umar, I would suggest it is you who are not willing to look at the truth. Let me mention three things that are true:

1.) We have absolute proof that Iraq had WMD's at least in the past. They used them on the Kurds.

2.) It is true that we have not found "stockpiles" of WMD's, but we did find the components for WMD's. In fact, Saddam even admitted to having some WMD's in the past. We did not find huge stockpiles, but it is a gross mischaraterization to say we found no weapons at all in the last 12 years.

3.) According to experts, Iraq is roughly the size of California. A stockpile of WMD's can be as small as a 2 car garage. It is very easy to hide a 2 car garage in the state of California, especially if you kill anyone who knew about it (or do you not believe the stories of Saddam killing the builders of some of his palaces because they could reveal his secrets?).

Here is one report on WMD's in Iraq:
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfminclude=detail&storyid=670120

Jim in Iowa:

>2.) It is true that we have not found "stockpiles" of WMD's, but we did find the components for WMD's. In fact, Saddam even admitted to having some WMD's in the past. We did not find huge stockpiles, but it is a gross mischaraterization to say we found no weapons at all in the last 12 years.

Jim, I honestly don't remember, but was there anything besides old, corroded materials found? I'm not aware of anything found that points directly to an active program having been operating.

Also, the biggest frustration that I continue to have is with the blanket statements tossed out to the public by this administration. Pick a topic spoken of (Iraqi weapons, Saddam/bin Laden connection, America being attacked again if Kerry is voted into office, etc) and consider the challenges or criticisms that have been lobbed back to Bush.... if I will concede one skill to this administration it is their uncanny ability to speak in ambiguities and be able to walk a line when criticized, never admitting to something or taking it back. The "I never said that"s are all over the place and, technically, they aren't lying. However, Bush and his people have repeatedly thrown out comments that point most people in a certain direction of belief and when called to task on it, they bat the question/criticism away by saying that they never said X and that they can't control how people interprete it. Aparently, they can.

Fred

"And while I personally feel we should err on the side of caution when it is reasonable and prudent to do so (particularly when it comes to reducing pollutants), I don't believe we should cripple our economy while China and a number of other industrialized nations ignore such things."

And this is exactly the sort of talking point that the RNC would like you to believe is the reason that Bush backed out of the Koyoto protocol; it is a lie. The US was not unfairly targeted; the truth is that we generate most of the potentially-global-warming causing pollutants in the world, and the cust that we were required to make under the treaty were modest compared to some other countries.

The fact of the matter is, that anything that potentially cuts into the bottom line (even paying taxes!) of a large corporation is going to be very difficult to get passed; this is always true no matter who is President (though this Administration does seem to negate the possibility altogether). It was a miracle that we signed on to begin with and I am saddened, though not surprised, that we backed out soon after.

As for efforts to reduce our waste output? The current Administration has rolled back so many EPA standards that it is laughable. Any attempt to tighten fuel economy standards is shot down far short of being signed into law. Efforts to investigate alternative fuel sources are typically laughably transparent attempts to pacify those of us that become more alarmed every day.

Cheney has spoken many times (as he did while he ran Haliburton) that his solution to the US fuel crisis is to drill, drill, drill, and drill some more. I recently heard a great speech that he delivered in which he blasted the US policies against working with terrorist nations (he mentioned Iran by name) because it was keeping us from more of that yummy oil.

Now that he h elps to lead the free world, he doesn't have to work with the terrorist nations; he can convince the people of America to conquer them and take what we want instead (Saudi Arabia being exempt, of course).

Phinn

Fred wrote: "Jim, I honestly don't remember, but was there anything besides old, corroded materials found? I'm not aware of anything found that points directly to an active program having been operating."

You probably don't remember because there has been so little coverage in the press. The article I posted gives an extensive list of what has been found: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120

There are reports coming soon from the person who replaced David Kay. The press was quick to report that Kay said there were no stockpiles. They were virtually silent on his comments that Iraq was in substantial violation of numerous parts of the UN resolutions. The guy who follows him is even clearer. The rumor is that it will also say we have found no stockpiles, but that there was substantial violations that show Saddam has merely stopped for a while and had not dismantled anything.

The insight on the News report is one of the best I read. It makes the case that Saddam was not an idiot. Pesticides take very little tinkering to turn them into WMD's. There was an enormous amount of pesticides found in Iraq. Unless someone wants to avoid the truth, the most logical conclusion is he was preparing the components for WMD's. There is really no other explanation for what has been found.

Imagine if we raided the apartment of a suspected terrorist. We did not find a loaded gun. In fact, we didn't find a gun at all. But we found barrels of gun powder, and a machine shop. The machine shop was currently making pipes (or something), but with very little changing, it could be used to manufacture guns. What would a reasonable person conclude? That while the terrorist had no gun, it is more than likely he was just waiting for scrutiny to die down so that he could do so.

Jim in Iowa

"1.) We have absolute proof that Iraq had WMD's at least in the past. They used them on the Kurds."

This is mostly because we, with many members of the current Administration in the lead, sold those weapons (and American companies sold him many of the components) so that he could use them against Iran. And we didn't complain when he did.

"2.) It is true that we have not found "stockpiles" of WMD's, but we did find the components for WMD's. In fact, Saddam even admitted to having some WMD's in the past. We did not find huge stockpiles, but it is a gross mischaraterization to say we found no weapons at all in the last 12 years."

And everyone was saying the same thing: even if he had them, they are only viable for about a decade, probably less. The inspectors couldn't find them because THEY WEREN'T THERE. Even those that we gave him had degraded to the point of unusability. With all of the sanctions against him, he couldn't import the materials he needed to make more.

"3.) According to experts, Iraq is roughly the size of California. A stockpile of WMD's can be as small as a 2 car garage. It is very easy to hide a 2 car garage in the state of California, especially if you kill anyone who knew about it (or do you not believe the stories of Saddam killing the builders of some of his palaces because they could reveal his secrets?)."

And, in another example of how this Administration will turn around so fast it'll make your head spin right off of your shoulders, we refused to give the UN inspectors any more time to search, and yet the first thing out of the lips of the Bushies was that we needed more time to find them.

Believe what you want; heck, even believe that the Administration told the truth, they didn't fight the war for personal reasons, they weren't gunning for Iraq from day one, they didn't take pains to link Saddam to 9/11, they didn't cherry-pick evidence to suit them, and they didn't put pressure on the intelligence agencies to come up with compelling evidence to support the war when most of the intelligence community said there wasn't any. Believe all of that if you want to.

But believe this, too. President Bush is the man in charge. He made the case for war. He lead the troops into battle. He was wrong. Period. End of discussion.

Time for a changing of the guard.

Phinn

Phinn,

If you believe he is wrong in how he is handling foreign policy (or domestic for that matter), then by all means, vote for a "changing of the guard." But don't waste my time by saying Saddam did not have weapons. See my post to Fred for more proof that you are wrong.

I do believe the administration told what they honestly believed to be the truth regarding stockpiles of WMD's. I also happen to believe they made some mistakes. One mistake was to give Saddam as much time as they did. I strongly suspect some of the WMD's were shipped out of the country. Sattelite photos clearly show trucks going to Syria. Can't prove what was in them, but WMD's is a very possible option. I think Bush also has made some mistakes in how he has conducted the war, but it is always easy in hindsight to see mistakes that are made.

Bottom line, I have examined the evidence on both sides. Integrity does matter to me. Bush is not perfect, but I find no reason to change the guard. I believe he will do a better job than Kerry or Nader (since those are our only 3 real choices).

Jim in Iowa

Phinn,

Here is the first two paragraphs from the link I posted. Go read for yourself the proof it lists for weapons in Iraq:

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120

Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found
Post April 26, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman

"New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

"In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors."

Jim in Iowa

And, in another example of how this Administration will turn around so fast it'll make your head spin right off of your shoulders, we refused to give the UN inspectors any more time to search, and yet the first thing out of the lips of the Bushies was that we needed more time to find them.

Destruction of the WMDs was a condition of the cease fire of Gulf War I. Assuming they were destroyed, if Hussein had allowed weapons inspectors access during the destruction process, then it would not have been necessary to invade. Alternatively, if they were not destroyed, then if Hussein had allowed inspectors to come in to catalog them, then invasion would not have been necessary. Since neither of those conditions was met after over 10 years, consequences beyond sanctions were justified.

As it is, there's some intelligence that some of the WMDs were shipped to Syria a few months before the invasion. The report released late last week indicates that, while no WMDs have been found, Saddam had the pieces in place to quickly reconstitute them once the sanctions were lifted - which was under serious discussion by the UN (not totally surprising since France and Russia were already selling under the table to the Iraqi government).

You know, if the WMDs were shipped to Syria and that's a big if, I think that's about the worst possible scenario that could've come from Bush's war. What that means is that the WMDs are in the hands of another rogue nation known to support terrorism and does not have any of the sanctions imposed on them controlling their exports.

If the weapons did exist and were sent to Syria, then they most likely in the hands of terrorists now.

Gee, thanks, George.

Oh, and when Saddam did use nerve gas on the Kurds, what did the Reagan Administration do? That's the last time Saddam was documented as using them.

Oh, that's right. Nothing. Because we didn't care about the Iraqi people then.

Phinn wrote:

“And this is exactly the sort of talking point that the RNC would like you to believe is the reason that Bush backed out of the Koyoto protocol; it is a lie. The US was not unfairly targeted; the truth is that we generate most of the potentially-global-warming causing pollutants in the world, and the cust that we were required to make under the treaty were modest compared to some other countries.”

As usual, you assume I am partisan and just spouting off from your rival party’s talking points.

I don’t work that way.

I do my own research, and your assumption (and Karen’s) that the RNC is lying in this instance is just plain wrong. Below is an excerpt summing up the main points of a 1998 World Health Organization report (last time I looked, WHO wasn’t a campaign contributor for Bush or the RNC):

“A 1998 World Health Organization report on air quality in 272 cities worldwide concluded that seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities were in China. According to the People's Republic of China's own evaluation, two-thirds of the 338 cities for which air-quality data are available are considered polluted--two-thirds of them moderately or severely so. Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are the leading cause of death in China. Almost all of the nation's rivers are considered polluted to some degree, and half of the population lacks access to clean water. Ninety percent of urban water bodies are severely polluted.”

You can read the rest of the summary at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Environment-of-China

Keep in mind this report is from 1998, and that China’s industrial machine has done nothing but grow exponentially in the six years since.

PAD said about Florida: "Jeb's running the state. It was never in play."

It makes me very sad to think that anyone really believes that.

Den W wrote: "You know, if the WMDs were shipped to Syria and that's a big if, I think that's about the worst possible scenario that could've come from Bush's war. What that means is that the WMDs are in the hands of another rogue nation known to support terrorism and does not have any of the sanctions imposed on them controlling their exports. "

If you want to blame anyone, try the UN and the Democrats who delayed us acting. In the months leading up to the war, Saddam had plenty of time to prepare and ship the weapons. If we had acted sooner, it is possible (though of course, not certain) that we could have prevented this.

Your argument makes the flawed assumption that if we had not invaded, Saddam would not have been able to pass on these weapons (assuming, for the moment, that this is what went to Syria). I would suggest it would have been even easier for Saddam to have passed them on if we had not invaded.

"Oh, and when Saddam did use nerve gas on the Kurds, what did the Reagan Administration do? That's the last time Saddam was documented as using them."

"Oh, that's right. Nothing. Because we didn't care about the Iraqi people then."

I need to look it up, but I believe we did not know about the Kurd until *after* Saddam had actually used the gas. We could not stop it because it had already been done. Actions were taken, but, as is true now in the Sudan, the rest of the world is very slow to agree. The unwillingness of the UN to go along with the sanctions the US wants to impose on Sudan is deplorable.

I would agree we should have done more about the Kurds, but you must keep it in its historical context. It is wrong to say we did not care about the people of Iraq. The fact is that we could not change what had been done, and we did take some action to prevent it from happening again.

Jim in Iowa

> > PAD said about Florida: "Jeb's running the state. It was never in play."

I live in Florida, and I can assure you the bush family is not very respected here. Look out, theres alot of Kerry support down here, and it wouldn't surprise me if theres another Election mix up down here again, because the same people who tampered with the 2000 results are still in Power here (including ol' Jeb).

I hope if it does happen this time around, the American Public cries "Shenanegans!" and we just re-do the entire Election over again. Democracy is not something the supreme court should ever decide. its the peoples right to vote, not theirs.

Phinn,
Feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall? They would rather believe the man who broke every campaign promise he ever made except tax cuts, than look at the facts. They make excuses instead of condemning. Even when citing evidence they choose not to believe. I wish there were 2 Americas. One for us and another for them. They could let the corporations run the country, get rid of all benefits, destroy the environment, gut public education, and declare war every other week. Everone could be issued an assault rifle!

Nivek wrote:

"I live in Florida, and I can assure you the bush family is not very respected here. Look out, theres alot of Kerry support down here, and it wouldn't surprise me if theres another Election mix up down here again, because the same people who tampered with the 2000 results are still in Power here (including ol' Jeb).

"I hope if it does happen this time around, the American Public cries "Shenanegans!" and we just re-do the entire Election over again. Democracy is not something the supreme court should ever decide. its the peoples right to vote, not theirs."

No one tampered with the results in 2000. This myth has been fully exposed if you care to look at the facts.

Here is a link:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Here is the first few paragraphs from the CNN story:

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

"The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN."

Want more? Read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kirsanow200403090858.asp

Bottom line: Bush won in 2000. Get over it.

Jim in Iowa

OK, here's my list of why I think Bush deserves reelection.

1. Bush hasn't assaulted the environment in the interest of anyone. The ANWR issue is absurdly overblown.
2. I don't want a President making scientific decisions at all. And in fact, this one didn't. If you're referring to Federal funding, the limited funding that Bush proposed is more than the zero Clinton funded, and is probably more than a Democrat could have pushed past a conservative Congress anyway.
3. Bush's education bill raised Federal funding for education by 40%.
4. The energy meetings were a stupid idea that gave the appearance of impropriety even if ther wasn't any actual impropriety (of which there is no evidence), but don't really affect my vote. The meetings were fine (who are you going to discuss energy policy with if not the people who provide the nation's energy supply?), but the claim of secrecy via executive privilege was a battle that wasn't worth fighting.
5. I think a bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy has a lot to recommend it. Don't assume that our allies are right just because they disagree with us.
6. I have no desire to have the Federal government muck around with the healthcare system.
7. Privatization might be the only thing that can save Social Security in the long term.
8. The "tax cuts for the wealthy" also apply to small businesses. That's a Good Thing.
9. I vastly prefer my Supreme Court Justices to be conservative. They get in less trouble if they don't want to make radical changes. (This sense of "conservative" precludes "conservatives" like Scalia, who is frankly as likely to upset the apple cart as Ginsburg, but given the choice between radicals I'd prefer the Scalia model.)
10. Press conferences are useless. When Presidents conduct them, they are conducted for PR purposes.
11. I maintain that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. If we want marriage to be a state issue, we actually need an Amendment, although I agree the one that was proposed last time stunk.
12. Any tax credits that Kerry proposed for companies that don't outsource would be finessed by companies who do. There's an entire industry devoted to massaging the tax laws. Why create loopholes?
13. The deficit will get better if and only if the economy gets significantly better. Kerry can't cut spending, and the Congress won't let him raise taxes. So the deficit probably exists completely independently of whoever is in the White House. If anything, Kerry's deficit will be worse because he wants to spend more.
And some bonus ones:
14. The Republican no-idea how to get out of Iraq is just as good as the Democratic no-idea how to get out of Iraq. I'm still not sure we should be there at all, but it's not like either candidate was opposed to it... last year, anyway.
15. The Supreme Court issue is particularly important to me, so I count it double.
16. Bush isn't perfect, but I agree with him most of the time, and the issues I agree with him on are usually the ones I consider most important. I agree with Kerry about 1/3 of the time. Bush is way more likely to represent my views than Kerry would be, and that's really the bottom line.

I wish there were 2 Americas. One for us and another for them. They could let the corporations run the country, get rid of all benefits, destroy the environment, gut public education, and declare war every other week. Everone could be issued an assault rifle!

We'd need 'em too, because after your America goes broke from trying to subsidize everything for everybody, you'd try to get back into our prosperous America, and we'd have to shoot ya.

"I wish there were 2 Americas. One for us and another for them."

Dibs on Hawaii!!!

You can have BOTH Dakotas.

I think that Rather is recanting his claim to be the Queen of the Space Unicorns.

Carl,
Thanks for being so condescending! I guess I'm just a silly woman who doesn't know enough to talk about anything but the Dem talking points. Boy, would I feel even sillier if I hadn't cited National Geographic as the latest source on global warming info in my last post before yours. Maybe you should stop listening to the Republican talking points and read outside sources, hon.

It's a man's world.....unless women vote.

I guess I'm just a silly woman who doesn't know enough to talk about anything but the Dem talking points.

No, need to apologize. You can't help you were born female.

Boy, would I feel even sillier if I hadn't cited National Geographic as the latest source on global warming info in my last post before yours.

Got a date and issue for that info? I'd like to check it out.

"Since it is overwhelmingly clear that the memos are not real but are fakes, it does serve as further evidence that CBS (and perhaps more of the media) has a bias against the right/republicans/conservatives. That is the most logical reason why they would run with memos against objections from some of their own experts."

Oh, bullshit. Reporters get hosed all the time. Newspapers, TV have been hoaxed on monumental levels. It has jack-all to do with bias and everything to do with one simple fact: News gathering organizations, in their attempt to be the first to nail a juicy story, get sloppy. And then they wind up paying for it. Everyone from the liberal New York Times to the conservative New York Post screw the pooch every so often. It's not bias. It's just bad journalism, period.

PAD

I'd like to believe that but then you get this: From the Associated Press: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CBS_GUARD_KERRY?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm

NEW YORK (AP) -- At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said Monday he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released. The White House accused Kerry's campaign of fanning the controversy over Bush's military service.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

Holy crap, CBS is advising the Kerry Campaign? And nobody sees anything wrong with this???

Heads should role.

Karen:

Just so you know, I was just joking with you about the woman thing. I've noticed that a lot of liberals on this board have a tendency to think my jokes are completely serious.

As for the National Geographic info, nevermind. But you might be interested in this response to the article from the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-09-04.html

From Umar:
"That is not the only thing, but its a glaring example. So if you think Kerry is going to win on truth, forget about it. If truth mattered, Al Sharpton, who won every democratic debate, would be the candidate right now."

Yeaaaahhhh...he still hasn't come clean on the Tawana Bradley thing, has he?

Also from Umar:
"Iraq has been bombed since the first BS so-called war against it"

OK. I can see the viewpoint of people today who don't like the current war. SEE it, but disagree with it. But are you saying that the FIRST Gulf War was BS? Seriously? I mean, I guess that Kerry did vote against that one...

Phinn said:
"This is mostly because we, with many members of the current Administration in the lead, sold those weapons (and American companies sold him many of the components) so that he could use them against Iran. And we didn't complain when he did."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all. But as long as you're agreeing that Sadaam had WMDs, I guess it's cool.

Don said:
"PAD said about Florida: "Jeb's running the state. It was never in play."

It makes me very sad to think that anyone really believes that."

Don't worry about it...I'm sure it'll be another statement that PAD later says is just a joke.

Karen said:
"Boy, would I feel even sillier if I hadn't cited National Geographic as the latest source on global warming info in my last post before yours"

Considering that I haven't seen anyone ignore information, posts, and direct challenges more than I have seen you do so, it's tough to take THAT one seriously. I am STILL waiting for you to comment about your statement about what happens to "ANYONE who speaks out against this admiistration." Maybe all that banging your head on the wall has seriously injured you...

Charles K.
I have cited sources. You and others don't agree my sources are valid because they don't fit your worldview. Bush has ostracized members of Congress who don't agree with him. People have been fired for supporting the opposition(the woman Kerry just hired). This is in the book "Bush Must Go" by Bill Press who used to be a co-host on Crossfire. Much of my latest info comes from his book as it is the one I just finished. I have seen a lot of these charges elsewhere, but I'm sure you will find some reason that he's not a reliable source. Some of what I post has been widely reported, but again, you just blame the liberal media. Top people in Bush's administration have written books detailing his failures (O'Neil and Clark), but that isn't enough, either. It's awfully nice to know you've been scrutinizing my posts for so long. But, while I have cited sources, whether you agree with them or not, why am I expected to explain myself and my reasoning when no one in this administration is held to that standard?

EClark,
I've read the article and the bio of the author. The Cato Institute is a libertarian organization with it's own axe to grind. While I appreciate the point of view put forth in that article, we have know for many years that human beings have an impact on the environment. I am willing to concede that the articles in National Geo may be a worst case scenario, but wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution and treat the problems associated with global warming now? We're talking about things we know to be detrimental to us and the natural world. Would it be so bad to get control of pollution by investing in altenative energy and going back to the Clean Air act put in place by Nixon? Is it so unreasonable to ask companies clean up their messes?

EClark,
While I knew you were joking, I want you to reread my post. I never apologized. :)

If you want to blame anyone, try the UN and the Democrats who delayed us acting. In the months leading up to the war, Saddam had plenty of time to prepare and ship the weapons. If we had acted sooner, it is possible (though of course, not certain) that we could have prevented this.

Except that, like Iraq and WMD, we have no proof that any WMD were sent anywhere.

But hey, give Bush another 4 years, and we can just invade Syria to find out for sure, right?

No, it's easier to blame the Democrats for the (many) failings of this administration.

9/11? Blame the Democrats.
Haven't got bin Laden? Blame the Democrats.
We fucked up in Iraq? Blame the Democrats.
Bush chokes on a pretzel? Blame the Democrats.

Oh, I forgot to mention:

Bush didn't show up for Guard service? Conspiracy by the Democrats.

Your argument makes the flawed assumption that if we had not invaded, Saddam would not have been able to pass on these weapons (assuming, for the moment, that this is what went to Syria). I would suggest it would have been even easier for Saddam to have passed them on if we had not invaded.

And what reason would have hand to send them to Syria and give up control of them unless we hand invaded? Do you honestly think he was just going to make a gift of his entire arsenal to another country? Saddam is many things, but he is not stupid. You're assuming that then entire Middle East acts as one monolithic block. I know that fits the Saddam=Al Qaida mindset, but it's not trues. During the first gulf war, he sent a squadron of his best fighter jets to Iran for "safekeeping." The Iranians laughed and kept them. I doubt he'd make that same mistake again. This of course, assumes that WMDs still existed last year.

I need to look it up, but I believe we did not know about the Kurd until *after* Saddam had actually used the gas. We could not stop it because it had already been done.

And Saint Ron did nothing after the either except sell Saddam more weapons.

Karen,

I spend most of my days banging my head against the wall. ;)

"do believe the administration told what they honestly believed to be the truth regarding stockpiles of WMD's. I also happen to believe they made some mistakes."

And what about all the reports, even from so-called flattering books endorsed by the Administration (such as Woodward's "Plan of Attack") in which the Administration is depicted as wanting to go after Iraq on day 1?

And I don't dispute that Saddam had WMDs. We know he did because, as I said, we (including many members of the current cabal) sold them to him. Of course someone else said that has "nothing to do with anything", which I find shocking. I also believe that the weapons were no longer viable; Saddam didn't have the resources to keep them up, and many experts said that they would no longer be viable after a decade of disuse.

I also believe that 1,000+ (and counting) soldiers have died fighting a war that was waged based on mistakes, even if those mistakes were made honestly. I cannot possibly endorse a candidate who avoided war (whether you think he served honorably in the guard or not, he himself has stated in interviews that he joined the guard to avoid the draft) and yet is so gung ho to wage war himself.

As for China's cities being the most polluted, that doesn't equate to emitting the most global-warming causing pollutants. I can dump 10 million tons of sludge in the river behind my house but that doesn't mean I'm the leading cause of global warming in my neighborhood. I still stand by my (slightly adjusted) statement that, per-capita, the US produces more global-warming causing pollutants than any other country; remember that we have about 1/5 the population of China. I also stand by my statements that the reductions we were asked to make were modest.

And if anyone thinks that Bush's relentless war on the environment won't take a toll, they're kidding themselves. He wants to introduce laws that allow companies to destroy mountains, to drill in our national parks, and to allow more noisy, polluting vehicles into our wildlife sanctuaries.

I really do not understand why so many people want to give Bush a second (and a third, and a fourth, and a fifth, and...) chance when they aren't willing to give Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) even a first chance. Bush has proven that his campaign promises don't mean squat; he'll say whatever he has to to get elected.

He calls Kerry a flip-flopper by distorting his votes, and examinging his lengthy senate career for examples of contradictions even if votes were placed years (if not decades) apart. Bush has flip-flopped at least as many times in his much, much, much shorter career. Introduce "No Child Left Behind", then refuse to fund it. Cut taxes, then wage a war. Support the assault weapons ban, then sit by and do nothing while it expires. Vehemently oppose a 9/11 commission, then support it. Refuse to allow your people to testify, then ask them to do so. Threaten to veto the bill to provide 87 billion in support to our troops, then attack Kerry for voting against it. Send our troops into battle without proper preparation, battle armor, equipment, or an exit strategy, and cut veterans benefits then claim that Kerry is bad for the troops. Attack Kerry for voting to cut weapons programs that Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, urged Congress to cut! Suggest that, if Kerry is elected, another devastating attack will occur on American soil despite the fact that the last one occurred on Bush's watch! Call Kerry wishy-washy while watching a 7-minute video from September 11th that shows exactly how "decisive" Mr. Bush reacts under pressure.

I could go on. Bush has proven, time and again, that he is not a worthy leader. While people continue to support him while he drags this country kicking and screaming into the gutter is beyond me.

And for the record, I am not a democrat (nor am I registered as such). I try to pick the best man for the job; I often vote for Republicans when they aren't stark raving lunatics hell bent on raiding the treasury and marching our young men and women off to their deaths.

Phinn

And now it is official: Dan Rather lied to the US public. Dan Rather misled us. He failed to tell the truth.
...
For those of you who don't get "subtle" irony, I simply turning around the argument back on those of you who say Bush lied about the WMD's

Yeeeeaahhhhh, and that comparison will reeeeeeally have a lot of teeth when it's revealed that Rather's statements cost the country 200B and 1000+ American lives.

Lost in all the partisan hoopla (and it may get uglier still, if links to the Kerry campaign keep dribbling out) is that we may be witnessing a major event in society; the power of the common man to control the news gathering and dissemination business.

Were this the last election we would never have found out about CBS's shoddy reporting/bias, at least not until long after the election. One wonders how the addition of the checks and balances of bloggers would have affected our history in times past. I've no doubt it will have a major effect in the future.

Phinn wrote:

"As for China's cities being the most polluted, that doesn't equate to emitting the most global-warming causing pollutants. I can dump 10 million tons of sludge in the river behind my house but that doesn't mean I'm the leading cause of global warming in my neighborhood. I still stand by my (slightly adjusted) statement that, per-capita, the US produces more global-warming causing pollutants than any other country; remember that we have about 1/5 the population of China. I also stand by my statements that the reductions we were asked to make were modest. And if anyone thinks that Bush's relentless war on the environment won't take a toll, they're kidding themselves. He wants to introduce laws that allow companies to destroy mountains, to drill in our national parks, and to allow more noisy, polluting vehicles into our wildlife sanctuaries."

You are rationalizing. You apparently believe that all things will be better for the U.S. and world environment if a Democrat is sitting in the White House.

I say it doesn't matter.

We over-regulated to protect the environment so fast and aggressively, we took what was once the greatest industrial engine in the world 50 years ago and reduced it to a hollow shell. And since the demand for raw materials, machinery, chemicals and other industrial products has done nothing but increase around the world, countries like China have moved in to pick up all the demand -- countries which, by the way, don't have anywhere NEAR the same environmental conscience we do.

So, we have not stopped global pollution -- we've merely moved it out of our back yard. In the process, we've also jettisoned millions of American jobs and wiped out huge chunks of our technical expertise base.

I guess the U.S. could always become an agrarian society again (organic, of course) -- like a giant Amish theme park -- and we could sell our rustic crafts and fruit preserves to visiting foreign tourists. Ah, well... it'd be a living.

R. Maheras,
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is possible to make a profit while keeping the environment healthy. Conscientious companies do it everyday. The outsourcing of jobs has much more to do with NAFTA than any environmental rules that were in place before King Bush got his hands on them.

And I do think things will be better once Bush is out of office. I feel sorry for Kerry. He's going to have to work very hard to clean up W's messes. But that's nothing new. He's been bailed out of every business venture he undertook. Bush is used to someone coming in after him to clean up.

Hey, the environment card! Nifty!

Just some things to consider: Environmental regulation wasn't solely responsible for manfacturing shifting overseas. Partly to blame is the absence of regulation. Until the mid 70s, and more realistically, the 80s, there was no or very little technology forcing regulation, forcing factories and power suppliers to develop affordable, efficient, and clean ways of going about production. Now, after years and years of making do with older tech, those plants are closing down, and companies are chosing to build overseas where, yes, there are fewer regulations and they can continue to use out-dated tech for production. If we had implemented a technology forcing regulatory scheme decades ago, we'd have the capability to build production facilities that are efficient, clean, and affordable.

Second, you want a prime example of what happens when you allow development without regulation? Take a look at Haiti, and the horrible death toll there from flooding. Haiti has lost nearly all it's original tree cover, resulting in the loss of wetlands that slow and lessen the impact of floods. Without this natural ground cover, what is considered a minor tropical storm/hurricane ends up unleashing a devastating flood that kills hundreds. Ditto for floods in China, except those kill thousands.

Karen has it exactly right. Any corporation even remotely connected to a natural resource is best advised to act in a way that conserves and preserves that resource. Petroleum companies are madly striving to come up with the next fuel source to sell, because the know the era of cheap and affordable crude is coming to an end. In my lifetime (say 30 years) I've seen the petrol outlook go from "we'll never run out of current oil supplies in this generations' lifetime, or the next after that" to "affordable crude could be extinct come 2015." Smart companies are looking at ways to extend our current supply: re-use, more efficient use, synthetic substitutions, and alternative forms, such as solar power and fuel cells.

ingBobb:

>Second, you want a prime example of what happens when you allow development without regulation? Take a look at Haiti, and the horrible death toll there from flooding. Haiti has lost nearly all it's original tree cover, resulting in the loss of wetlands that slow and lessen the impact of floods. Without this natural ground cover, what is considered a minor tropical storm/hurricane ends up unleashing a devastating flood that kills hundreds. Ditto for floods in China, except those kill thousands.

Oh that we could blame natural disasters and simple exploitation of natural resources for Haiti's worst atrocities. Ask most people watching that poor scenerio play out and they'll tell you that the Nike corporation, through their exploitation of both the people and the land as well as burning that crappy rubber in the middle of populated areas, has been responsible for as much misery, death and disease as Ivan has been. Buy U.S. indeed.

Karen wrote:

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is possible to make a profit while keeping the environment healthy. Conscientious companies do it everyday. The outsourcing of jobs has much more to do with NAFTA than any environmental rules that were in place before King Bush got his hands on them."

I agree with your first sentence. However, as I said, I think we went way too far, too fast. I have never, ever advocated the “no regulation” rat-hole that Kingbob started going down.

Regarding the outsourcing issue, NAFTA is only a relatively small part of a bigger problem, in my opinion. I remember when the U.S.'s aged industrial base began eroding in the 1970s and 1980s, when it became too expensive for many companies to meet the flurry of ever-changing environmental rules, and still stay competitive against manufacturers from abroad who had few, or no such regulations. This, coupled with higher wages than the new overseas competition, old equipment, and tax issues, many just closed up shop, and the jobs here went away forever. Towns that were manufacturing industry-heavy became ghost towns almost overnight, with empty downtown store fronts soon outnumbering occupied ones – a phenomenon that many of these towns STILL have not recovered from, even to this very day. Economic pundits said "No worries! New, clean technologies and computers will replace the smokestack industries, and all will be well in the United States."

And, at first, it seemed they might be right. High tech electronic and computer jobs exploded here in the 1980s and 1990s, and the economist mantra became “Re-train, and all will be well again.” This boom was enough of a diversion that few paid attention anymore to the bleeding away of manufacturing jobs, as more and more of them slipped away to countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and China.

Flash forward to today, and in a turn of events that almost no one seemed to predict, many of the relatively new electronics, computer manufacturing, computer programmer and technical support jobs that were supposed to be our workplace saviors, have ALSO started going overseas to India, Mexico and other places.

So here we are, barely two generations later, with our manufacturing base all but gone, and our high tech and even financial white collar analyst jobs hemorrhaging overseas at an alarming rate.

In the next decade or so, where will the U.S. grow future jobs? Well, about all that's left is the service, medical and agricultural sectors. And as our accumulated wealth eventually bleeds away overseas (bye-bye service jobs), and all the Baby Boomers die off (bye-bye healthcare jobs), soon there won't be many places left to work in the U.S. except the farm or tourism sectors -- hence the "giant Amish theme park" quip in my previous post.

In the past, new technologies seemed to emerge just in time to replace old ones, shifting the labor market into new places and generating new jobs to replace the old ones. My fear is that with so much expertise being lost or exported, the newest technology jobs won't emerge here anymore -- they'll emerge overseas. And if that happens, we'll go from a superpower to an also-ran in a generation or two.

Most Democrats don't get it, and neither do most Republicans -- NAFTA proved that. The only major political figure in recent memory that seemed to get it was Ross Perot, but he was way too quirky and eccentric to be able to build a broad base of support. Thus, while the Democrats and Republicans slap each other around and call each other liars, this country's future is slowly slipping away – in my humble opinion, of course.

But at least Lake Erie doesn't carch fire anymore -- and I mean that sincerely.

Jim In Iowa wrote:

[b]1.) We have absolute proof that Iraq had WMD's at least in the past. They used them on the Kurds. [/b]

Of course we do. Regan and Bush put Saddam into power and gave him all his weapon. All we needed to do was look on the list of stuff they sent him. And that's ONLY if we're talking post endless UN inspections and post endless bombings. Fact is we absolutely bombed the hell out of the place repeatedly, so if they ever had weapon before GWB, Barney and Fred had more credible ones by the time the GOP stole the election.

[b]It is true that we have not found "stockpiles" of WMD's, but we did find the components for WMD's. In fact, Saddam even admitted to having some WMD's in the past. We did not find huge stockpiles, but it is a gross mischaraterization to say we found no weapons at all in the last 12 years.[/b]

According to republicans almost anything could be a "component" for WMB. I'm surprised Powell didn't how up sand and go "Sand makes glass, glass can hold chemicals or plutonium. Obviously the among of sand in the area proved WMD's are somewhere." I've seen Lex Luthor frame Superman with less
crap.

[b]3.) According to experts, Iraq is roughly the size of California. A stockpile of WMD's can be as small as a 2 car garage. It is very easy to hide a 2 car garage in the state of California, especially if you kill anyone who knew about it (or do you not believe the stories of Saddam killing the builders of some of his palaces because they could reveal his secrets?).[/b]

So if you repeatedly bomb California for almost ten years and sent inspector after inspector there, you mean to say that they would have WMD's and still be a credible threat? So Iraq is made up of super people who take bombing after bombing and still be ready to fire those missles.

Dude, give me a break with this stuff.

And if the places were so secret, how come everyone knows about them? Strange kind of secret don't you think?

Charles K posted

" From Umar:
"That is not the only thing, but its a glaring example. So if you think Kerry is going to win on truth, forget about it. If truth mattered, Al Sharpton, who won every democratic debate, would be the candidate right now."

Yeaaaahhhh...he still hasn't come clean on the Tawana Bradley thing, has he?

Nothing to come clean about. The white men who raped her and was protected by the white society (courts, police, politicians, white people in general - no surprises there) are the ones who need to come clean. That's what cracks me up about this country. It refuses to come clean until generations laters then its like Brittany Spears "Oops, we did it again." "

And at least the man was fighting for a real cause, not livng under old money, getting drunk and dodging armed forces obligations. I'd rather Al, as dubious as he may or may not be, rather then the GOP who is bent on making sure everyone suffers except them.

"Yeaaaahhhh...he still hasn't come clean on the Tawana Bradley thing, has he?"

"Nothing to come clean about. The white men who raped her and was protected by the white society (courts, police, politicians, white people in general - no surprises there) are the ones who need to come clean."

Ok, so we totally don't need to take you seriously. If you are still trying to peddle that crap...try reading Unholy Alliances: Working the Tawana Brawley Story, unless you're afraid the truth might make your head explode.

A serious question Umar--are you serious about the stuff you write or is this a deliberate attempt to act like what conservatives think liberals are like?

Umar, Tawana Bradley has "come clean" on the Tawana Bradley thing! She admitted that she spent the night partying with friends, and made up the "kidnapped and raped" thing so that her mother wouldn't kill Tawana herself when she finally got home. She said she had some friends beat her up (and I know it's a cliche, but really, with friends like that, who does need enemies?) and scrawled the obscenities on herself.

Oh, yes, I forget myself - White Society is conspiring to force her to say those things! Didn't that come up at one of the White Society Planning Meetings a while back?

Yes, R.Maheras, Cleveland/Ohio has done a tremendous job of keeping Lake Erie fire free. It's one of the prime examples of environmental stewardship providing a positive economic boost.

I see a couple of points in your line of discussion that do lead us down the path of no regulation. Strict environmental regs. are only one factor of the high cost of production in the US, and your point about service jobs, which almost by definition don't include much overhead investment, points to an even bigger culprit: the high cost of US labor. I'm not going to knock any individual's choice of profession, and certainly any money you can get for performing your duties that the market will bear is what you deserve, but our labor market is seriously out of whack if we want to compete on a national scale for jobs. I work as an attorney occasionally, and my hourly billing rate is lower in some cases than a high-school/college student who's fortunate enough to secure a construction position, literally pushing a wheelbarrow around filled with dirt. I've worked as a laborer in the past, and I respect the effort and tole it takes on you, physically, but I see something wrong where a position that takes no less than 7 years post-high school eductaion makes less than a job you require about 30 seconds of training for. I don't know which is more, but environmental regulation costs are not the only thing driving CSR jobs over to India and wherever. Playing into that also is the fact that workers there don't demand getting paid $50 an hour for saying "May I help you."

And yes, that's an exaggerated amount.

So, we're faced with the prospect of cutting input costs somewhere. Our labor costs are so much higher than lots of other places in the world, that if we are unwilling to take lower pay for our work, that means cuts in other areas, like good environmental stewardship, will have to bear a bigger share of the cost reduction. Which could eventually lead us down into that rat hole of no regulation.

Now, after years and years of making do with older tech, those plants are closing down, and companies are chosing to build overseas where, yes, there are fewer regulations and they can continue to use out-dated tech for production. If we had implemented a technology forcing regulatory scheme decades ago, we'd have the capability to build production facilities that are efficient, clean, and affordable.

Umm.... I don't know if you really mean what you're saying here. You're saying that companies would rather shut down a perfectly fine factory here for no reason than the tech is old and move overseas to open build and open another factory using the same old tech.

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to upgrade the tech in the current factory than move EVERYTHING overseas and run everything with old tech again. The tax codes have allowed for deductions and depreciations for just such upgrades for years. Plus, most of the changes required by law are given grace times to have the upgrades done so the companies could spread the costs out over time. It would make no sense to move a factory over seas just because the tech is old, and just so you could keep youusing old tech that will probably be obsolete in a few years anyway.

Unfortunately, the largest cost for most employers is in personnel. Once you buy equipment, it's yours (plus you get to deductions for depreciation). Workers have to get paid every week. If employeers were to move overseas, they could buy the same older (and cheaper) equipment, and more than make up any costs by paying workers less.

R. Mhaeras wrote:
In the next decade or so, where will the U.S. grow future jobs? Well, about all that's left is the service, medical and agricultural sectors. And as our accumulated wealth eventually bleeds away overseas (bye-bye service jobs), and all the Baby Boomers die off (bye-bye healthcare jobs), soon there won't be many places left to work in the U.S. except the farm or tourism sectors

I don't think that it will get to be that bad. First, the agricultural sector is in more danger than the service or medical sectors. It's considered an undesirable job by most Americans, which is why immigrants are allowed to flout the border laws with no repercussions from Dems or GOP. But consider this, environmental laws and as more immigrants get the right to vote before they even become citizens, the agricultural industry will start to experience the same difficulties that drove manufacturing jobs overseas. Higher pay, job benefits, andinsurance will become issues in an industry where they've been exempt before.

Environmentalists and farmers are already doing battle over things like water rights, dams and animal waste disposal.

Unfortunately, the largest cost for most employers is in personnel. Once you buy equipment, it's yours (plus you get to deductions for depreciation). Workers have to get paid every week. If employeers were to move overseas, they could buy the same older (and cheaper) equipment, and more than make up any costs by paying workers less.

Then it would make no sense for them to buy older equipment if they're already saving money by paying people less and you admit it is the larger budget item.
Plus it gives them a competitive disadvantage to use older equipment and production methods compared to companies that use newer technologies. They're also going to have to pay to build the new factories and train the new people, add to that the cost of shipping and finding new suppliers who can ship overseas to them. Many of these costs will overlap.

On the other hand, consider this: A company upgrades it's technology, thus eliminating many of the jobs it once had due to automation. It doesn't have to pay as much healthcare, doesn't have as much union trouble or conflicts, it's complying with environmental regulations, fewer job benefits. You do the math.

And as more jobs are sent over seas, and the wages and standard of living in America plummets as a result, who will buy all this over-priced crap? Have you priced a car lately? Even a small house in the suburbs away from urban filth and crime? Cars cost what houses used to and houses are spiralling out of control while jobs that pay enough to buy them are vanishing and being replaced with low-wage no-benfit "Want fries with that?" or Wal-Mart "Smiling Lunatic" greeters...

Watch America destroy itself, it needs no help from "Communists" or "Terrorists", the business creeps are doing that job quite nicely. The bottom line this quarter is all that matters, forget the future! Bush doesn't care what his deficit is going to do to this country's future either...

Umar,

Go read the story I posted *twice* about what has been found in Iraq. Read the report that will come out soon from the inspector who took over for David Kay, as well as what David Kay actually said, not the two or three quotes the media focused on. We can debate whether invasion was the right response, but there is no serious debate that Saddam was still engaged in actions aimed at developing new weapons.

Jim in Iowa

Our labor costs are so much higher than lots of other places in the world, that if we are unwilling to take lower pay for our work, that means cuts in other areas, like good environmental stewardship, will have to bear a bigger share of the cost reduction. Which could eventually lead us down into that rat hole of no regulation.

One of the things America will have to face in the era of global free trade is that our standard of living will likely decrease. We cannot keep earning $25K per year for a manufacturing job if in India it only costs $10K. That's the biggest potential disaster I see coming to global trade. It's painful, probably necessary, and will come just when our Boomers are retiring and we need the income.

Can you say disaster boys and girls?

Back to the original point: CBS has admitted it made a mistake. More importantly, it is clear there was direct contact between CBS and the DNC. Where is the outrage?

Let's look at the recent facts. In August, the democrats accused Bush and the RNC of coordinating with the Swifties, or even worse, that the Swifties were just the RNC in disguise. There was no proof of this. There were a couple of connections (such as the lawyer who served both groups), but absolutely nothing different than the connections between the DNC and groups like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. It would be almost impossible to not have some overlap since these groups have the same goal.

Now to CBS and these memos. This time it is different. You have Burkett requiring that CBS connect him with the Democratic party before he turns over these memos -- and they do! Burkett actually talked to someone (Lockhart I believe, and perhaps Max Cleland) in the DNC. And they want us to believe they never talked about these memos? If this was Fox News connecting a Swift Boat Vet with the Bush campaign, the outcry would not be buried in a story. It would be headlines. Instead of the polite speculation on whether Rather will resign over this, there would be an avalanche of demand that Brit Hume (or whatever Fox News reporter plays the role of Rather in this hypothetical example) be fired immediately.

You still don't believe there is a double standard? Consider this. In August, the Swift Boat Vets made their attack. What did Bush do? He PRAISED Kerry for his service. Not once did Bush join in or give any credence to the allegations. While he did not specifically tell the Swift Boat Vets to end their ad (which technically would be against current election laws), he did call for an end to all 527 ads.

When this memo was released on CBS, what happened? You had the DNC at the same time once again pressing the issue about Bush and the National Guard. You have Kerry on record questioning Bush's service in the Guard.

Forgive me if I see a strong media bias. Forgive me if I see Dan Rather at best the willing stooge for the Democrats. Forgive me if I see the Democrats as a bunch of hypocrites doing the very thing they accuse the Republicans of doing.

CBS is not "Created by Sauaron." CBS is "Crushed beyond solution."

Jim in Iowa

This is just my opinion, but I think Brit Hume could claim to have a film of Kerry eating babies and would still keep his job at Fox.

This is after all the network that has allowed Sean Hannity to repeatedly call Bill Clinton a rapist.

Den W. wrote: "This is after all the network that has allowed Sean Hannity to repeatedly call Bill Clinton a rapist."

I never heard that before. When and where did Sean say this? On TV or on the radio? I don't have cable, and don't listen regularly to his radio show.

Jim in Iowa

Den W.,

For the record, I would be calling for Brit Hume to resign if he alleged what you suggested. Or Rush Limbaugh. Or Sean Hannity. I would need the context of what Sean said to talk about the specifics of that case.

Of course, Bush has been (wrongly) accused of being a baby killer, so guess that has actually already happened.

Jim in Iowa

Sean Hannity has repeatedly spread an allegation on both his TV show and his radio show that Bill Clinton allegedly raped a woman while governor of Arkansas.

I'm glad to hear you would call for Brit Hume's resignation if he aired such an allegation, but, my point is, you are using an assumption that because Fox News shares your political ideology, that somehow means they operate on a higher ethical plane than the (admittedly) liberal CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. I don't see anything to support that assumption. In fact, looking at the history Rupert Murdoch's entire News Corporation (TV channels and tabloid newspapers) the word "ethical" hardly jumps out at me.

Then again, it doesn't jump out at me for Rather either. Personally, I've been waiting years for the man who stabbed Cronkite in the back to have his final implosion. Slate.com has a great article today on his many vacations from reality.

As for Bush being called a baby-killer, that's wrong and I condemn it. On the other hand, there's a guy in my town with on sign on his front lawn that reads "John Kerry's America" and a giant photo of an aborted fetus.

Big difference between Hannity, Limbaugh and Rather. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are commentators. They make no secrets about where on the political fence they are. Dan Rather, on the other hand, is supposed to be a journalist and an objective reporter. And, as the managing editor of CBS News, he really should know better than to rush a story to air before having all of the facts checked. If CBS had been investigating this story for 5+ years, a couple more days wouldn't have made a difference.

I'd love to see Hannity get sued for slander and try to convince a judge, "But I'm a commentator! I have a right to scurrilous charges because I don't hide my bias." See how far he gets with that.

Ya know, I dunno when this 'commentators' defense started making the rounds but I don't see how you can claim that someone who states that something is a fact - which is verifiably wrong - can simply claim they were only editorializing. How many times in a show does O'Reilly say "here's a story..." and go on to relate something as if it's true.

Maybe it always is. I dunno. But the point is that in the cases of O'R and Hannity they appear on channels with NEWS in the title and read items before they comment on them. I find it hard to stomach writing them a pass for relating things without verifiable citation which may or may not be true simply because they are "commentators."

Clinton won't sue and Hannity would love it if he did. For Clinton to sue Hannity he'd have to answer the charge of raping Juanita Brodderick, Even if you take the tack that Clinton doesn't have to prove he didn't rape Ms. Brodderick, the charge alone would raise doubts. After all, Clinton himself admits that he's a sex addict, he admits to lying about Paula Jones, and Monica Lewisinsky, there are the stories about him and the state troopers, and Kathleen Willey.

"Sean Hannity has repeatedly spread an allegation on both his TV show and his radio show that Bill Clinton allegedly raped a woman while governor of Arkansas."

"I'd love to see Hannity get sued for slander and try to convince a judge, "But I'm a commentator! I have a right to scurrilous charges because I don't hide my bias." See how far he gets with that."

Sadly, that old first amendment will probably forever keep your dreams from becoming reality.

You see, Clinton HAS been accused of rapeing Juanita Broderick. You may believe the allegation. You may not believe the allegation. based on that belief you may be willing to call Clinton a rapist or Broderick a liar.

I supose it MIGHT be possible to sue Hannity if he doesn't say "alleged rapist" (which I guess is why newscaseters often say that, even when they have just shown video of the guy doing the "alleged" act). Of course, Clinton would have to prove both that he did NOT in fact rape her and that Hannity new it and was lying to make a profit. I'm not sure that he would succeed at any of those efforts.

And if hannity lost, how long before they come after Josh Marshell, Eric Alterman, and other commentators whose views might be closer to your own?

Den W. wrote: "I'm glad to hear you would call for Brit Hume's resignation if he aired such an allegation, but, my point is, you are using an assumption that because Fox News shares your political ideology, that somehow means they operate on a higher ethical plane than the (admittedly) liberal CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. I don't see anything to support that assumption. In fact, looking at the history Rupert Murdoch's entire News Corporation (TV channels and tabloid newspapers) the word "ethical" hardly jumps out at me."

You are making a false assumption. I do not believe Fox operates on a higher ethical plane. My point was that "if" Fox had done this instead of Rather and CBS, the majority of the media would be much more loud and direct in their criticism.

Your example of Sean Hannity is also comparing apples to oranges. If Rather had merely repeated (again) that Bush skipped his physical, etc., that would be repeating a prior allegation (which is what Hannity is doing). To put it differently, Sean has never brought out a video tape that he claimed showed the actual rape, only to have the tape be soundly rejected as a fraud. That is what Rather has done.

My point is not that Fox is more ethical than CBS, my point is that a lot of the media has a more liberal bias to start with, so they filter these stories through those glasses. I know some are upset with Rather, but the outcry is far less than it should be, especially with the revelation that CBS was in direct contact with the Kerry campaign. Sean Hannity never did anything like what CBS and 60 Minutes Wednesday have done.

Jim in Iowa

And if hannity lost, how long before they come after Josh Marshell, Eric Alterman, and other commentators whose views might be closer to your own?

What makes you think those commentators views are closer to my own? Didn't your mother tell you what happens when you 'assume?'

As for Hannity, you're probably right. He has kept himself insulated from slander charges by making sure his statements are all along the lines of "she accuses him of raping her."

My point, though, is not that he should be sued, only that just because someone is open about their bias doesn't give them a pass to make whatever allegations they want.

Rather is a scumbag. I've been saying that for years and I certainly won't defend him now.

"What makes you think those commentators views are closer to my own? Didn't your mother tell you what happens when you 'assume?'"

Well,yeah, that's why I said their views MIGHT be closer to your own. Insufficiant ass covering on my part?

And I remember what my grandpappy said about making assumptions--you make an ass of you and...umptions. He was old.

eclark 1849

"On the other hand, consider this: A company upgrades it's technology, thus eliminating many of the jobs it once had due to automation. It doesn't have to pay as much healthcare, doesn't have as much union trouble or conflicts, it's complying with environmental regulations, fewer job benefits. You do the math."

I have done the math. I get the same results. However, some CEOs and executive board do the same math, and come up with "move the damn plant." Lots of factors go into it, and as I and others have stated, cost of labor is a biggie.

Those factories that get closed? They aren't just old...they're outdated, ancient in technological terms. It's actually cheaper to turn them into parking lots (assuning you don't have to clean up any groundwater/soil contamination) than it is to update them. Updating isn't just installing some new do-hicky thingamabob...it has to be integrated into your existing equipment, your staff has to be trained, it has to be tested, etc. etc. Faced with all that, when it comes time to decide "upgrade" or "replace," a lot of CEO's go with replace. If you're going to be forking over millions of dollars in capital investment, which is easier to sell? A grimy, old building with new machines, or a whole spanking new, gleaming, state of the art complex (which, obytheway, will save us it's investment cost in labor and benes in 3 years since we're building it in Mexico where we can buy labor for the cost of a SHOE).

That math is hard to argue with. We do have a crisis coming, and the only way to avoid it is to change our thoughts on what a decent wage is for a decent job. I saw someone mention $25K for a manufacturing job. That's what you can make at McDonalds..about $6 an hour. I'd put an entry level union job at say an auto plant at $75K. Heck, I heard that apprentice butcher's make $60K a year.

I'm not knocking anyone in those professions, since if they can get that wage, more power to 'em. But it makes me wonder how much longer our markets will continue to bear those high wages.

I saw someone mention $25K for a manufacturing job. That's what you can make at McDonalds..about $6 an hour.

You need to check your math. $25K/ yr would be $12/hr, not $6. And with the exception of management jobs, McDonald's jobs is not meant to support a family on. People who are trying to do so are looking in the wrong place for a solution.

It seems to me that most people who keep saying that wages are too low, didn't pay attention in Business 101. If wages go up, the price of goods have to go up also in order to pay for the wage increase. Well, if the price of goods go up, then your wage increase becomes meaningless. It's a vicious circle.

And if the price of goods goes up and your job is shipped to India, what then?

25,000/52=480.77.
480.77/80 oooo, I see my error. I figured an 80 hour work week. My bad. McD's isn't holding law firm hours...yet. And even though I failed my math, I'll stick by my claim that most manufacturing/union jobs pay way more than $12 an hour.

If the input cost of a good goes up, the market price won't go up if the demand isn't there to support the higher price. The good just won't get made, OR production will shift to a location where input costs allow for a positive profit margin. See, I really WAS paying attention in econ 101 =)

If the market were just composed of the US, there'd be no worries, as wages would/should increase on pace with costs. The problem is that the market for labor isn't always local any more, and If BigAutoCompanyZ sees a $100 million price tag for that new plant in Cleveland, tied to an equal $100 million annual labor cost to run that plant, and can build the same plant in Mexico for $1 million, and $500K in annual labor costs, BACZ CEO is going to start reading "Spanish for Dummies" and learn what "villa" really means.

And if the price of goods goes up and your job is shipped to India, what then?

Then you find another job.

Den W. "And if the price of goods goes up and your job is shipped to India, what then?"

Eclark 1849 "Then you find another job."

I just have to ask, when was the last time you lost a job and had to replace it? And how many jobs did you find were open to you that were close to your old salary level? I'll give you my experience (after a good, cushy State job was phased out to make room to pay back a political debt). It took me over 2 years before I found more than intermittant contractor work. I didn't starve, but I wasn't exactly making progress toward security, owning a home, replacing my (at the time) 10 year old vehicle. And when I did find a job, it was at a lower pay scale (granted, I got some nice raises in quick succession to make up for it).

I consider myself fortunate. I have friends who lost 6 figure jobs who were forced to take 50% or more pay cuts. And I'm not even in an industry where we're losing jobs overseas (one good thing about being a lawyer, you have to be physically present to do a good portion of your job).

I think, Eclark, you're getting fixated on the short term, and not seeing the long term. For any given individual, losing a job isn't all that big a deal. But take that and expand it to a whole industrial sector, or a town, or a state, and you're going to have a growing pool of labor that can't find a replacement job within their field. These folks are going to be forced into career changes. And let's face it, are we really generating a net increase of jobs? The metrics we use (new unemployment claims) really doesn't tell me anything. For one thing, what's "new?" Never filed a claim before? That doesn't count folks who are forced to take short term jobs to get by, and end up filing once or twice a year. It doesn't tell me how many people who filed last month are still unemployed.

And when the President or the Dept. of Labor announces "400,000 new jobs created last month," it tells me nothing about the quality of those jobs, or compare them to the jobs we lost.

My impression is that there are fewer quality (as in, support your family, make a career out of it work) being created than there are being lost. So that pool of people forced to take 2 or 3 McDonalds level jobs keep growing. Which makes it much harder, when you job packs up and moves to India, to just go out and get another job. It might be more accurate to say "move back in with your parents to save rent, and put in your Ap at Borders, plus pick up hours at the GAP. Oh, and what's the employee discount at Best Buy these days?"

Then you find another job.

And once all of the jobs in your field have been sent to India what?

Get a blue vest and learn how to say, "Welcome to Wal-Mart" without wanting to slash your wrists?

Gotta love the title of Sean Hannity's book:

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism

Just makes you scream "fair and balanced", doesn't it? :)

As for job losses, well, the facts seem to show that the jobs currently being added are of lower pay and have lesser benefits than those jobs lost over the last few years.

So if you think losing 1 million jobs that pay $15/hour that are eventually replaced by 750,000 jobs that pay $10/hour is a good thing... well, I can't help you there.

Hello everyone. Sorry I've missed this vibrant debate this week, especially since PAD saw fit to include me in his into to this topic I can die happy now, even if he was asking why you weren't throwing the Dan Rather affair in my face:)
Anyway, I am afraid PAD is no longer correct.
As of last Thursday, I am no longer a working reporter.
As of last Thursday, I am now a working editor!
Not just AN editor, either. THE editor, of an entire paper, in the Scranton area.
I'm on Cloud 9 , which has helped me put in over 80 hours this week while I get caught up, learn a bit about my added responsibilities and break in a new writer to take my position.

"I guess it must be a hard blow to those of you questioning Kerry's service that the Navy came out and said his medals were awarded properly."

If questions were truly answered... then why was a blow hard?

Congratulations Jerome!

I have some faxed emails from 1972 you may be interested in. Never too early to score that big scoop.

You know, I lived in Scranton a few lifetimes ago. Sadly, what I remember most was the gigantic car graveyard. Seriously, there were like 120,000 wrecked cars sitting in the woods, like they'd filmed the last 20 minutes of The Blues Brothers there.

Anyway, the people there were nice. Again, congrats. Do you make them call you "Chief"? Could you say stuff like "Great Caesar's Ghost!"? Do you walk around in a worn fedora? I'd do all those things which goes a long way toward explaining why no sane person would ever put me in a position of responsibility.

Bill,
Thanks for the congrats, and also:
1.) Thanks for the offer of the faxed e-mails. But I think I'll pass for now. Word from the (former) Reagan Democrats in this area is that Bush A.) has had Osama Bin Laden on ice somewhere since Sept. 12, 2004 and is waiting to unveil him in October to guarantee the election and B.) will also "suddenly find" the WMD, which they tell me the CIA has planted. Now THOSE are stories:)

2.)We're doing a bit better on the parked cars thse days, but I remember what you are speaking of:)

3.)I was just laughing with somebody the other day about "Don't call me Chief!" and "Great Caesar's Ghost!". Which is either really funny or really scary:)

Don't have the fedora yet, but the fact that I am considering it...and have done the others...what were you saying about "No sane person would ever put me in a position of responsibility"? Guess you have to move to Scranton, then:)

Thanks again for the kind words!!

Unless Rather signs off each night with "vote for Bush", he's going to be accused of a liberal bias.