For some bizarre reason, my conservative friends (and I use the term insincerely) on this board keep pestering me to comment about the whole CBS thing with Bush’s time protecting the skies over Oklahoma while Kerry was, y’know, apparently the one soldier in the entirety of Vietnam not being shot at. Politicians and supporters who swallow whole anything the Swifties say are suddenly demanding hearings because of the CBS reports. And people are throwing it in MY face like I’m the head of the Dan Rather fan club. Why they’re not throwing it in, say, Jerome’s face, since he’s a working reporter and–if it’s false–then it’s a commentary on the lack of quality of the Fourth Estate, leaves me mystified (and I again use the term insincerely.)
I didn’t comment on the story when it was released because, frankly, it didn’t interest me all that much. The debate barely interested me four years ago, and it certainly doesn’t now. Bottom line is that all the masterminds currently waging war in Iraq have never been under enemy fire themselves, period. So it’s of little relevance to me HOW they avoided it. They used all the powers at their family’s command to avoid enemy fire, period. And John Kerry didn’t do that, again period. So the basis of the argument is hazy to me at best.
Furthermore, truth to tell, I learned back in Journalism 101 that if a piece of information seems too good to be true, it usually is. So at best, I was leery of it. I still am. And if it turns out CBS was suckered, they should admit they made a mistake. If nothing else, it will put them several points ahead of the President, who lacks that capacity.
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.
PAD
• 
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 fûçkìņg 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
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?
“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 áššëš 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 áššhølëš, 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, bûllšhìŧ. 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 ášš 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, hëll, 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. Hëll, 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, dámņ 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 hëll-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 fûçkìņg this up. 🙂
You dámņ 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
Questions by Rick Keating:
“Do we KNOW for certain that they
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
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, bûllšhìŧ. 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
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
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.