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
• 
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 hëll 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
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 hëll 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 hëll 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 dámņ 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 áhøld 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 hëll 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 áššëš 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:
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.