Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 1, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

RATHERGATE....President Bush and his team regale Bill Sammon with some comments about Rathergate for his new book, Strategery:

It looks like somebody conspired to float false documents, the president tells author Bill Sammon. And I was amazed about it. I just couldnt believe that would be happening [and] then it would become the basis of a fairly substantial series of news stories.

....The episode, known as Memogate, inoculated Bush against further scrutiny of his National Guard record for the duration of the presidential campaign.

It also, frankly, gave us an opportunity, frequently, when things came out in the media that we didnt believe or didnt like, to say, Its another CBS story, said Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who was the presidents campaign manager. I mean, it gave us a serious response to bad news.

Those memos were fakes, and Dan Rather and Mary Mapes deserved every bit of criticism they got for choosing to air them on 60 Minutes. But I swear, comments like Bush's and Mehlman's are enough to half convince me that Bill Burkett's supposed source for the memos, "Lucy Ramirez," really was an RNC plant a longshot dirty trick that succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It was like manna from heaven in the waning days of the closest reelection campaign in the past century.

POSTSCRIPT: Just for the record, though, I don't think it was an RNC dirty trick. I think the evidence points pretty strongly toward Burkett himself as the creator of the memos. However, I doubt we'll ever know the truth for sure.

Kevin Drum 1:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (314)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Well, I do think it was a long-shot dirty trick because of the instantaneous response of the Republicans harping specifically on the esoteric topic of the fonts. They were on to it within minutes, obviously knew exactly what to look for ahead of time.

Posted by: cld on March 1, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

Speaking of odd coincidences, though, is it not extraordinary how this death mask of James Dean resembles Brad Pitt?

http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/C0770/jamesdean.jpg

Posted by: cld on March 1, 2006 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

geez, kevin... what would it take to convence you that this was an RNC dirty trick?

Do you really think that these forged documents just happpened to show up at exactly the right time to help the bush campaign and that they had nothing to do with it?

Wow... you are nieve...

Posted by: winterbear on March 1, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, I noticed the proportional spacing and Roman font on the memos when I first saw an image of them and thought it odd. It didn't surprise me that others did likewise.

That's not to say it wasn't a plant, but I don't find the rapid response itself suspicious.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Hilarious.

The left is still not willing to admit that it's own true believers were the ones who shot the left in the foot on this one.

I must say, however, the way this worked out, it ended up being the funniest political dirty trick since "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa".

Posted by: Michael Friedman on March 1, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Bush was under pressure on two fronts. WMDs in Iraq and his National Guard record.

Within weeks of the 2004 presidential election, forged documents abouts Bush's National Guard service appear. The documents would be detrimental to Bush IF were they authentic but becuase they were revealed as forgeries, it serves to exonerate Bush of his lackluster National Guard committment and illustrate how nefarious evil-doers are out to get him. See? THEY are trying to victimize the president! Bush's National Guard record is no longer an issue.

The timing of these documents was perfect for rat fuc%ing. Rove is the campaign director. Take note of well documented Rove tactics in prior eletions: Like the whisper campaign against McCain in South Carolina (emotionaly unstable, fathered an ilegitimate black child) and when Rove's office was allegedly bugged within a week of his candidates election.

Read the book on Rove's dirty campaign tricks and tell me you don't think he was involved in this.

Posted by: Neil on March 1, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, pls stop flipflopping. Make your mind up.
Why are you first "half convinced" and then "don't think" it? Backpedalling? Don't wanna hurt the freepers? Ridiculous! You should have said it could have been anybody, including repubs, and stayed by this view.

All in all, I think, instead of concentrating on Rathergate you should have wrote something about Bush's statement that ObL won the 2004 elections for him. OK, nobody cares about those mindvoggling rightwing accussations that ObL is in bed with the Dems any more, I see...

Posted by: Gray on March 1, 2006 at 2:43 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, why do you believe that the memos were fake?

Have you read Mary Mapes' book? Have you seen her interviewed on C-Span?

I've read everything, by every alleged web authority on typeface (3 of whom I know irl to be major bullshit artists but whom were widely quoted by other anonymous pundits around here as experts), and there is nothing definitive at all that they were fake.

I think Mapes nailed it, and if you haven't read her book and/or seen her interviewed, shame on you for furthering a fraud on her.

Posted by: Jamie on March 1, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Kevin Drum is at all bothered with how memogate could just as easily turned out with a completely opposite result.

The election of 2004 was somewhat close. Even if Bush had still won the popular vote by a margin of millions, Bush could still have lost the electoral votes of Ohio with a swing of only 100,000 votes and lost the national election.

So what if instead of being exposed for the fraud and fakery that they were, the phony Bush National Guard memos were accepted by the public as CBS had presented them, as if they were true? Sure the fraud may have been exposed eventually by the more conventional (nonblog) means months if not years after the election. But the results of the election could have been swayed because of these fake documents. The will of the a majority of the voters could have been denied because of this political dirty trick, which CBS news witlessly aided to the bitter end.

It's true Bush would have been turned out of office because of this dirty trick, and of course all the anti-Bush people would have been happy with that. But would that result have been worth the cost? The cost to American democracy? The cost to the reputation (at least what's still left of it) and honor of the Democratic Party?

Even if you are a believer of the absurd stolen election conspiricy theory mongering swirling about the 2000 election, is benefitting from a noxious scheme really how you want to win? The answer to that question will be telling.

Posted by: Brad on March 1, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

You know, it may have started out as Bill Burkett's baby, but Rove's specialty is jumping on things already in motion and turning them around -- he's the Tai Chi master of dirty tricks, after all.

Obviously, Rove's army knew Dubya's full record (or lack thereof) and were thus able to instantly parse anything thrown at them, so why's it such a long shot that they gave us this spin. The only risk to them was that the media might not instantly play along, and how big a gamble was that?

Posted by: Kenji on March 1, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINK

It's funny that people have forgotten that Bush did blow off his National Guard obligation and that he was grounded for failing to take his annual physical. The disputed memos actually added little that wasn't already known about George's dissolute youth.

No one disputes that the Texas souffl chose to relocate to Alabama to do half-assed work on an unsucessful political campaign instead of doing the Guard duty that kept him out of war.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, despite other people using the word R*th*rg*t*, there is no reason for any thinking person to use it.

The original "-gate" was Watergate, named for an office building in which the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee was located. Employees of the Committee to Re-elect the President were caught breaking into the headquarters, and ultimately, Richard Nixon and many many senior staff and cabinet members were involved either in the original crime or its coverup.

The essence of Watergate was criminal conspiracy.

Every proper "-gate" is a criminal conspiracy.

Whatever Dan Rather did shortly before the election of 2000, it was neither criminal nor conspiracy. It was either gullibility or stupidity, or (some may believe, but I don't) being right all along. But it was not a scandal. An error is an error, not a conspiracy and not a scandal.

there is no such thing as R*th*rg*t* and we should never, ever use that word. Using that word debases the very concept of a -gate scandal.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 1, 2006 at 4:40 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I meant election of 2004, of course.

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 1, 2006 at 5:07 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'm a little curious, because I see in your response to this one something that I've noticed in a lot of folks, including me.

Now, it's a bad thing to presume that someone is lying, or that someone is the likely perpetrator of a scam. This should be our assumption only after a great deal of evidence of bad intention and of willingness to act on bad intention. So...let's look at the record.

You agree that the administration lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and about Saddam Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda, and they backed those lies up with an elaborate sham exposition presented internationally. You agree that the administration lied about the costs and benefits of its drug program, and they backed those lies up with an elaborate sham exposition presented nationally. You agree that the administration lied about its data mining operations, and they backed up those lies in presidential speeches and in assurances to Congress. You agree that the party is backing the use of the most insecure voting option available, and protecting it from serious examination of its flaws. You agree that the budget rests on a passel of lies and concealed consequences. You agree that the administration blew the cover of an agent working on serious matters, for purely partisan purposes. The list goes on and on.

Surely at some point we can say "they are liars, and when there's fraud going on, we should look to them for proof they're not involved." Can you point to any major undertaking of theirs done honestly, competently, and successfully, all three at once? They lie and manipulate every step of the way.

It looks to me like you've got a lingering fear of being thought a conspiracy-mongering nut for saying something like "yes, they probably did set up one of the networks so as to provide cover for related revelations that'd otherwise be a problem". But when you see it spelled out that way, is it really at all implausible when it's this crew we're talking about? At all?

Posted by: Bruce Baugh on March 1, 2006 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

Every damn claim made in those documents has turned out to be factual, and well known. The basic story IS true, and Remains true, despite the massive coverup of it, in which the media has been more than complicit. Bush shirked his duty in the Guard, and was missing more than a full year of required drills. We knew this in 2000, the media yawned and went back to attacking Gore. The only fraud in Bush's still excised and well hidden military records was his 'honorable discharge'. The only issue with Bill Burkett was who fed him the documents and why. It sounds suspiciously like the exact same deal that went down for Jim Hatfield the author of the 2000 campaign bio 'Fortunate son' that was notoriously withdrawn because the author had a single minor drug conviction. This was before we knew that between them Dick Cheney and Bush has 5 or 6 arrests for DUI. I mean when are you going to wake up and smell the deception here Kevin? This was one of their most successful propaganda efforts. Besides the war, the WMD, the Swiftboating of Kerry, the Medicare lies, the budget lies... We could go on. See a pattern here at all? These guys make Nixon look positively moral by comparison. You know this too. VJ

Posted by: VJ on March 1, 2006 at 5:59 AM | PERMALINK

"So what if instead of being exposed for the fraud and fakery that they were, the phony Bush National Guard memos were accepted by the public as CBS had presented them, as if they were true?"

Well, they WERE true, just apparently not authentic.

If we showed you a forged compy of the Gettysburg Address, you'd argue that it proved Lincoln was never in Pennsylvania.

You guys loved to have the issue be the font size in the memos, rather than what Bush did in the National Guard.

We've all become familiar with right wingnut diversionary tactics--look at every comment thread on this site.

Posted by: rea on March 1, 2006 at 7:03 AM | PERMALINK

What if, before the 2004 election, the Senate Intelligence Committee had done its job and revealed that Bush and Cheney did in fact manipulate the intelligence to justify invading Iraq? While we quibble about fonts on a memo designed to prove something about Bush's effort to keep himself out of Viet Nam, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Republicans conspired to conceal the record of how Bush wrecked the country in Iraq! That was the real crime committed in the 2004 election. Not Rathergate. How about IRONYgate? A few staffers at CBS lose their jobs while the wrecking crew at the White House escapes accountability and continue to lull the country into believing that the Republicans are stonger on national security. When will someone expose this lie? Don't expect the Republicans to look in the mirror themselves.

Posted by: lou on March 1, 2006 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

Just for the record, it is also useful to point out that the broad substance of the memos is true and not in dispute.

Posted by: bob h on March 1, 2006 at 7:15 AM | PERMALINK

You gotta remember - Sammons is a shill for Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times and wrote a hatchet job, masquerading as a book, that made all kinds of specious allegations against Al Gore before the 2000 election. Sammons would gladly get down and lick up Bush's shit off the floor, if asked to do so.

The fact remains - Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972, after they began requiring drug tests. Bush was so full of cocaine, he was peeing white flakes instead of urine. Bush was also arrested for possesion of tootski in Houston that same year, but that little incident was conveniently expunged from his record by a corrupt sheriff.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 1, 2006 at 7:38 AM | PERMALINK

I think the evidence points pretty strongly toward Burkett himself as the creator of the memos.

Kevin

What evidence? Do you mean evidence in the legal sense? Like testimony, physical evidence? Or do you mean supposition that you find more comforting than the supposition that it was a Republican scam?

The immediate and apparently coordinated counter-attack by the Republicans raises suspicions. And didn't CBS give copies of the documents to the White House for comment? What did the White House say?

I don't know whether those documents are fake or not. I don't think anyone has proved that they are. But, CBS had to know that they needed to prove, beyond any doubt, that they were genuine if they were going to go against the right wing media machine.

Posted by: James E. Powell on March 1, 2006 at 7:39 AM | PERMALINK

I meant to add to the previous comment. The most grievous error by CBS was going after a dead story, a stupid, snarky story, when there were plenty of real good, real important stories right in front of them. Why dig into thirty year old chicanery when high crimes are going on right now?

It was the same mentality that led the whole of the corporate press/media to treat Clinton the way they did. Why talk about policies and the welfare of the people and the nation when you can get something sexy or "scandalous" on the air? We'd all be well-served if everyone connected with the mass media were fired, the organizations dismantled and new institutions were allowed to emerge. As long as we get our "news" from large corporations that depend on consumer advertising for their income, we are going to get one load of shit after another.

Posted by: James E. Powell on March 1, 2006 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

You neglect to mention that, even if the memos were not originals, the details of aWol's "service" stated therein were true.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on March 1, 2006 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

Lost in all this is the fact Bush was surely AWOL and evaded Vietnam service through manipulations by his father and his father's friends. Again we fall into the misdirection of Rove and call attention to the wrong target in this controversy. Forget the damn memos and hammer the point Bush climbed over the wall!

Posted by: steve duncan on March 1, 2006 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Given this crowd's track record, I'd lay odds it was a dirty trick by them, as cockamamy as it sounds.

But it doesn't matter and the dirty trick didn't matter. It just gave the media an excuse to ignore serious questions about the preznit's AWOL episode.

When asked about the forgeries, the secretary said they didn't look right, but the contents were pretty much correct. That was a story that was assiduously ignored. A presidential election was going! That's serious. And here the media makes every effort to be distracted by this nonsense. America deserves this media and this preznit. I just wish I wasn't American anymore.

Posted by: jussumbody on March 1, 2006 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you, Mr. Rubinstein.

Posted by: S Ra on March 1, 2006 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

I am afraid that I am unaware of the evidence that the memos were fade. I am aware of the allegations that they the memos were fake. I also heard an interview with Mary Maples in which she stressed that the memos were not fade.

Kevin can you point me to the evidence on which you based your opinion?

Posted by: Mark on March 1, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you did a great job of investigating the Bush TANG story and I read the material not knowing if there would be a smoking gun. There wasn't. You were right, whatever your wishes and suspicions were.

Mary Mapes and Rather wanted it to be true just like so many of your commenters do. They are willing to ignore the facts that pointed the other way. One is that by 1972 we were pulling out of Vietnam and experienced pilots were coming back. They were taking those flying billets and low hour pilots were expendable.

The willingness of the left to believe all those conspiracy theories helps to keep it marginalized.

Bill Sammon has left the Washington Times. I've got to read his book.

Posted by: Mike K on March 1, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

When Kevin looks into his closet in the mornings, it must be a tough decision.

Should I dress casual and be a small d demo today, or should I wear the Brooksie look with wingtips and be a Repub - However, that burnoose is all cleaned and pressed.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 1, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, we KNOW the truth. Little bush skipped out on his National Guard duties and his Daddy got him out of it. No amount of misleading CBS News changes that.

Posted by: Brenda Helverson on March 1, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if they were forgeries or not (and there is proof that they were, despite your assertions, Kevin), but I do know that their content was true. I'm fascinated by Brad's assertion above that the American people would have been more misled by believing the (alleged) forgeries than they were by Bush himself.

I do know one thing: There is less evidence that Bush won the election than there is that Bush blew off his military obligations.

Posted by: Avedon on March 1, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Avedon is right. Whether they were forgeries or not, the same person who "confirmed" that they were forgeries ALSO confirmed that the substance of the "forgeries" was accurate.

Posted by: The Fool on March 1, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

I think what's interesting about this - and while I love everyone who tries to beat this dead horse to prove the docs were real(ish, even) and Bush was a Bad Man, this document story is really so DOA - is that Bush, who is in a position to clearly explain his history with the National Guard and the substance of the questions of his missing time and his failure to report, doesn't actually explain anything. To the extent that he cares about the documents being false, he seems to talk about as if it has to do with someone else entirely. I don't think that means it's a dirty trick, but I do think it means that the reason we'll never find out what happened is because the person in a position to provide clarity will never speak frankly and openly about what occurred.

And that, I think, has been the argument against him all along.

Posted by: weboy on March 1, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

No one has ever explained this to my satisfaction:

The episode, known as Memogate, inoculated Bush against further scrutiny of his National Guard record for the duration of the presidential campaign.

So what if the memo's were "forgeries"? That shouldn't have inoculated shrub from further scrutiny of his NG "service record".

Posted by: bobbyk on March 1, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if we're never going to know 'the truth', we can believe what we like.

Unlike Herbert Hoover, Bush has no accomplishments or underlying character to redeem him in the eyes of history.

They built statues for Saddam, too.

Posted by: serial catowner on March 1, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

so what if the memo's were "forgeries"? That shouldn't have inoculated shrub from further scrutiny of his NG "service record".

His service record was clean. He served honorably and was discharged honorably which is more than 99% of these commentors did.

He was inoculated because the MSM knew they stepped so far over the line any attempt to cover this gargage as factual would only get them the same acclaim Dan has received. Dan's fame will outlast Walter Chonkrite and Edward R. Murrow because of what he's done. The other members of the MSM consider him radioactive. He is radioactive. This forgery was one step above a crayon copy.

It's made history on several levels. Dan Rather might eventually be known as the father of blogs. If this is a news form that will last, and I think it will outlast network TV, Dan will always be famous. If Presidential politics and campaigns last as an area of study Dan Rather will ramain famous for pulling the dumbest dirty trick of all time.

If journalism remains as an area of study Dan Rather will be a case study in how not to conduct an investigation AND in how not to react when caught with your pants down.

If MSM bias remains as a subject matter and it will for a while longer Dan Rather will always be exhibit A. He will always be more famous for his stupidity but his egregious bais it there for all to see as well.

The great irony here is that while he's been so biased against the GOP for so long he's become a beloved figure among conservatives. He's the perfect dupe. He'll always be the last to know.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Sometimes you just get lucky. Sometimes your opponents, like Rather/Mapes/Burkett are THAT stupid. Sometimes the sun just shines on you.

Posted by: peanut on March 1, 2006 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Well, if we're never going to know 'the truth', we can believe what we like.

We do know the truth as it matters. No matter where Dan Rather got the forgeries he was a pathetic dupe. They were comically inept forgeries and he still fell for them.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Unlike Herbert Hoover, Bush has no accomplishments or underlying character to redeem him in the eyes of history.

The spread of democracy and womens rights in Afghanistan and Iraq will help. There's no Monica so he won't be as famous as Slick Willie but he'll be fine.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

"If journalism remains as an area of study Dan Rather will be a case study in how not to conduct an investigation AND in how not to react when caught with your pants down."

But rdw - imagine if Rather-dumb had not been caught. Imagine if the memos had been forged with more intelligence and skill. In that case, this would have seemed like a real story, and it very well could have tipped the balance. Kerry would have been president.

Dan Rather is a leftie political hack. Always has been, always will be. He would have used his "tenured" and mostly unaccountable (he has still not been fired) position as the voice of CBS news - and the successor of Cronkite - to shill for his political friends for decades. And the same goes on at all the other networks (except one).

Posted by: news on March 1, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

There is less evidence that Bush won the election than there is that Bush blew off his military obligations.

We know GWB won the election. Go back and watch the STOU. That's him giving it.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I Googled "Kevin + Drum + conspiracy + theory" - 429,000 hits.

Posted by: BigRiver on March 1, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

you're wrong, kevin. it was a dirty trick that succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

bush walked away from his service commitment and the records that would document that fact were scrubbed by dan bartlett and joseph albaugh.

Posted by: linda on March 1, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

There you go again. No, actually, we do not know that the memos were fakes. We do know that CBS couldn't authenticate them. And those of us who actually know typography will tell you that the original premise used to challenge the memos -- that they used Times Roman (they did not) or that they must have been created on a computer (highly unlikely, given the baseline variations of the individual letters) were false.

Yes, it seems to be accepted "fact" now that those memos were fakes, but that's just not the case. Bill Clinton didn't tie up a runway for two hours getting a haircut, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, and CBS's internal investigation could not prove or disprove the authenticity of the memos.

Posted by: not the bad Jim on March 1, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

The problem for the Dems wasnt in the memos themselves, it was the way the media handled them.

The Rather memos, which were forgeries, but substantively accurate, got this reaction:

Oh my God! What has CBS done! We gotcha Dan Rather! Liar! Liar! Pants on fire! Fire them all! Kill! Kill!

Compare that with the handling of the swift boat excrement, which were easily provable lies to the core.

We report, you decide.

Then theres the decency gap between the two parties. The Dems accepted the memos fraudulence like the honest folks that most of them try to be. But if you turn the circumstances around and imagine the memos had been anti-Kerry, the right would be supporting their authenticity even today. They would have blown a masive amount of smoke into the story, enough to nuetralize its effect on the voters.

That is how the Repuglies won, but their methods are now coming back to bite them.

Posted by: James of DC on March 1, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

"Unlike Herbert Hoover, Bush has no accomplishments or underlying character to redeem him in the eyes of history."

I have already heard historians say that Bush brought freedom to more people than Lincoln did. In your heart, you know history books will talk about his resoluteness after the WTC destruction. The media has already established how GWB will be remembered.

In contrast, your boy Clinton is famous for being a philandering joke of a president. History is written by the victors, so I wouldn't count on a liberal perspective there anytime soon.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

It looks like somebody conspired to float false documents, the president tells author Bill Sammon. And I was amazed about it. I just couldnt believe that would be happening [and] then it would become the basis of a fairly substantial series of news stories.

You know what's really "amazing"?

That Bush talks now as though the documents were somehow "amazing", yet the WH NEVER DENIED that their contents were true, when Bush was obviously in a privileged position to make that denial, if he knew them to be false in substance.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

I Googled "Kevin + Drum + conspiracy + theory" - 429,000 hits.

I Googled "Powerline + conspiracy + theory" - 603,000 hits.

I Googled "Free + Republic + conspiracy + theory" - 1,680,000 hits

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Those memos were fakes, and Dan Rather and Mary Mapes deserved every bit of criticism they got for choosing to air them on 60 Minutes.

The sad thing about CBS choosing to run the segment is that it bumped a piece by Josh Marshall and others debunking once and for all the Niger uranium nonsense. This may not have made the difference in the election, but Rather's piece probably did in the minds of a number of voters who get their news and information only from television.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 1, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Just for the record, it is also useful to point out that the broad substance of the memos is true and not in dispute.
Surely, the reason they used faked memos, and only fake memos, was the overwhelming amount of genuine proof available.

Nice reasoning.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

"Just for the record, it is also useful to point out that the broad substance of the memos is true and not in dispute."

Feel free to post all your supporting evidence that the substance is true. I look forward to reading it.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Hey James in DC, can you read? "The Democrats accepted the memos fraudulence like the decent folk that most of them try to be?" Bwahaha...have you read this thread?

I seriously, seriously doubt that the Bush campaign had anything to do with these memos. The downside is too big. If the wider media had just ignored the blogs (as CBS attempted to do for several days), this report could have swung the result of the election. That's a big risk to take. If Bush and Rove actually did so (and I don't think for a minute that they did), then they made the craziest, ballsiest campaign play that I've ever seen.

But yeah, Dan Rather is a hero to conservatives. We've been saying for years that he embodies liberal media bias (which liberals deny exists), and then he goes out and confirms it on the eve of the closest election in years. It really is a delicious irony -- Dan Rather, the poster child for the liberal media, ultimately is the person who caused it to lose credibility for large swathes of the population. It's even better because he refuses to acknowledge that he got duped and just does more damage everytime he he talks about.

Here's to you Danny -- you did more to discredit the liberal media than Rush could ever have done!

Posted by: slightlybad on March 1, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

yet the WH NEVER DENIED that their contents were true
Never interrupt your opponents while they are self-destructing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

yet the WH NEVER DENIED that their contents were true, when Bush was obviously in a privileged position to make that denial, if he knew them to be false in substance.


The man is a brilliant politician and tactician. He absolutely denied the accusations saying he met all of the requirements of his service was honorably discharged. He did not address specific charges nor will he ever. This keeps the tin hat crowd busy. Think about it. They're STILL obsessing over TANG when normal voters never cared in the 1st place. He able to focus his efforts elsewhere while you're digging in weeds. It's a perfect diversion.

Whatever happened to Dan Rather anyway? Last I heard the folks are 60 minutes were tearing him a new asshole.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Surely, the reason they used faked memos, and only fake memos, was the overwhelming amount of genuine proof available.

And surely the reason the WH, given a chance to respond to the memos, declined to object to them, was that Bush knew their substance to be obviously false.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

and CBS's internal investigation could not prove or disprove the authenticity of the memos.
The document expert they used determined the memos were fake. But the people writing the report apparently wanted to soften the blow on CBS, while they reported his finding, they didn't use it in summarizing.

That internal investigation was a white wash.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Wingnut radio religously uses this tactic to explain away bad news to the faithful. Yesterday Hannity and Rush drones on about a cbs poll on W's falling approval ratings. CBS only interviewed democrats republicans were at work blah blah blah.The people reponding to the poll were forged, on and on.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

frankly0
And surely the reason the WH, given a chance to respond to the memos, declined to object to them, was that Bush knew their substance to be obviously false.
Like peanut said on March 1, 2006 at 10:31 AM
and like I said on on March 1, 2006 at 11:38 AM

Thanks for keeping up.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

The trolls are going crazy! This is like a cageful of rats being stirred up with a stick. My, my.

Meanwhile, not a peep from Bush on the actual events of his "service." My, my.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

neo
Did you see the proportion of respondents to that poll? Did you see the loaded questions?

That poll was skewed to make you feel good; and as such, it was a tremendous success.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile, not a peep from Bush on the actual events of his "service." My, my.
What for? You lefties screwed the pooch without assistance from anyone.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

I Googled "Kevin + Drum + conspiracy + theory" - 429,000 hits.Posted by: BigRiver on March 1, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

I googled Big+River+Conspiracy+Theory and received 1,540,000 hits. Gosh, isn't this fun.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 1, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

I only feel good when I get to respond to you CN. As you prove my point on cue. Good doggie arff arff Roll over boy.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

squeak! squeak! scrabble!

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Neo
Want to have a discussion on the threats to validity on experimental designs?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Rightwing DickWad pulls his head from his own ass to bleat:

"The spread of democracy and womens rights in Afghanistan and Iraq will help."

and then shoves it all the way back in. This way he won't know women's rights are being steadily eroded in Iraq and that the reach of the central governments (only nominally democracies) don't extend much beyond Kabul and the Green Zone.

And then Mrs. Malaprop continues:

"He will always be more famous for his stupidity but his egregious bais it there for all to see as well."

I refuse to believe that anyone this illiterate is an American. What is the "STOU", anyway? You may have confused it with that other thing people are always saying to you (STFU).


Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

CN rock on dude. I know if you listen to Rush you must be a superior intellect like Khan on Star Trek 2. You remember that from your convention days. Captain Kirk a known liberal kicked Khans conservative ass.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

There's no question, though, that Rove is a world class media and politics athlete. And such athleticism must be greatly admired by our president. The heart, if not soul, of Bush family life seems to revolve around gaining money and power through politics; and, Rove must get massive pleasure knowing that W and family are watching and appreciating every Michael Jordan media dunk Rove slams down. The media refs are rigged, obviously, but that's only a buzzkill to the extent that they were pre-rigged before you even suited up.

The Bush family might eternally savor "the game," but I somehow get the impression Rove is too smart for that. I wonder what his plan is to avoid Lee Atwater's deathbed pangs of remorse.

Posted by: ferd on March 1, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

"CBS only interviewed democrats republicans were at work blah blah blah.The people reponding to the poll were forged, on and on."

Wake up and meet reality. That poll is seriously flawed. The questions were written to generate exactly the result they did. It wouldn't be much of a story to report that most Americans like Bush would it? After all, two elections pretty much confirms that. I hope it doesn't make you too weepy, but you need to face the truth that you live in a country that likes, respects, and supports GWB.

Also, the point about republicans being at work is no joke. Liberals are far more likely to be home and willing to talk to the media the conservatives. This is why so many polls showed Gore and Kerry doing well, only to have actual voting demstrate the true feeling of the electorate.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

"You remember that from your convention days. Captain Kirk a known liberal kicked Khans conservative ass."

No way. Kirk would defnitely be a republican. Khan was flower-child decked out in beach hippy clothes, who believed he should tell people how to live.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Simply hilarious! Shortstop, it is not the trolls going crazy here. The trolls are mocking, and rightfully so, those who still believe the authenticity of the memos. The trolls are in nirvana. The media and the Left could not have put them in a better place. On this topic, it is clearly a lot of those on your side that has gone off the deep end.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on March 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

As long as we get our "news" from large corporations that depend on consumer advertising for their income, we are going to get one load of shit after another.Posted by: James E. Powell on March 1, 2006 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

Dude -- you so nailed this. The media continues to scratch below the surface and then stop when they uncover more surface. Is the media lame, shallow and sensationalistic because that is what people ultimately pay attention to ($$), or are we just paying attention to it because that is all the media can put forth? Scary either way, really.

This whole putrid affair is another example of them focusing on the wrong part of or the wrong issue. So the memos were faked, and sure maybe it is some underhanded Repuke ploy, but the media brainlessly ignores trying to get at the underlying truth.

If Rove and his minions are playing the media -- then he's got some compliant dough-like fodder.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on March 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

I hope it doesn't make you too weepy, but you need to face the truth that you live in a country that likes, respects, and supports GWB.

This one's for craigie when he makes the scene: It would be interesting to do the 20-year test on Tom, no?

squeak! scrabble!

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Also, the point about republicans being at work is no joke"
Let's see, Rush Limbaugh broadcasts during the afternoon, during work hours. When do all these conservative listeners have time to tune in if they are hard at work? Let alone take up all that time to place phone calls and sit on hold for hours. Hmmm.

Posted by: Botecelli on March 1, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

What, CN have to call in reinforcements. Rush"s job and the rest of the wingnut cottage industry is to keep the rubes inline and confused.Don't tell me otherwise talking points are thrown out in the morning anything that gets traction runs the rest of the day. It's all marketing. The best example would be a traveling carnival, evangelist or snake oil salesman.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Neo
That didn't sound much like you wanted to explore the reasons that your 'feel good' poll was nothing but a 'feel good' poll.

But hey, thanks for playing.

You should write CBS (home of Dan Rather) and thank them for cheering you up.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Just some actaul nunbers from the poll libs like so much:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf

Total Respondents: 1018
Total Republicans: 272 (weighted up to 289 )
Total Democrats: 409 (weighted down to 381)
Total Independents: 337 (weighted up to 348)

The poll is garbage.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

On this topic, it is clearly a lot of those on your side that has gone off the deep end.

Yancey, since you sometimes seem like a reasonable guy, I'd like you to provide the evidence that Bush performed his service in the Massachusetts National Guard, as hisseparation agreement stipulated.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

The trolls are mocking, and rightfully so, those who still believe the authenticity of the memos.

Yancey, your limited reading skills will be the death of you. The trolls, which evidently now include you, are avoiding the question of why Bush has never been able to demonstrate that he fulfilled the terms of his service, completely apart from the question of the memos. After all, a lot of people here are pointing out the memos are or are most probably fake, and yet Bush still stays silent on the question of whether he did what he contracted to do.

Maybe you could address that for us?

squeak!

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

great minds, Gregory.

Posted by: shortstop on March 1, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

What garbage? Do you mean that because they felt the need to weight Democratic response to under 40%, that they might have suffered from some randomization problems?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Bush has never been able to demonstrate that he fulfilled the terms of his service

He has his honorable discharge. He'll never give you more than that. This is perfect for him. He's got the clowns obsessing over minutia.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

"This one's for craigie when he makes the scene: It would be interesting to do the 20-year test on Tom, no?"

And that means what? All I was saying is that GWB has been elected twice. How, from that irrefutable fact, can you conclude that most Americans disagree with his views? This has nothing to do with whether or not he's done a good job. It's just about understanding the nature of the country in which you live.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

On the subject of the memos, the only thing in them that I considered newsworthy was the apparent confirmation that Bush defied a direct order in skipping his flight physical.

(That he actually did skip it, thus renderering himself grounded and wasting the taxpayer's investment in training his, is of course a matter of record for which Bush's apologists give him a free pass.)

Prior to the memos, I'd heard rumblings to the effect that Bush was ordered to take his physical, but hadn't seen any confirmation of the fact. Given the confirmation that the substance of the memos was accuracte and the claims of a purge of GWB's service record, it's an interesting question.

Also interesting to me is the fact that Bush's record confirms that his claim in his 2000 campaign bio, A Charge to Keep, that he served with his unit for "several" years, we a lie -- unless "several" has a definition of "less than two" of which I was previously unaware.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

The trolls, which evidently now include you, are avoiding the question of why Bush has never been able to demonstrate that he fulfilled the terms of his service
Clueless, just clueless. Let me type it slow, it won't help because you're a moonbat, but somebody might benefit.

The left has damaged itself because of this issue far beyond anything Bush or Rove could have cooked up. They don't need to do anything because you lefties are making fools out of yourself.

The reason that it is not in Bush's interest to clear any of this up is: You moonbats just keep making fools out of yourself over it. It's the gift that keep on giving.

Besides, what does the phrase "honorable discharge" mean to you?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

How has the left damaged itself? Is there a poll out there that will support that?

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

"What garbage? Do you mean that because they felt the need to weight Democratic response to under 40%, that they might have suffered from some randomization problems?"

No, no. I'm sure that in America, dems outnumber republicans by a ratio of 4 to 3. That explains why Congress is republican and a republican has been in the WH for 5 of the last 7 presidential terms. No problems with that poll...

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

I realize it's a waste of time arguing which a clown like rdw, but "honorable discharge" =/= "fulfilled his obligations."

Certainly the combination of an honorable discharge and a chestful of medals did nothing to insulate Kerry from having his record called into question by a pack of liars with -- unlike the case with GWB's record -- zero contemporaneous documentary evidence on their side.

The Republicans dishonored all wounded vetarans with their loathsome Purple Heart Band-aids at the convention.

And lo and behold, our trolls just love the hatchet job the Swift Boat Liars did on Kerry.

Further evidence the Republicans simply can't be trusted to take national security seriously.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Why, oh why, is Kevin Drum such a fruitcake? He believes that it is more likely that Burkett is the source of the forged memos than Rove?

  • Despite the fact that the substance of the memos has been corroborated my multiple other sources.
  • Despite the fact that Burkett's sole apparent motivation would be anger that Bush shredded his own file and got away with it. In other words, in order to believe that Burkett would do this you have to believe that Bush DID skip out of service and Bush's team DID previously feloniously destroy military records.
  • Despite the fact that Bush was running for re-election, military bona fides were a central issue, his supporters may have previously committed felonies, and Bush would presumably have a hell of a lot more to gain than Burkett.
  • Despite the fact that the debunking occurred almost immediately...allowing CBS to be criticized for going forward, but before any negative fallout could occur.
  • Despite the fact that the debunking was by a Republican operative, who curiously wanted to remain anonymous.
  • Despite the fact that the debunking was based on the ultimately untrue claim that superscript fonts did not exist at the time.
  • Despite the fact that the WH delayed releasing genuine military records from the same time period, apparently for no other reason than that they DID INCLUDE superscripts, and thus would have cast doubts upon the "no superscript at the time" theory.
  • Despite the fact that nobody -- including his co-suspendee, James Bath -- has ever come forward to corroborate Bush's account of his flying career.
  • Despite the fact that Bush has unquestionably lied about certain aspects of his military record, including his claim in his book that he continued flying for several years.

Here is what I challlenge Kevin Drum to do: Write a post, explaining what he believes the entire story to be which would include the following: (1) Whether Bush met his service obligations, including specifically, whether Bush was in Alabama during the disputed time frame and when. (2) What happened to Bush's missing military records and whether Burkett is lying. (3) When Burkett likely made the documents, why the factual errors that were in them were likely to have been made by Burkett, why Burkett would have handed them over when he did, why the Lucy Ramirez story, and why he didn't, at the very least, type them on a contemporary typewriter. (4) Why the initially WH responded as it did -- by essentially validating the records and telling CBS to go forward, if the substance of the memos wasn't true.

The thing is, it is possible to believe Bush's crap about individual elements of this story. But the whole thing just doesn't add up. Why is Burkett so pissed if Bush did nothing wrong? If Bush did nothing wrong, why didn't the WH freak out when CBS handed them the docs? Why did Buckethead not want to claim credit for making the break? Why did the GOP want it to appear like the bloggers, Powerline, found this out and not Buckethead? If Bush did do something wrong, both in TANG and later to cover that up, why is he not the likely source of the forgeries, which essentially killed the story dead and buried the Yellowcake story as well?

Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Tom, please keep talking. Really, keep it up.

Posted by: shortstop, incapacitated with mirth on March 1, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

I Googled "Kevin + Drum + conspiracy + theory" - 429,000 hits.
Posted by: BigRiver on March 1, 2006 at 10:49 AM |

And I googled "BigRiver + shithead" -- 266 hits. Your point?

Posted by: smartalek on March 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Is there a poll out there that will support that?
Sure there is, it was taken last November. 121,480,019 people participated in the poll.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

The left has damaged itself because of this issue far beyond anything Bush or Rove could have cooked up.

The flaw in this argument, of course, is that it presumes that if the memos were faked, Rove didn't cook them up, an assertion not at all in evidence.

I know it won't matter to the Bush apologists, but someone else may benefit. There's no doubt that the memo affair insulated Bush from the issue of his inadequate Guard service. That fact does not address the question of whether he did in fact fulfill his obligation. The memos aside, the available evidence suggests that he did not.

The the Bush apologists give him a free pass on this fact, while celebrating the smears of Kerry, says much more about them than it does about Bush's critics.

I agree, though, that the point is largely moot. The public has figured out on its own that Bush is incompetent and untrustworthy. And Rove is utterly powerless to get Bush's crediblity back.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

"Certainly the combination of an honorable discharge and a chestful of medals did nothing to insulate Kerry from having his record called into question by a pack of liars with -- unlike the case with GWB's record -- zero contemporaneous documentary evidence on their side"

It's impossible for me to know the truth. So I'm not saying Kerry didn't serve honorably. But I will say that the reason people questioned his service is that real people, who served at the same time, questioned his service. No one who served with GWB has come forward with similar accusations. All the lib media had on GWB was fake paper.

Again, I'm not saying the the SBVFT or whatever they were called wren't lying. I'm just saying the reason for the differing public response was based on hearing people who claimed to be witnesses in one case versus forged documents in the other.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah I read that poll 72.297% agreed you were a M O R O N

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

How has the left damaged itself? Is there a poll out there that will support that?

The only poll that counts:

WH: Bush/Cheney

Congress GOP 55/232 Dems 44/202

Supreme court: Roberts / Alito

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

No one who served with GWB has come forward with similar accusations.

That's true, Tom. What they did say was "Who? We never saw that guy at the base. He was in our unit?"

Now, please keep telling us about how the public perception of Bush hasn't changed one iota since November 2004. Tell us how Bush support remains as resolute as his (shaking) hands upon the wheel. Tell us how popular he'll always be, no matter what's happening right now. Come on, we're listening. Keep talking.

SQUEAK!

Posted by: shortstop, knowing she's breaking her own troll-feeding rule but helpless with laughter on March 1, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
The the Bush apologists give him a free pass on this fact, while celebrating the smears of Kerry, says much more about them than it does about Bush's critics.
I'll be serious for a moment, but don't expect it to last. It's just as odd that the moonbats give Kerry a free pass while pounding Bush. There are obviously "irregularities" in both men's service. But neither set of irregularities is worth any contemplation.

And Rove is utterly powerless to get Bush's crediblity back.
Heh, Rove's new job should be insulating other Republicans from Bush. If he can pull it off, we can gain more seats in '06.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop: "Tom, please keep talking. Really, keep it up."

OK, so what do you disagree with? That the US has a Republican majority? While it deeply hurts me that you think I'm a fool, I can deal with it. But, I would just like to know what you find so ridiculous.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing to me that some Dems here actually defend CBS on this issue. To summarize, a network airs a report that is both factual and potentially damaging to Bush. In order to have one extra, unncecessary piece of evidence to throw in, they use a document that their own experts could not authenticate, faxed(!) to them by a possibly mentally unstable man (Burkett reportedly had multiple nervous breakdowns during the aftermath).

And when it becomes clear that the weight of evidence points to a forgery, they stick to their guns. As a result, the entire report and all other evidence has been tainted, if not ruined, for much of the public. Furthermore, the big national story for a couple of weeks focuses not on campaign issues, not on Bush's evasion of service, but on mainstream media bias and dishonesty, Karl Rove's wettest dream of them all. And Bush wins the election narrowly.

So maybe I'm confused, but why on earth are posters here defending CBS and Rather? They played as big a role in getting Bush elected as the Swiftboaters did! They torpedoed not only their own report, but the possibility that any other major outlet's reporting on the issue would be taken seriously.

And one more thing, the theory that Rove actually planted it is pretty shaky because it could not have been predicted that CBS would have been so stupid as to ignore their own document experts. And if the whole thing had gone through without a peep, as would have happened if CBS hadn't posted the docs online, then that would have been extra accurate evidence against Bush. I think Occam's razor in any case cuts a Republican plant out of the picture.

Posted by: ChiSox Fan in LA on March 1, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

So maybe I'm confused, but why on earth are posters here defending CBS and Rather?
It's because they're Rove plants, Rove is using them to prove to the world that Democrats are crazy.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Certainly the combination of an honorable discharge and a chestful of medals did nothing to insulate Kerry from having his record called into question by a pack of liars with -- unlike the case with GWB's record -- zero contemporaneous documentary evidence on their side.

Kerry absolutely lied about Xmas in Cambodia. His own website confirmed it. It was as dumb a lie as Dans 'evidence'


The Republicans dishonored all wounded vetarans with their loathsome Purple Heart Band-aids at the convention.

It was quite comical right up there with wearing the flip-flops. JFK received 3 purple hearts. We know on one he did not merit a band-aid. We know on another that's all he merited, a band aid. The 3rd purple heart did not get a band -aid either and was never considered serious.

Big John made Vietnam the focal point of his campaign, reporting for duty and all. Like Al Gore he was a serial exaggerator. Like Al Gore he paid for it.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

It's impossible for me to know the truth.

It's been said before, but you gotta love the Radicals' recent embrace of post-modernism.

So I'm not saying Kerry didn't serve honorably.

Not good enough. His service record, and his medals, indicate that he served not just honorably but heroically. There is no evidence -- none at all -- that he did anything otherwise. Unless you admit that, unlike Bush, the record shows Kerry did serve honorably, you're doing a disservice to the truth.

But I will say that the reason people questioned his service is that real people, who served at the same time, questioned his service.

Many of the Swifties who served at the same time admitted they never met Kerry. These individuals questioned his antiwar activities after his service, as was their right.

Those who served with Kerry, and have questioned his service, have supplied exactly zero evidence to contradict the existing record. Furthermore, the links several of Kerry's accusers have to the Republican Party renders their testimony suspect. (Even O'Neill didn't dare go so far when debating Kerry as a professionalapologist for Nixon.) Moreover, recent statements by some contradict ones they made at the time. They changed their story, which again renders their claims suspect at best.

No one who served with GWB has come forward with similar accusations.

Given that no one has come forward to claim the reward offered to anyone who can confirm that Bush showed up for duty in Alabama at all, the fact is hardly surprising.

Moreover, as I've pointed out, it's a matter of record that Bush blew off his flight physical and shirked his duty in Massachusetts.

All the lib media had on GWB was fake paper.

First of all, the existence of a "liberal media" is an assertion that is not in evidence. Second of all, your assertion that the evidence against Bush was limited to the memos is false. That he skipped his physical -- and surely it's just a coincidence that he did so just as drug tests were included! -- is a matter of record. That he was required to report for duty in Alabama is a matter of record; what's lacking is any record of his actual service. That he was further required to fulfill his obligations to his country -- an obligation to his nation that he incurred when it allowed him to avoid Vietnam, a war he supported, by joining the TANG -- by serving with the Mass. Guard, but did not do so, is also a matter of record.

Aspersions to Kerry's service, however, are strictly hearsay and contradicted by all who actually did serve with him save one, whom Kerry had disciplined.

Tom's response is a perfect example of just the kind of hypocracy I described in my post. From the galloping ignorance his posts usually display, one might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and presume he's simply regurgitating the lies that Limbaugh spews. But I wouldn't.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

OK, so what do you disagree with?
Shortstop saw a poll she liked the results of, therefore, in her mind, that makes the poll absolutely reliable. And anyone questioning these good results cannot be tolerated.

Of course, she saw all kinds of polls showing Kerry in the lead before the election, and all kinds of exit polls the day of showing Kerry beating the socks off Bush, but she still trusts polls that tell her what she wants to hear.

Reality matters not, only perception.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

"That's true, Tom. What they did say was "Who? We never saw that guy at the base. He was in our unit?" "

Uninformed as I am, I didn't recall hearing anything about people saying GWB didn't show. I think not getting word out reflects poorly on the dem political operation. Still why would believe whomever these gaurdsmen are, if you don't believe the swift boat guys?

"Now, please keep telling us about how the public perception of Bush hasn't changed one iota since November 2004."

Maybe it has, but the new poll doesn't show anything. The sampling is simply wretched. In your heart, do you really think the US will elect a dem in 2008? Do you think Hillary will beat McCain? I doubt it, because you know more people in the US like the "conservative message" than the "liberal message". And I doubt you're laughing too hard about that.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's just as odd that the moonbats give Kerry a free pass while pounding Bush. There are obviously "irregularities" in both men's service.

I call. Cite, please. (If you cite the "Xmas in Cambodia" story -- in which Kerry confused Xmas for Tet at least a decade after the fact, but for which he was not awarded any of the medals in question -- I'll laugh at you even harder than usual, but please, be my guest.)

But neither set of irregularities is worth any contemplation.

We know you give Bush's shirking of duty a free pass, nut. There is no such comparison to Kerry. No one is giving him a free pass, because there's nothing about his service record to apologize for. He earned his medals as served not just honorably but heroically. False equivalence is one of your speciaties, nut, but that dog won't hunt.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yup no exaggeration in wingnut world. Shall I have a go at the list.
9-11
Where's Osama
Saddam and AQ
Chalabi
WMD
Met wit Flowers and chocolates
Not securing ammo Dumps
Cost of Iraq
Taxes
Debt and Deficit
Katrina

on and on like the energizer bunny you guys just keep fucking up

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting that rdw and conspiracy nut and the other Bush-bootlicking, Rush-regurgitating mental slaves are all piling on this thread, while not a single one of them has posted a single comment on the thread discussing the Congressional testimony by the head of the DIA that in Afghanistan "insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001" and the Washington Post report that (in Kevin's words) "Republicans are busily abandoning George Bush on national security issues."

I guess they'd rather gloat over the triumph of Republican lying, cheating and stealing in the 2004 election than talk about the complete and catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in 2006.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
Feel free to list for me all the Navy ensigns that got 4 medals in 4 months. Bonus points if they never lost a day to injuries for their 3 Purple Hearts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pounding Kerry for this. Vietnam was a different day and age, and actions must be judged based on the time. And that is why neither Kerry's nor Bush's irregularities are worth contemplation.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

It was quite comical right up there with wearing the flip-flops. JFK received 3 purple hearts. We know on one he did not merit a band-aid. We know on another that's all he merited, a band aid. The 3rd purple heart did not get a band -aid either and was never considered serious.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Bookmark this post by the lunatic rdw, ladies and gentlemen. Next time he/she/it claims Republicans honor the troops, throw his own postiviely gleeful dishonoring of wounded veterans, and celebration of this contempt by his Party, in his/her/its face.

Not that being proven wrong makes a difference to his/her/its delusions, of course.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

The only poll that counts:

If that were the case, Nixon would have served two full terms. The last election isn't the only poll that counts.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

I guess they'd rather gloat over the triumph of Republican lying, cheating and stealing in the 2004 election
Naw, I'd rather gloat over the abysmal stupidity of the moonbats that insulated Bush from their favorite wailing point.

You're still pissed about the brocolli thing, aren't you?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Not good enough. His service record, and his medals, indicate that he served not just honorably but heroically."

I wasn't trying to cast any aspersions on Kerry's service. FWIW, I think there's a big difference between serving in Vietnam and serving in TANG.

I'm just saying that what most people saw/heard were people questioning Kerry's service (swifties) versus no one questioning GWB. That's simply a comment about the media and how the campaigns were run.

I fail to see where I was being hypocritical.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

No one who served with GWB has come forward with similar accusations.

Well, yeah, because no one served with Bush because he wasn't there.

Kerry had his crewmen stand with him during the campaign. Has any service buddy of Bush ever turned up? Anyone who's been able to say hey, I was in that unit and George and I were buddies and I saw him there every damn day? Nope.

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy nut:

There are obviously "irregularities" in both men's service.

No, there aren't. There is nothing in Kerry's official record that was irregular. Yes, people who NEVER SERVED WITH HIM, subsequently came forward and made scurrilous claims. But the Navy records support Kerry.

In contrast, Bush's own military records indisputably, say the following: (1) Bush pledged to make a "lifelong commitment" to flying and subsequently flew for only 4 of a 6 year commitment. (2) In his final months of flying, for reasons that are in dispute, Bush was assigned to fly trainer aircraft, rather than his F-102 jet. (3) Bush failed to take a mandatory physical, was suspended from flying, and never flew again. (4) Bush's suspension, per se, meant that he was a failure since he was unprepared to perform the requirements of his assignment. (5) Bush subsequently attempted to get himself PERMANENTLY assigned to a non-flying unit, against USAF regulations. (6) Bush was authorized to train with the Alabama ANG, but there are no documents which place him there on the days when the Alabama ANG trained. (7) When Bush went to business school, he failed to check in with the Mass. ANG, as he was required to do, as a condition of his release.

BTW, none of the foregoing particularly bothers me. I can't honestly say that Bush's TANG record is something that I would hold against him decades later.

However, what does concern me is whether Bush currently is lying about why he did not continue to fly, used supporters to illegally scrub his military record, and created the fake documents to discredit the CBS inquiry. That bothers me. And since there is no evidence that Kerry did anything remotely similar, the comparisons are bogus.

Posted by: space on March 1, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Feel free to list for me all the Navy ensigns that got 4 medals in 4 months. Bonus points if they never lost a day to injuries for their 3 Purple Hearts.

No, no, no, c.n.,that won't do. You said there were "irregularities" in Kerry's service record. I take your meaning to imply that Kerry received his medals inappropriately -- after all, 4 medals in 4 months would otherwise indicate, as it does, exceptionally heroic service. And you ask me to do the research for you? It simply won't do!

You cited irregularities. I call. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the irregularities in Kerry's record, irrespective of any other sailor.

You claimed to be serious -- a claim that I, familiar with yor bullshit, know better than to credit. But regardless, I call. You said that "neither Kerry's nor Bush's irregularities are worth contemplation." We know you give a free pass to Bush, and claim your usual false equivalence in claiming that there are counterbalancing irregularities in Kerry's record.

The record shows that the "irregularities" indicate that Kerry was an outstanding hero, while Bush shirked his duty. If you have anything to contradict Kerry's record, put up or shut up.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory wrote: No, no, no, c.n.,that won't do.

It's useless to argue with conspiracy nut. He's ignorant, stupid and a liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just saying that what most people saw/heard were people questioning Kerry's service (swifties) versus no one questioning GWB. That's simply a comment about the media and how the campaigns were run.

Indeed. On the one hand, you had a GOP front group which, in order to give the disagreements of some to a war hero's subsequent opposition to the war, promulgated the most scurrilous lies about Kerry's service, with the full support of the Right Wing Noise Machine and the so-called "liberal media." (And again, I remind you that the GOP convention itself participated with its loathsome Purple Heart band-aids; an insult to anyone who's ever been wounded.)

On the other hand, as space pointed out, not a single soul could be found to confirm that Bush showed up for duty in Alabama, let alone Massachusetts. (If memory serves me right, even the White house has confirmed that Bush never reported, but Yancey, I'm still waiting for your evidence to the contrary.)

So yes, the whole episode makes a point about politics and the media, but not, I suspect, the one you were trying to make.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding the recent CBS poll, and its supposed problem with Party ID, Mystery Pollster observes:

Some will no doubt seize on the fact that the latest CBS News sample is a few points more Democratic on party ID (37%) than on their last three surveys (34% in late January, 33% in early January and 32% in December), although the Republican percentage (28%) is about the same as the last three surveys (27%, 29% and 28% respectively). However, the difference in the party results does not explain the drop in the Bush job rating, which occurs across all three categories.

In fact, even when MP recalculates the CBS job approval results for the most recent survey using the average party composition reported on their last three surveys (33% Democrat, 28% Republican, 39% independent or other), the Bush approval percentage still rounds to 34%. The reason is that my recalculation just increases the number of independents at the expense of Democrats. However, Bush's rating is now so low among both subgroups as measured by CBS that the adjustment makes little difference.

So there's no way out of the bad news for Bush and the Republicans in this poll, wingnuts.

Take your medicine for once in your pathetic lives, OK?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Vietnam was a different day and age, and actions must be judged based on the time.

So let's compare based on the time:

Kerry: opposes the war, could have stayed in school and gotten deferments. Instead enlisted, served on a tour on a destroyer and then, when his tour was up and he could have gone home, volunteered to do another front-line combat tour. While there he performs heroically and is loved and respected by his men, whose lives he saves.

Bush: supported the war, but instead of volunteering to fight in the war he supported, thereby preventing some other poor sod from being drafted in his place, had his Daddy pull strings to get him into a cushy spot in the TANG. Even that, though, was too much of a sacrifice for his country for him, so he snorts himself full of cocaine, blows off his service and disappears.

So, based on the standards of the time, how do they compare?

Posted by: Stefan on March 1, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

put up or shut up
Oh, I looked. Nothing even close. I just thought I'd give you the opportunity to find something I couldn't.

But I do enjoy your inventing the story that Kerry is not just a hero, but the greatest war hero there has ever been. That no one else even comes close.

I love it out here.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

If that were the case, Nixon would have served two full terms. The last election isn't the only poll that counts.

Elections are always the ONLY poll that counts. Tricky Dick resigning has nothing to do with any polls or anyone other than Tricky Dick. I realize you'd love to impeach George but that isn't going to happen and he's sure not going to resign. Gotta get out of the past. George is the man.

He's in India as we speak. Just another step in his historic realignment toward Asia from Western Europe. Don't expect any major breakthroughs but rather a series of small but critical deals making his shift irreversable. My guess is he'll open a few more State Dept offices to accomodate the transfers from Paris. He's been a busy little beaver.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

As some wags noted, maybe the 34% approval for Bush and the 18% approval for Cheney aren't so bad. Add them up, you get 52%.

I mean, isn't that a mandate to a wingnut?

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Kerry: opposes the war, could have stayed in school and gotten deferments. Instead enlisted,

This is why he's not President. He tried to peddle this garbage. He didn't enlist. He volunteered for the draft after, and only after his 4th request for a deferment was turned down. He tried to skip out but wasn't smart enough.

His war record is fine but he's not John Wayne. If he had stayed honest about it he'd be President. He's just too vain.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Elections are always the ONLY poll that counts.

The sound a whistle makes when passing a graveyard.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

But I do enjoy your inventing the story that Kerry is not just a hero, but the greatest war hero there has ever been. That no one else even comes close.

After admitting that he/she/it can't support his/her/its assertion, and that therefore his/her/its false equivalence is exposed, c.n. takes solace in his/her/its usual pastime of dishonest paraphrasing.

Kerry's record (which includes a Silver Star) indicates he's a hero, period. If you're going to point to his record as an "irregularity," and seek to imply that it shows anything other than unusual heroism, the burden is on you to provide evidence to support that contention. Without which, of course, your false equivalence collapses. So far, of course, and to no one's surprise, you've failed to do provide anything but dishonesty.

So much for "serious," eh?

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Anyway, all this stuff is old news. John McCain, he's the ticket from here on out. Yep. Served his country honorably and no one can take that away from him. He's the goods. His war record trumps Hillary's and that means he'll take 49 states. I know you guys don't want to hear it but that's the truth.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
So, based on the standards of the time, how do they compare?
Should I now write a description of Bush and Kerry's service heavily slanted from a wingnut viewpoint now that you've written one slanted heavily from a moonbat viewpoint?

Examples
could have stayed in school and gotten deferments
Tried for a deferment and failed, joined the Navy to keep from getting drafted as a ground pounder.

volunteered to do another front-line combat tour
When he volunteered for Swift Boats, they weren't being used on the rivers. They were being used in the harbors, the duty was as safe as being on a destroyer.

is loved and respected by his men
Only 2 of which allowed him to use the group picture, the rest wrote specifically requesting that he not use their likeness.

so he snorts himself full of cocaine, blows off his service and disappears
Speculation on your part. If proof existed, you could have gotten some traction. No traction = No proof.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, isn't that a mandate to a wingnut?

No,

This is a mandate:

WH - Bush/Cheney

55 GOP Senators - 44 Democratic Senators

232 GOP house seats - 202 Democratic house seats

Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito/Kennedy

Janice rodgers Brown/Priscilla Owens

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

How much longer you think your "mandate" is going to last, with Republican poll numbers in the shitter?

If you don't worry about it, your betters in the Republican Congress do.

Posted by: frankly0 on March 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

the burden is on you to provide evidence to support that contention
I did. But as it is contrary to the voices in your head, I didn't expect it to soak in.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

He tried to skip out but wasn't smart enough.

rdw, of course, gives his/her/its support to the ones who were smart enough to skip out. So much for the myth that the GOP supports the troops.

His war record is fine but he's not John Wayne. If he had stayed honest about it he'd be President.

I think you mean if the Swifties had been honest about his record. Or you would, if you were honest, less deranged, or both.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK
Elections are always the ONLY poll that counts. Tricky Dick resigning has nothing to do with any polls or anyone other than Tricky Dick.

Nixon resigning had to do precisely with a poll -- of the members of the Senate who would act on an impeachment -- conducted by the White House, whose results were themselves effected by the perception, of those members, of popular sentiment.

I realize you'd love to impeach George but that isn't going to happen and he's sure not going to resign.

We'll see.

George is the man.

What man?

He's in India as we speak.

And, for my money, quite welcome to remain there indefinitely.

Just another step in his historic realignment toward Asia from Western Europe.

What is "historic" -- or for that matter even significant -- about it?

Don't expect any major breakthroughs but rather a series of small but critical deals making his shift irreversable.

Any political alignment is reversible with a modicum of will, unless, of course, you've so engendered hatred of the people you've moved away from that they won't take you back.

My guess is he'll open a few more State Dept offices to accomodate the transfers from Paris.

So?

He's been a busy little beaver.

Which is a trait of value if the things you are busy at have value. Otherwise, its just wasteful.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I remind you that the GOP convention itself participated with its loathsome Purple Heart band-aids; an insult to anyone who's ever been wounded.)

Lighten up. It was the 2nd funnniest part of both conventions after the theflip flop spectical. At least two of his purple hearts were cheese. The band-aid was appropriate. We all know he gamed his way out of Vietnam.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Not that I have a problem with gaming your way out. Bush did it and the country's better off today for it. If he'd been killed I don't want to think what we'd face today as a nation, so better than some other kid who wasn't smart enough to get out took his bullet instead. Not fair but what in life is?

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
Anyway, all this stuff is old news. John McCain, he's the ticket from here on out.

So, let's get this straight: GWB is "the man", but McCain is "the ticket". Is that it?

Yep. Served his country honorably and no one can take that away from him. He's the goods. His war record trumps Hillary's and that means he'll take 49 states.

GHWB's war record was, likewise, better than Bill Clinton's, yet he took notably fewer than 49 states. Your logic is, therefore, clearly defective: A Clinton without a war record vs. a Republican with a war record does not mean a 49-state win -- or even a win -- for the Republican.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
You don't mean to tell me that when Hillary! runs for president the left will suddenly remember that military service is unimportant, do you?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I did. But as it is contrary to the voices in your head, I didn't expect it to soak in.

You indicated -- no cites, of course, so you'll have to forgive me if your word isn't exactly good, but what the hell -- that Kerry received an unusual number of medals in an unusually short time.

So what? The possibilities are either 1) he deserved them or 2) he didn't. If he deserved them, he's unusually heroic -- in which case your false equivalence collapses. If he didn't, not so much. Needless to say, you've offered not a shred of evidence he didn't deserve his medals. SecualarAnimist is right, of course, in that debating you is a mug's game, but I'm enjoying backing you into a corner, so what the hey.

Do you have evidence that Kerry didn't deserve his citations? Yes or no. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK
You don't mean to tell me that when Hillary! runs for president the left will suddenly remember that military service is unimportant, do you?

What I mean to tell you is that the suggestion that McCain's war record, alone, means a 49-state victory is sheer idiocy.

Military service may be a qualification. It is not the sole basis for judgement.

(Of course, I don't think Senator Clinton is likely to get the Democratic nomination for any elected position other than Senator from New York in the next 6 years or so, so I don't think its really all that important.)

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

A Clinton without a war record vs. a Republican with a war record does not mean a 49-state win -- or even a win -- for the Republican.

Wrong.

One more time: 9/11 changed everything. We're at war and it's a just war and the American people know it. The day is past when you could be president without military service. This is why a woman will never be president.

Hey, I don't make the rules. If you guys don't like it get Hillary into the reserves right now.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

What is "historic" -- or for that matter even significant -- about it?

Any political alignment is reversible with a modicum of will, unless, of course, you've so engendered hatred of the people you've moved away from that they won't take you back.


Not even a little bit true. Truman was not reversible.

In this case it will not be reversible either. The size of the State and Defense depts is static. Once the diplomats and soldiers are out of Iraq there's simply no reason to move them back. You definitely will not be able to shut down new offices in India, Japan, Indonesia, etc. That would be rude.

We are not just pulling troops out of Germany. We are closing bases and cancelling leases. We are holding ceremonies handing the space back to the Germans. They can't be reopened without congressional approval and a great deal of money.

Even if it wasn't so difficult logistically this move is necessary and won't be reversed. American business interests are in Asia. This is our future and where we need to be. As Condi explained, India is more than 1B people. France is 60M. We should have 18x's as many State Dept people in India.

This is indeed very historic. Everything is changing.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
There was some cat that got so many medals that the Army was loathe to process any more for him. I forget the mug's name, but even then it didn't average much over 1 per year.

4 medals in 4 months is not a matter of being heroic or not, it is so far outside the norm as to be ridiculous. And 3 Purple Hearts with no days lost to injuries? Think for a moment, what kind of hero puts in for a Purple Heart for a wound that doesn't even require a Band Aid?

Once again, I'm not pounding Kerry. I could say nasty things against Bush's service, too. Neither is important.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

What I mean to tell you is that the suggestion that McCain's war record, alone, means a 49-state victory is sheer idiocy.

I agree but it's a huge help. People like McCain a lot and even those who disagree with him respect him a great deal. IN terms of stature he dwarfs Hillary. She cannot beat him which is why McCain wins the nomination.

He won't get 49 states but he'll get 40.

You cannot possibly stop Hillary. She'll have 10x's as much money and all of the big talent. She's up 3 to 1 to her closest competitor and that's John Edwards who has no prayer. So far what we have is a race for VP. The race for President is over.


BTW rdw of 1:43 and 1:36 is not me

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK
Hey, I don't make the rules.

Well, certainly, not the actual ones. But the fantasies you post here are, indeed, your own inventions, conscious or not.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

What I mean to tell you is that the suggestion that McCain's war record, alone, means a 49-state victory is sheer idiocy.
I'd agree here.

I don't think Senator Clinton is likely to get the Democratic nomination for any elected position other than Senator from New York in the next 6 years or so
I think she will, if she tries. She has the magic name. I can see the left swallowing hard and voting for her (in the primaries) on the grounds of "electibility". I could be wrong.

I think she'd be crazy to run. FBI files, Rose billing records, Travel Office, HillaryCare... There's just too much bad road to drive over again. But sometimes, she just acts like she's interested in running.

Time will tell.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Do you have evidence that Kerry didn't deserve his citations?

We know he's a liar. Check out the Xmas in Cambodia story. That's about 5 lies in 3 sentences. We also know he never spent more than 1/2 hour at a medical tent.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

I think she'd be crazy to run

She is absolutely running. The money she's raising for her Senate race has nothing to do with her Senate seat.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

She's running and she's losing to McCain. End of story. She has no military service so she's history. That's why Condi won't be on the ticket with McCain, that plus he's smart enough not to run with a black chick. The only election that counts is the next one and you guys have already lost. Sorry but you brought it on yourselves.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
People like McCain a lot and even those who disagree with him respect him a great deal.

And yet, those Presidential primaries, not so good to him in the past.

She cannot beat him which is why McCain wins the nomination.

Yeah, whatever. Merely repeating the same unsupported suppositions time and time again as if they, without support, were substantive arguments.

I can still remember when all the trolls were going on about how Dr. Rice was going to be the successor, with the same kind of circular arguments.

You cannot possibly stop Hillary.

Well, yeah, California's late enough in the primary process that she'll already be stopped before I get the chance.

She'll have 10x's as much money and all of the big talent.

If past performance is any indicators, having the big institutional "talent" will go a long way to negating any money advantage.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK
I can see the left swallowing hard and voting for her (in the primaries) on the grounds of "electibility".

I think Kerry put the nail in the coffin of that argument.

I think she'd be crazy to run. FBI files, Rose billing records, Travel Office, HillaryCare... There's just too much bad road to drive over again. But sometimes, she just acts like she's interested in running.

She's clearly interested in running. She's clearly the establishment favorite. This races Joe Lieberman, so to speak.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK
The only election that counts is the next one

Wait. A few minutes ago the only election that counts was the last one. Having trouble keeping your bizarre stories straight?

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, elections are the only thing that counts. I've said that all along. Bush's poll numbers do not matter. 2000 and 2004 matter. Alito matters. Roberts matters. I don't make the rules I just tell you guys about them when you ignore them.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

And yet, those Presidential primaries, not so good to him in the past.

McCain assumed owning the MSM and independents was enough. He found out that's useless in a GOP primary. He's learned he has to please conservatives. That why he voted for the tax cuts last week and why he helped move Roberts and Alito onto the courts. He's also lucky Campaign Fincance refom has disappeared as an issue AND govt spending has moved to the top. John has been very good on the spending side.

It also helps that despite his maverick image he is an authentic pro-life soocial conservative.

John is exceptionally well positioned for 2008. The issues line up for him and the opponent is perfect. Even those conservatives uncomfortable with John will consider what happens in a general election. They'll vote for him knowing he beats Hillary.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

If past performance is any indicators, having the big institutional "talent" will go a long way to negating any money advantage.

The Clintons do not use Bob Strum. She already has Carville and Begalia.

Condi was never a serious consideration except among moderates. They don't determine GOP primaries. She is very attractive at 1st glance but little is known about her social positions. If she's for affirmative action and pro-choice she wold never be a valid candidate. At it is she's not interested.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think Kerry put the nail in the coffin of that argument.
It would have to be phrased differently, no doubt; but I think the general idea will apply. (and that's just an opinion, and worth what you paid for it) The new phrasing would be along the lines of: Something for everyone.

She's clearly the establishment favorite. This races Joe Lieberman, so to speak.
Well if that's the case, she doesn't have a chance in the primaries. You remember Joe's strong performance... But Joe rates 76 over at ADA, Hillary! rates 95. She has apparently managed to convince the far left that she's moderate, while simultaneously being liberal.

A good position to do some Bill Clinton style triangulation from, no?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: FBI files, Rose billing records, Travel Office, HillaryCare ...

Oh yes, this is what passes for "thought" in what passes for the "mind" of a Bush-bootlicking Rush-regurgitating mental slave.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Hilarious.

The left is still not willing to admit that it's own true believers were the ones who shot the left in the foot on this one.

I must say, however, the way this worked out, it ended up being the funniest political dirty trick since "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa"."
Posted by: Michael Friedman

At least this one worked. Remember, the answer to that line was "Gone to the White House. Ha ha ha!"

Posted by: Brian on March 1, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Well, yeah, California's late enough in the primary process that she'll already be stopped before I get the chance.


You don't have a single credible alternative. Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Biden and Richardson are awful candidates. The gov of VA is decent but only decent. Hillary is a rock star and a bank married to a bank and a rock star. When the campaign starts she'll have 55 cameras and the other 10 candidates will share 3 cameras. She leads EVERY nightly newscast AND gets more coverage than ALL other candidates combined.

You can't stop her. If there's a slighest dip in her polls she just says, "two for the price of one".

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

I wish you guys would just tell the truth about Kerry. You blame him and Jane Fonda for losing the war.
You can't come to grips with the fact that war attrocities were committed by our troops.
You can't come to grips with the fact that America can and does make mistakes.
Kerry is your symbol, Just as Hitler blamed the Jews for losing WW1.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

"Well, yeah, California's late enough in the primary process that she'll already be stopped before I get the chance."

That's a triumph of hope over experience. Clinton will be the Dem nominee. The lib lust to return to magical Clinton years makes it assured. Plus she has so much more money than her competitors.

Honestly, McCain will beat any Dem nominee, but he would destroy Clinton. I doubt she would win a single state, since she has no true "home" state.

Americans overriding concern in the election will be to elect a president they think is tough and will keep them safe. They think Republicans do this. McCain's image falls right into line, and the media loves him. Can you honestly tell me you think it won't happen? Rogers Brown and Owens will be on the supreme court. Tell how you think a Dem can win.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

this is what passes for "thought" in what passes for the "mind" of a Bush-bootlicking Rush-regurgitating mental slave.
Hey, get over the brocolli thing and engage your brain for a minute. If you don't think you're going to get to hear about all that shit again, you've forgotten how the left behaved over AWOL.

I wish you guys would just tell the truth about Kerry
Neo, Neo, you're too much fun. We have been telling the truth about Kerry. But you just won't listen!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Love it. For weeks it was "the memos are real! the memos are real!" Now it's "the memos were a Rovian plot! the memos were a Rovian plot!".

Reality-based my ass.

Posted by: am on March 1, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

CN, RDW still pissed after all these years. Can't wait to hear what excuses you use for Iraq.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Was there a serious investigation by the FBI into the question of who was behind the forgeries? Shouldn't the White House and the Republican Party be anxious to catch the forgerer and have that person sent to prison?

Posted by: Foo Bar on March 1, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Can't wait to hear what excuses you use for Iraq.
Don't need any excuses for Iraq.

Shouldn't the White House and the Republican Party be anxious to catch the forgerer and have that person sent to prison?
Freedom of the press, fellow babies. Dan and Mary are free to make asses out themselves if they want. If anyone should be filing charges, it's CBS; Dan and Mary aren't free to take them down, too. But I just don't see any harm that came to Bush over this.

And besides, look at the National Enquirer. Not all sources are considered reliable.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Was there a serious investigation by the FBI into the question of who was behind the forgeries?

No, why would there be? It's not a crime to make an ass out of Dan Rather. There were no legal documents involved.


Shouldn't the White House and the Republican Party be anxious to catch the forgerer and have that person sent to prison?

The forger is almost definitely burnett. If in fact he was duped it would be nice to know who did it. The GOP doesn't give out MVP awards but it's not a bad idea.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK
She has apparently managed to convince the far left that she's moderate, while simultaneously being liberal.

A good position to do some Bill Clinton style triangulation from, no?

No, a good place to do triangulation (supposing that strategy is viable in the current context, which is another debate) from is convincing the far left that your really liberal, while being moderate to appeal to other people.

Convincing the far left that your what they most dislike within the Democratic Party while being actually liberal would be the position to take if you wanted to give no one a reason to vote for you and everyone a reason to vote against you.

Not a great way to win primaries.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK
Americans overriding concern in the election will be to elect a president they think is tough and will keep them safe.

That presumes a lot.

They think Republicans do this.

Actually, while historically that may have been the case, recent polling suggests that they currently don't favor Republicans in this area.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 1, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting that no lib poster has yet explained how the Dems will beat McCain in 2008. Or how someone other than Hillary could be the Dem nominee. It must be terribly frustrating to know you've lost two years before the election takes place. That helps explain all the anger and vitriol hurled at conservatives posting here.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
Since this is idle speculation, I'm giving up. But I still think she has positioned herself for triangulation.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections were stolen by the Republicans. There is no reason to expect anything different in 2008.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Actually, while historically that may have been the case, recent polling suggests that they currently don't favor Republicans in this area."

Can you cite a poll showing this? I'd be interested in lookin at it. I did hear about one poll showing Bush specifically had dropped below a "generic" Dem. But I doubt that's true for Republicans in general. And I really doubt it's true for McCain.


Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

4 medals in 4 months is not a matter of being heroic or not, it is so far outside the norm as to be ridiculous. And 3 Purple Hearts with no days lost to injuries? Think for a moment, what kind of hero puts in for a Purple Heart for a wound that doesn't even require a Band Aid?

Ah, so you are saying Kerry didn't deserve his medals. Yet to back it up, you have....let's see...one unsourced and half-remembered anecdote, your assertion that Kerry's total was "ridiculous" and your implication that Kerry is not a hero because he "put in" for "a Purple Heart for a wound that doesn't even require a Band Aid." As to the last, if memory serves me right, individual soldiers, sailors and Marines don't "put in" for Purple Hearts; their commanders do, but in any case, you haven't contradicted that he received a wound in combat; Purple Hearts have no more requirement than that. Yes, c.n., you are attempting to draw a dishonest false equivalence between Kerry's service record and Bush's. But evidence? You offer none. As I suspected. That dog just won't hunt.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Besides, what does the phrase "honorable discharge" mean to you?"

It means, of course, something that McAsshole, Rightwing DickWad and Nutless never got and never will.

And then DickWad spews:
"He didn't enlist. He volunteered for the draft after..." just to put the icing on the cake of his ignorance of the military.

And then, to emphasize that a pathological liar can hold two completely opposite opinions simultaneously, Dickwad vomits these gems:

"Elections are always the ONLY poll that counts."

and

"You cannot possibly stop Hillary. She'll have 10x's as much money and all of the big talent. She's up 3 to 1 to her closest competitor and that's John Edwards who has no prayer. So far what we have is a race for VP. The race for President is over."

So elections are the only polls that count, except when they are not.

DickWad, you are an idiot. Why keep coming on here and proving the "special" school failed?

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, I implore you to find and use a spellchecker. Please, man, please!

Is a spellchecker such a great thing to ask you to acquaint yourself with? Else you are going to end up raising me from the dead and forcing me to go all pedantic on your ass. And if you force me to crawl out of my grave and kick you to the semantic curb, then that in turn just conjures the "N-name" aka "He who must not be mocked" because we have matching wands made from recycled tires. And inevitably, entropy takes over and then where are we, I ask you?

If not for me, then at least think of all those impressionable children who lovingly look to you for intellectual sustenance. You must not let them down.

In our next episode, we'll talk about having you take a course in logic. But we take our miracles one little pinprick of awareness at a time.

yours in mutual concern etc.

Posted by: Nash on March 1, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

convincing the far left that your really liberal, while being moderate to appeal to other people.

Dead on!

This is what she has to do and is doing. This is why she got on the armed services committee and not judicial. This is why she sponsors flag burning amendments. She doesn't give a rats ass about the flag but it makes her seem moderate.

At the end of the day she's Bills wife, the most beloved Democrat since JFK and that's 43 years ago. They represent winning and the left wants to win more than anything else. The thought of another conservative is just unbearable. She has the Hollywood crowd locked up, feminists and minorities. She can't be beat.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Since this is idle speculation, I'm giving up.

Since that's all you have regarding Kerry's service record, I'd suggest you do.

I'll also point out that rdw also failed to offer any evidence that Kerry didn't deserve his medals (although he did amuse us with his absurd "Xmas in Cambodia" obsession). But since he/she/it has proven that he/she/it hardly requires proof to slander our troops, this is hardly unexpected.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to fake and release to the press documents that could swing an election. If not, then it was pretty foolish of 52 Republican congressmen to request an investigation. Plus, Segretti went to prison for something quite similar after Watergate.

Posted by: Foo Bar on March 1, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

She doesn't give a rats ass about the flag but it makes her seem moderate.

...says the one who gloats that McCain appears moderate but is a true right-to-life conservative.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections were stolen by the Republicans.
Wow! Then you've got evidence that no one else has! Quick, get that stuff to Dan Rather, he specializes in that shit!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

The Bush-bootlickers are oh so anxious for Hillary Clinton to run for President in 2008, and I think that some of them in their heart of hearts hope that she actually wins.

Why? Because then they can return to the comfort of the Cult of Clinton Hatred that they so enjoyed during the 1990s.

Sure, for the last few years they've had the Cult of Bush-Bootlicking, and of course they can always hate any old "Democrat" or "liberal" who happens to be around, but it just doesn't give them the same thrill that they got for 8 years when they could count on waking up every day full of seething hatred for the Clintons, and then run to the radio to listen to Rush tell them just exactly how and for what they should hate Bill and Hillary Clinton on that particular day.

Just look at conspiracy nut drooling about "FBI files, Rose billing records, Travel Office, HillaryCare". You can plainly see how desperately he wants Hillary Clinton to be elected President so he can wallow in his scripted, programmed, brain-dead neo-brownshirt goon hatred of her every day.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

W left TANG prematurely and never reported in Massachusetts. This is fact. The copies were dubious, but records are locked up and sanitized. We already knew that. The fakery whoever it originated with drew all attention away from that fact. For me that's the take home lesson. Diversion works.

Posted by: Mark A. York on March 1, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I couldn't resist:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: Wow! Then you've got evidence that no one else has! Quick, get that stuff to Dan Rather, he specializes in that shit!

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to fake and release to the press documents that could swing an election.
I'm no lawyer, but making false statements against public figures carries a pretty high standard of harm. And there is no argument to be made that Bush was harmed. Hell, he was helped (thanks Dan and Mary!).

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.
Hey, I'm not the one that claimed to have proof that the last 2 elections were stolen.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Hey, I'm not the one that claimed to have proof that the last 2 elections were stolen.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to fake and release to the press documents that could swing an election.

You can write anything you want to the press anytime you want to write it. They hold no special role in the law.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

says the one who gloats that McCain appears moderate but is a true right-to-life conservative.

Bingo!

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.
Well, if you don't have any proof, then that was just a baseless claim.

Speaking of baseless claims, nice article Neo. It provided my daily laugh.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

rdw also failed to offer any evidence that Kerry didn't deserve his medals

I didn't say he didn't deserve his medals. I said the band-aid thing was hilarious and appropriate. It was not at all offensive. I also said for at least one and possibly two of his purple hearts he didn't get so much as a band aid.

I do think it's shameless for someone who did not require so much as a band-aid to request a purple heart. Clearly John wanted out ASAP and knew how to buy his ticket.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

So elections are the only polls that count, except when they are not.

Allow me to explain firther since this is so hard for you. Elections are the only poll that matters in determining who actually gets to occupy the Oval office. Wield REAL power.

They have other uses. For example fund-raising. Assume you are rich fatcat liberal and you want access. You want to be a player. You've got a chance to contribute to Hillary or John Edwards. Do you give $100,000 to John who could not even win his own state OR do you go with the one with the commanding lead in the polls?

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

THE FACT of the matter: the documents have not been proven to be forgeries. Many of the "text" theories have been proven to be false. There are multiple witnesses who did see a brigade of Dubya's staff make several unexplained excursions to Camp Mabry (the Austin, Texas depository for National Guard documents). In fact, this was common knowledge in Austin at the time. Hell, even the state capitol maintenance crew knew about it!!! The case for affirming that George W. Bush shirked his military obligations "big time" is so compelling that the Bill Burkett saga is irrelevant. False bravado was always the President's strong suit---until Karl Rove drained the last ounce out of him.

Posted by: Nick on March 1, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Rdw,

Here's a second link for you. It says Segretti went to jail for distributing illegal campaign literature and producing faked documents.

What is your understanding of why Segretti went to jail and why that would not apply to Burkett?

Posted by: Foo Bar on March 1, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I must repeat, as I have done many times before: When all was said and done, there was never, I repeat, never, any reason to believe the memos were fakes. Every single argument that was brought up to demonstrate that they were fake turned out to be false. Every single one!

Posted by: Gkar on March 1, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I said the band-aid thing was hilarious and appropriate.

Which will be remembered next time you claim the GOP honors the troops.

Speaking of baseless claims, I note that c.n. has stopped engaging in idle speculation regarding Kerry's service record. I take that as a concession that his/her/its false equivalence between Kerry and Bush does not stand up to scrutiny. Which was obvious, after all.

As an aside, just once I'd like to see a GOP apologist admit that Kerry's record indicates a bona fide hero, that Bush's record indicated he shirked his duty, that they do in fact give Bush a pass for the fact and that they take pleasure in the fact the success of the false GOP version versus the substantive truth.

Most of our trolls hit most of those notes already, but just once I'd like to see one 'fess up.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Every single argument that was brought up to demonstrate that they were fake turned out to be false.
Sure, that's why Mary was axed, and Dan was 'retired'.

Or wait, you're another Rove plant, aren't you? Sorry buddy, you're on my side!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

I note that c.n. has stopped engaging in idle speculation regarding Kerry's service record.
No need to, nobody has said anything intelligent challenging it.

Your claim that John Kerry is far and away the greatest war hero the world has ever seen doesn't qualify as intelligent.

As an aside, just once I'd like to see a GOP apologist admit that Kerry's record indicates a bona fide hero, that Bush's record indicated he shirked his duty, that they do in fact give Bush a pass for the fact and that they take pleasure in the fact the success of the false GOP version versus the substantive truth.
Ya, and as an aside, just once I'd like to see a moonbat admit that Bush's honorable discharge indicates he served his time, and that Kerry's record indicated he looked for the quickest way out and his superiors were only too willing to get rid of him.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Well, if you don't have any proof, then that was just a baseless claim.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I'd like to see a moonbat admit that Bush's honorable discharge indicates he served his time, and that Kerry's record indicated he looked for the quickest way out and his superiors were only too willing to get rid of him.

You'd like people to agree with your stupid, ignorant lies. Because you are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

It's alright, Animist; I realize that you're still pissed over the brocolli thing. And as such, you're only able to mindlessly lash out.

I want you to know that I don't hold it against you.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

No need to, nobody has said anything intelligent challenging it.

Nice to see you admit that nobody has said anything intelligent challenging Kerry's war record. You certainly haven't offered a speck of evidence that Kerry didn't deserve his medals.

Your claim that John Kerry is far and away the greatest war hero the world has ever seen doesn't qualify as intelligent.

More dishonesty from c.n. I made no such claim, of course. However, c.n. claimed -- offering no evidence, of course -- that Kerry's medals are unusual. Granting the premise arguendo, it follows that Kerry either deserved his medals or he did not. Kerry's record indicates that he does. The fact remains that no one -- not c.n., not rdw, not anyone -- has offered a speck of credible evidence that Kerry did not deserve his medals.

just once I'd like to see a moonbat admit that Bush's honorable discharge indicates he served his time, and that Kerry's record indicated he looked for the quickest way out and his superiors were only too willing to get rid of him.

Since neither of the above are true, there's no point in admitting such. (Again, it amuses me vastly to see the Bush apologists invest so heavily in Bush's honorable discharge when Kerry's obviously accords no such respect.)

Hardly surprising that c.n. retreats into such dishonesty to avoid admitting e/she/it is wrong. rdw's mendacious luncacy, of course, comes as no surprise either.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

cn: Think for a moment, what kind of hero puts in for a Purple Heart for a wound that doesn't even require a Band Aid?


so you can give -yourself- medals when you are in the military?


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 1, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Who's John Kerry?

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I want you to know that I don't hold it against you.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

What is it with the left and word liar. Are you not concerned that the right could just as easily throw that back at you. Look at all the false allegation surrounding the Cheney hunting tragedy, the Plamegate hysteria, the "torture" at Gitmo, the "domestic" spying, my God come to think of it, the right could use that adjective almost 2 to 1 over the left.

BTW, I ahven't heard one word re: the arrests of the three alleged terrorists in Toledo. Strange huh? I sure hope we didn't listen to their phone calls. Also, isn't it ironic how the left is now sooo concerned about DPW having access to our ports yet boasted about "killing" the Patriot Act just a month ago. Finally, Hillary and Boxer have come out saying that they would not support ANY foreign country own terminal operations at our ports, not realizing that 90% of California's terminal operations are internationally owned. Are they liars? Does the left lie?

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

The left sure has gotten quite on the Abramoff scandal, now realizing that many of them are involved, another case of premature ejaculation from the left.

It is also appearing that Fitzgerald has no foundation of compromising National Security on Libby's part and has only the perjury case to lean on. Was a disppointing Fitzmas wasn't it?

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

Gkar -

I must repeat, as I have done many times before: When all was said and done, there was never, I repeat, never, any reason to believe the memos were fakes. Every single argument that was brought up to demonstrate that they were fake turned out to be false. Every single one!

As one of the bloggers that helped break the story, and hired the first accredited forensic document analyst* who was also used by the Washington Post, NYT, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, etc., I can attest that your statement is not only incorrect, but so incorrect as to cause me to question your sanity, honesty and motivation.

My doc examiner - the leading forensic expert on old typefaces in the country and perhaps the world** and a Democrat that planned on voting for Kerry - essentially narrowed the potential type-setting machines of the era that could produce the requisite font to one model, an IBM Selectric Composer. This model - which was unlikely to be found in a National Guard Office in the first place - was subsequently ruled out as possibly creating the documents. see here:

http://theshapeofdays.com/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

And this is only one angle that addresses fonts and typeface; various other angles addressed the electronic formatting and anachronisms in the content of the letters. For example, one of the CYA memos was addressed to a commanding officer that was actually retired at the time the memo was dated:

Pein never even mentions the most important evidence that the documents were forgeries, i.e., their substantive errors. The most important such error was the anachronistic effort to portray Brig. Gen. "Buck" Staudt as pressuring Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges to "sugar coat" Lt. Bush's evaluation -- a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Texas Air National Guard. This was the most important of the CBS documents, and based on its content alone, it was an obvious fraud, both fake and inaccurate. Case closed.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009118.php#009118

All of these angles, when combined with the perfect match of an ostensible 30+ year-old document with the New Times Roman default settings in MS Word, make it evident that the documents, as presented, were frauds.

Any other hopeful conjecture that these angles have all been somehow refuted is politically-motivated fantasy.

And thus, while I don't care what one's political opinion is on the importance of the documents themselves, nor do I care about debate over whether the original Freeper posters were Rovian plants - it is rather disconcerting that items that have been so thoroughly debunked by an army of open source fact checkers, including at least two forensic scientists and typesetting experts that voted for Kerry, are still bizarrely held up as either verified or not debunked.

Get a grip.


* http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php

** After contacting several experts, a rather notable Forensic Document Examiner named Dr. Philip Bouffard took the time to examine a pdf of the documents and perform an initial visual analysis of their authenticity. Dr. Bouffard has a PhD in Chemistry from the University of Michigan, but got involved in forensic examination of typefaces after working in graphics with NCR until 1973 and taking a two-year Certification Program in Document Examination at Georgetown University. After completing the program, he became specifically interested in typewriter classification and went to work for a prosecutors crime lab in Lake County, Ohio.

Using something called the Haas Atlas, the definitive collection of various typefaces, Mr. Bouffard (and other forensic document examiners) examined the veracity of various documents for over 30 years. Beginning in 1988, Mr. Bouffard hired a programmer to write a computer database program that catalogues the nearly 4,000 typefaces that appear in the Haas Atlas. This computer program is now a forensic standard that is sold as a companion to the Haas Atlas by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE). Though semi-retired, Dr. Bouffard is one of the top two experts in forensic document examination (regarding typefaces) in the country.

Posted by: Bill from INDC on March 1, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Jay you are a lair.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Void of any substantive argument, Neo resorts to the tried and true liberal retort. Well Done!

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

I just find it hard to believe that the truth about this can't be uncovered. The list of suspects is fairly short, and you'd think CBS has the motivation and resources to dig out the facts.

Posted by: David Crisp on March 1, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Just a little red meat for you Jay, you barked right on cue too. I can see how Rush leads you guys around by your little noses.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Damn Gregory, long response. But quantity doesn't count for quality.

Since there is no evidence of anyone, ever, gaining medals at the rate that Kerry did, your argument necessarily hinges on the fact that Kerry is the greatest war hero the world has ever known. I can see, however, why you want to rely on something that you refuse to admit. Otherwise you're kind of running out of room.

So, what's it going to be: Claim Kerry is the greatest war hero the world has ever known, or recognize that there were irregularities? Or you can keep dancing. Anything you want to do is equally good with me.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

What is your understanding of why Segretti went to jail and why that would not apply to Burkett

I don't have any understanding of Segretti and your link didn't provide any details as to the illegal documents. I have no doubt candidates have certain legal requirements concerning filing and managing a campaign. Burkett has zero to do with any campaign. He can submit anything he wants to Dan Rather just as he could submit anything to you and I.

It's possible there's some trivial technical violation of some law however there's no practical reason to pursue Burkett. The responsibility here wasn't Burkett's. Dan's problem wasn't so much that he was a sap but that the fraud was so pitifully inept. It was childishly constructed as was the entire story.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Neo you spelled it wrong too, which is even more funny.

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory is a good dancer.

Posted by: Jay on March 1, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Bill from INDC. No sense in trying to actually persuade these people. The voices in their heads can outshout you everytime.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Bill from INDC,

Your Dr. Boussard examined a PDF reproduction of the documents and you consider that probitive? That's not only rich, it's altogether ironic.

In an expression used often by you-know-who, [snicker]

Posted by: Nash on March 1, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

How can you spell it wrong? it I T IT? Jay you are liar.

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Just a little red meat for you Jay, you barked right on cue too. I can see how Rush leads you guys around by your little noses."

That's a pathetic post. Liberals in this thread have been proven wrong and gotten beat down on every substantive issue. And so you stick your tongue out and go "thppptht". Impressive.

Why don't you try actually winning an argument based on facts? Instead, if someone disagrees with you, you immediately resort to ad hominem attacks.

Just to respond in kind to your post, tell me, does it feel bad to lose all the time? To know you live in a nation that considers your political views to be a joke? To know that with one more supreme court appointment (which will happen by GWB or President McCain), the "liberal experiment" in this country is finished for at least a generation?

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

I just find it hard to believe that the truth about this can't be uncovered. The list of suspects is fairly short, and you'd think CBS has the motivation and resources to dig out the facts.

CBS wants this puppy to go away. It's already cost them a small fortune and destroyed their credibility. The less said the better. They knew this was as bad as could be when Burkett was identified as the source. The man is a certified looney tune. He couldn't tell you the truth even if he knew the truth.

And for what point? Dan Rather knew before he went on air they were not and could not be authenticated. Copies can never be authenticated. It's impossible. What's even more pathetic is these were faxes of copies. This was Dan's responsibility.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

AGAIN...


cn: Think for a moment, what kind of hero puts in for a Purple Heart for a wound that doesn't even require a Band Aid?

so you can give -yourself- medals when you are in the military?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 1, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

A bit off-thread but interesting

Who's Your Daddy?

In the new issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Phillip Longman of the liberal New America Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics--the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are likely to make Western societies, including the U.S., more conservative.

This dynamic helps explain, for example, the gradual drift of American culture away from secular individualism and toward religious fundamentalism. Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry.


Better hope Hillary wins in 2008. In 2010 we get another census and by 2012 7 to 10 more electoral votes for the Red States. I say McCain wins and serves two terms. The view from 2016 will be even worse. It will simply be impossible to nominate a liberal candidate. Of course after losing 4 electons it wold be inconceivable to even nominate one. Liberalism is dead.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

Here's a column by Pat Buchanan in which he says:


The real story is who was behind this criminal conspiracy to bring down a president of the United States, using fake and forged U.S. government documents, which is a felony. And who knew of the plot?

A felony. Not a trivial, technical violation. Do you think it's likely that a prominent columnist and former colleague of many of the people who went to jail for Watergate (he was not implicated but he surely was close enough to the situation to have learned about the law in this area pretty thoroughly) is factually mistaken about what is and is not a felony here?

You say there's no practical reason to prosecute. Surely you wouldn't be saying that if the forgeries hadn't been caught until after the election and Kerry had won, so your argument seems to be that there's no point in prosecuting inept, unsuccessful attempts to do what would be grave misdeeds had they been successful. You're happy to let inept criminals roam free, free to hone their skills and/or perhaps enlist more competent help for next time? What kind of tough-on-crime conservative are you?

Posted by: Foo Bar on March 1, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Since there is no evidence of anyone, ever, gaining medals at the rate that Kerry did, your argument necessarily hinges on the fact that Kerry is the greatest war hero the world has ever known.

c.n.'s retort also lacks quality, except for the quality of dishonesty.

"your argument necessarily hinges on the fact that Kerry is the greatest war hero the world has ever known?" Not at all. In typically dishonest fashion, you are attempting to distract from your own abject failure to prove your contentions by attempting to put words in someone else's mouth and shift the burden of proof that you tacitly admit you can't meet. As I've said, that dog won't hunt.

I make so such argument, nut. You claim (still without a cite, but what the hell, I'll take your word for it for the time being, though I know trusting your word isa mug's game) that Kerry recieved medals at anunusual rate. I noted that logically Kerry either deserved the medals or he did not. If you're going to claim that Kerry did not deserve his medals, the burden of proof is on you, and you simply haven't presented anything.

You're welcome to presume, in the absence of evidence, that Kerry didn't deserve his medals, but you can hardly expect anyone to accept your presumption as fact, even if you didn't have such a well-established -- indeed, self-proclaimed -- record of mendacity.

But then again, given that the available evidence -- as you concede -- does not support the claim that Bush did his duty, your very presumption renders your false equivalence all hollow, doesn't it?

The only dancing here is yours, nut. You attempted to imply Kerry didn't earn his medals. I challenged you to provide evidence. You have failed, repeatedly, to do so. In the process, you attempt to obscure the fact with your usual dishonest bullshit. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

thisspace
Sorry buddy, did you ask that once already? I notice that one of your sentences ran clear to the right and actually word-wrapped. Good job. The lack of white space, however, threw me off.

To answer your question, can't say for sure. It seems likely that a commanding officer's signature would be required, but I seem to recall that Kerry submitted his own medal write-ups for signature. But there's no doubt that Kerry's superior officers were in on the medal-fest. Like I said earlier, they seemed as anxious to get John out as John was to get out.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

"I say McCain wins and serves two terms. The view from 2016 will be even worse. It will simply be impossible to nominate a liberal candidate. Of course after losing 4 electons it wold be inconceivable to even nominate one. Liberalism is dead."

Reality rears its ugly head on a liberal blog. I imagine there will be crickets chirping in repsonse to this. The Democrat party has been thoroughly discredited in the US. The majority of Americans share the values of GWB and the Republican party. McCain is a lock in the next 2 elections (what Dem can touch him on security). And the long term demographics so strongly favor Republicans that it is not hyperbole to say the the US will feature a permanent Republican majority.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Tom wrote: does it feel bad to lose all the time? To know you live in a nation that considers your political views to be a joke?

Does it feel good to win by lying, cheating and stealing?

To know that you live in a nation that finds your political views abhorrent and depraved and in which the gang of career corporate criminals and war profiteers posing as "conservative" politicians (except during general election campaigns, when they pose as "moderates") to whom you have mentally enslaved yourself can only win elections by lying, cheating and stealing?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Keep dancing Gregory. To presume he deserved his medals is to presume he is the greatest war hero ever.

Or you can accept there were irregularities. In this option, which is my choice, the question of whether he deserved his medals or not, is not operative. Which is why there is no need for me to defend whether he deserved them or not.

To maintain your position, however, you have to claim he is the greatest war hero ever.

Or you can keep dancing.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Does it feel good to win by lying, cheating and stealing?
I really wish you'd quit withholding all your evidence of this. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Does it feel good to win by lying, cheating and stealing?

To know that you live in a nation that finds your political views abhorrent and depraved..."

I haven't won an election, so I wouldn't know. And what nation do you think I live?

You assume I'm conservative just because I'm telling you the majority of Americans are? Forget about what you think my opinions are, you wouldn't care about them anyway. The only thing that matters is that the US has loved conservatives for a long time. Election after election proves this. It's not opinion, it's fact.

The Dems see it and have caved on gun control, universal health care, free trade, and education. They're running out of principles to compromise in order to curry votes.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Tom: The majority of Americans share the values of GWB and the Republican party.

Which is why George W. Bush's approval rating is now at 34%, lower than the lowest rating that Bill Clinton ever received during his second term -- while he was being impeached.

Which is why clear majorities of Americans in recent polls say they would prefer that the Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress in November.

Which is why conservative Republicans can only win national elections by lying to the American people about their policy positions and pretending to be "moderates", which is exactly what Bush did in both 2000 and 2004. And even then was only able to achieve "victory" by cheating and stealing. And indeed, on this very thread today several of the rightwingers have praised McCain for pretending to be a moderate when in fact he is not. They know that the only way a right-winger can win the presidency is by lying to the American people.

You are nothing but one more scripted, programmed, neo-brownshirt Bush-bootlicking goon, incapable of doing anything but regurgitating the turds that you gobble from Rush Limbaugh's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that you slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News. You don't have a clue what "the majority of Americans think" because you live in a fantasy world created for you by the bought-and-paid-for shills of the right-wing corporate elite who own the Republican Party and would just as soon squash you like a worm as spit on you. In other words, you are a weak-minded, ignorant dupe.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy_nut,

It's certainly a big exaggeration to say that the GOP wins by lying and cheating, but there has been a bit of that.

Example: the Bush administration illegally withheld their own estimate of the Medicare drug bill's true cost from Congress. There was an official finding on the part of the GAO that this was illegal. That bill was Bush's biggest domestic initiative of his first term, and getting it passed helped him in the '04 elections with seniors.

Posted by: Foo Bar on March 1, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut wrote: I really wish you'd quit withholding all your evidence of this. Inquiring minds want to know.

You are a stupid, ignorant liar.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Tom wrote: The only thing that matters is that the US has loved conservatives for a long time. Election after election proves this. It's not opinion, it's fact.

Election after election proves that conservatives can only get elected to the presidency by lying, cheating and stealing.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on March 1, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Animist, why don't I get anymore of those long rants like you gave to Tom? I need some love, too.

Foo Bar
Wait, do you mean to tell me that some politicians were not honest when they told us what a new program would cost? Gosh, I'm certain that has never happened before.

I'm afraid you'll have to do a little better than that. If politicians would have told the public how much money Medicare would cost in 30 years they'd have never bought the original program. Same with this one.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist:

I think its funny that you think I'm scripted when all you can do in response to any non-lib is type out a bunch drivel equating their views with Rush Limbaugh's.

And saying that the majority of Americans share GWB's values isn't the same as saying they like him right now in one biased poll. It's saying in the next election, they'll vote for the person who's image is most similar to that presented by Bush in the last 2 elections (which is to say not Hillary Clinton).

Look at http://tinyurl.com/57l72
34% conservative vs 21% liberal. On a CNN exit poll. Hard numbers to discuss rather than just hurling invective. Tell me you honestly don't believe McCain is the next president of the US.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

"To be honest, Tom - I don't believe McCain will be the next President of the United States - he will be older than even Reagan in 2009."

Hey, a reasoned argumemt. I'm less than shocked it had to come from a conservative.

It's true that age could be a problem, but the media seems to be ignoring it so far. And saying Reagan was old is probably a selling point. I think it will be McCain, although 2 terms probably is unlikely.

If not McCain, then who? Allen from Virginia might be a contender...

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

You're happy to let inept criminals roam free,

The inept criminals here are Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. They both knew Burkett was out to lunch and those documents could not be authenticated.

I'm not sure how strong Pat's creds as a lawyer are but if he says it's a felony fine. Some joker playing on his PC defrauding Dan Rather doesn't quite add up to me.

As far as damaging Bush this concept is in fact more insultingly dumb than the poor quality of the forgery. This was always a trivial affair. The people attacking Bush are people who voted for a confirmed and admitted draft dodger. No sane person could attack GWB for possibly missing a few TANG meetings after voting for a known draft dodger. This never mattered.

I'd argue it was always a negative for Democrats. I know a dozen liberals who tried to trash Bush on this. Everytime I'd ask then how long they served. Obviously being liberals they never served. Not a one. It's a truism the only people capable of demeaning GWBs TANG service are those who never served anything but themselves. Conservatives are far more likely to have served and thus respect another persons's service.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

"To know you live in a nation that considers your political views to be a joke?"

Yes, what must it be like to be you, Tommy boy? To know that the majority of the nation thinks that you, and that politician for whom you damply express the Love-That-Dare-Not-Be-Named, are nothing more than clowns?

PRESIDENT BUSH Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

Approve Disap-
prove Unsure Approve
minus
Dates % % % Disapprove
.

Cook/RT Strategies 2/23-26/06 40 54 6 -14
.

CBS 2/22-26/06 34 59 7 -25
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 2/16-19/06 45 52 2 -7
.

Time 2/15-16/06 40 54 5 -14
.

WNBC/Marist RV 2/13-15/06 40 57 3 -17
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 2/9-12/06 39 56 4 -17
.

Gallup 2/6-9/06 42 55 4 -13
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 2/7-8/06 44 47 9 -3
.

AP-Ipsos * 2/6-8/06 40 57 -17
.

Pew 2/1-5/06 40 52 8 -12
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 1/26-29/06 39 54 7 -15
.

Time 1/24-26/06 41 55 4 -14
.

ABC/Washington Post 1/23-26/06 42 56 2 -14
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 1/24-25/06 41 51 8 -10
.

Cook/RT Strategies 1/22-25/06 47 50 3 -3
.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg 1/22-25/06 43 54 3 -11
.

CBS/New York Times 1/20-25/06 42 51 7 -9
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 1/20-22/06 43 54 4 -11
.

Diageo/Hotline RV 1/12-15/06 46 53 2 -7
.

Gallup 1/9-12/06 43 53 4 -10
.

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 1/10-11/06 42 49 9 -7
.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 1/6-8/06 43 54

Getting kinda lonely in the freeper bunker, huh?

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hell solar, I don't approve of Bush. You thinking that makes me a Democrat?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

"I know a dozen liberals who tried to trash Bush on this. Everytime I'd ask then how long they served. Obviously being liberals they never served."

A. You don't know any liberals. Any liberal who met you would laugh at you- this does not count as "knowing someone". Any real conservative that met you would do the same.

B. You, of course, never served.

C. I served 22 years, 6 months, and 12 days in the US Army. This is approximately 22 years, 6 months, and 12 days longer than the combined service of McAsshole, Rightwing DickWad and Nutless (to be fair we will let them count service time in the militia of whatever Third World shithole they come from). I am a liberal. You are just a pathetic liar (as well as a coward).

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, what must it be like to be you, Tommy boy? To know that the majority of the nation thinks that you, and that politician for whom you damply express the Love-That-Dare-Not-Be-Named, are nothing more than clowns?"

Read the posts again and tell me where I express any personal opinion about GWB. Apparently reading comprehension is not a liberal value.

And, really, should a liberal like yourself be using the implication of homosexuality pejoratively? That seems immature and somewhat bigoted. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Tom on March 1, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

solar
You are not a liberal. You are a leftist. You could at least have the stones to admit the truth.

People like you give liberals a bad name.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 1, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
yada yada Posted by: 18%Cheney etal
I love it when Republican lickspittles eat one of their own like Dan Rather. Here he was, the only guy in Serbia willing to interview Mirjana Markovic the wife of President Slobodan Milosevic in order to broadcast propaganda for the country defended by Tom DeLay and Trent Lott. There are few things funnier than the Turning of the Weasels. But it takes a special kind of weasel to simper over a drunken boyking who smirked his way through life and drank his way through his tour of duty in Alabama; not to mention DUI Dick, the deadeye snarling doofus who serves with him while padding his stock options by giving billions in non-competitive government contracts to his pals. Yup, the scions of the American aristocracy are the ruling elite, infallible no matter how much the screw the country. Let's see: One set of polls seem to have Bush in the negative numbers, . Another says that Bush has the lowest numbers of any second termer. But look on the bright side: fully 24% of people in New Orleans think like you.
Remember, too, that the Air Force was NO LONGER sending new pilots into Vietnam during the timeframe Bush "missed" his TANG meetings. Posted by: Cheney
So why did he refuse to take his physical? He was home free.
People like you give liberals a bad name. Posted by: conspiracy nut
People like you give American a bad reputation around the world. Where Clinton was able to mingle with people, Bush has to take an army to shield him. Posted by: Mike on March 1, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

I assume everyone know SecularAnimist's identity:

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html

Yup, it's none other than Lawrence O'Donnell.

Liiiiar liiiiiar liiiiiiiiiiar

Posted by: peanut on March 1, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Just thought I'd recycle that. It's one of my favorite TV moments from 2004. Really, deserves an Emmy by itself...

Posted by: peanut on March 1, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Just Curious my little wingnut friends. Is there a little handbook out there that tells me how far left I am? Do I have take a test or maybe measure the size of my head? What is it? How do I know if I am a leftist or a liberal???

Posted by: Neo on March 1, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

So you're saying a guy who can't pilot a Segway or even a couch for a football game couldn't have possibly drank and snorted his way into an AWOL situation?

It must be fun in rainbowland.

Posted by: boing!!! on March 1, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Nutless (and thanks again for answering to your actual name) what would you know about stones or liberals? The first you don't have and the second you don't understand. Leftist is just a pejorative that you learned (using that term loosely in your case) on freakrepublic.

People "like" me serve the nation, while people "like" you live with their parents, eat government cheese, and type lies on the internet all day.

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

But I swear, comments like Bush's and Mehlman's are enough to half convince me that Bill Burkett's supposed source for the memos, "Lucy Ramirez," really was an RNC plant a longshot dirty trick that succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

I don't know why Kevin thinks the above thoughts. The memos were an absolutely classic case of greed -- similar to Nixon's desire for a blowout in 1972 (a big part of the reason for Watergate -- that is, he was definitely cruising for victory, but wanted an historic landslide, and so political greed caused him to eff-up royally). Ulterior motives and ethical shortcuts get people in trouble all the time in life. Why should politics or journalism be any different?

My point is, there was a perfectly interesting and legitimate story to be had about Bush's TANG service; simply going after the facts should have been sufficient. But Dan Rather, in his lust for a presidency-ending scoop, couldn't content himself to rely on factual sources. The end result was that Rather's shoddy behavior -- and not Bush's during the early 70s -- became the story. Cosmic justice was done.

Radix malorum truly is cupiditas.

Posted by: Patty on March 1, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

solar,

I'm not lonely. John Roberts is great company. Kiss campaign finance reform bye bye!

Supreme Court Not Sympathetic To Campaign Finance Limits

Yesterday, Vermont had to defend campaign-finance limits that have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, where the state found a rather cold reception. Chief Justice John Roberts had Vermont's attorney general, William Sorrell on the defensive and sounding somewhat evasive as Roberts wondered why Vermont's electorate just doesn't throw corrupt people out of office:

The chief justice challenged the attorney general's assertion that money was a corrupting influence on Vermont's political system, the state's main rationale for its law. "How many prosecutions for political corruption have you brought?" he asked the state official.
"Not any," Mr. Sorrell replied.

"Do you think corruption in Vermont is a serious problem?"

"It is," the attorney general replied, noting that polls showed that most state residents thought corporations and wealthy individuals exerted an undue influence in the state.

The chief justice persisted. "Would you describe your state as clean or corrupt?" he asked.

"We have got a problem in Vermont," Mr. Sorrell repeated.

The chief justice pressed further. If voters think "someone has been bought," he said, "I assume they act accordingly" at the next election and throw the incumbent out.

He also challenged a line from the attorney general's 50-page brief, an assertion that donations from special-interest groups "often determine what positions candidates and officials take on issues." Could the attorney general provide an example of such an issue, Chief Justice Roberts asked. Mr. Sorrell could not, eventually conceding that "influence" would have been a better word than "determine."


In this report by the New York Times, the court seems rather antagonistic to both the spending limits imposed by Vermont on its candidates for office and of the contribution limits as well. In fact, this entire conversation shows the silliness of the contribution limit effort. The Attorney General had to stand in front of the Supreme Court and describe his state as corrupt, and yet his office has not prosecuted one person for political corruption. That is nothing less than either a blatant admission of incompetence or the natural result of a witch hunt gone awry.

think the AG is a lib?

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

"Read the posts again and tell me where I express any personal opinion about GWB. Apparently reading comprehension is not a liberal value."

Ah, illiteracy and dishonesty rolled in one big smelly freeper pile of shit.

To refresh your faulty memory:

"I have already heard historians say that Bush brought freedom to more people than Lincoln did. In your heart, you know history books will talk about his resoluteness after the WTC destruction. The media has already established how GWB will be remembered."

"It wouldn't be much of a story to report that most Americans like Bush would it? After all, two elections pretty much confirms that. I hope it doesn't make you too weepy, but you need to face the truth that you live in a country that likes, respects, and supports GWB."

You heart GWB, we get it. Your seventh grade girlish paeans of undying love can only be explained, to my mind, by your homosexuality. This isn't said pejoratively (you go, word of the day freeper!)- we're the party of inclusion. Let your freak flag fly, lady. Only your own party will discriminate against you. For example, even if GWB divorces the librarian, the GOP won't let you two marry.


Gotta love your stupidity here, too.

"This is why so many polls showed Gore and Kerry doing well, only to have actual voting demstrate the true feeling of the electorate."

Yeah when 500,000 more of the electorate voted for Gore than Bush they certainly "demstrated" how they felt. What country did you say you were from?

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

"solar:

While I am the first to admit our Vice-President did not serve in the armed forces, he was SecDef for 8 years - also, does National Guard service really not count, in your opinion? I know some fellows in Iraq who would disagree."


Cheney, WTF thread are you reading? Fucked up on Wild Turkey and nitroglycerine again?

Posted by: solar on March 1, 2006 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie/Cheney/Chuckles:

Exactly. A person is eligible for the Purple Heart upon meeting certain criteria. Kerry did. Do you dispute this fact? Do you claim that Kerry did in fact "put in" for his medal?

'Nuff said.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

now that we know Reagan had Alzheimer's, the old age may become more of an issue this time.


Ronnie's disease didn't start until more than 5 years after he left office. Plus the GOP has a very deep bench. It's possible it could be an issue in a 2nd term but as long as he nominates a strong VP it won't cost him any votes. He's lined up perfectly and he knows what he has to do.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Do you claim that Kerry did in fact "put in" for his medal?


We know he put in for it. The paperwork is his handwriting. He admits it.

Posted by: rdw on March 1, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK
Keep dancing Gregory. To presume he deserved his medals is to presume he is the greatest war hero ever.

I make no such presumption, as I have said. Congratulations on continuing your dishonesty.

Or you can accept there were irregularities. In this option, which is my choice, the question of whether he deserved his medals or not, is not operative. Which is why there is no need for me to defend whether he deserved them or not.

We've been over this ground, nut. You *say* (still,/i> no cite, which is getting suspicious to say the least) that Kerry's medals are "irregular." I point out that if that's true, he either deserved them, or he doesn't. The Navy's record indicates he does. Now, at last, do you have something to dispute that record, or don't you? Put up or shut up.

To maintain your position, however, you have to claim he is the greatest war hero ever.

No, I don't. I simply have to point out that the record indicates that he deserved his medals, and ask if you have anything to contradict the official record. That you resort, again, to such dishonesty is a pretty fair indication that, whatever you'd *like* to believe about Kerry, you have no evidence. Big surprise, nut.

Or you can keep dancing.

The only one dancing here is you, nut. You've been given a very simple challenge: do you have any evidence that Kerry does not deserve his medals? Your answer, obviously is no, which is why *you* are doing the dancing. Fine and dandy, but hardly surprising. Thanks for your usual dishonesty, nut. And you said you were being seriosu -- ha!

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

We know he put in for it. The paperwork is his handwriting. He admits it.

Cite, please? Pardon me if your word isn't good enough, wooten.

Posted by: Gregory on March 1, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

If we had a press with a little more brass, they would simply have asked W. whether he finished his tour, showed up in Alabama. To my knowledge, he's never been asked directly, and therefore, never directly lied about it.

Posted by: DK2 on March 2, 2006 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

Cite, please? Pardon me if your word isn't good enough


Do your own research. This horse was beat to death a long, long time ago. Kerry was soundly defeated. Bush was soundly re-elected. We knew then the facts were the TANG story was a disaster for Dan Rather, CBS News, the MSM, and to a lessor extent the DNC for taking their calls. We know the SBVs were by far the most effective of the 527's. Michael Moore, George Soros, George Clooney, etc., were pathetic in comparison.

Get over it. That's President Bush sitting at 1600.

Posted by: rdw on March 2, 2006 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINK

If we had a press with a little more brass,

It isn't brass they lack it's brains. Bush did answer questions and unlike Kerry he released ALL of his records. You had a golden opportunity against a man you all agree is as dumb as a post and you went and nominated that buffoon. It just proves you get what you deserve.

Posted by: rdw on March 2, 2006 at 7:24 AM | PERMALINK

dk2, greg,

Have you seen some of the reports from the Supreme court hearing the last two days? This is not your fathers Supreme Court.

On Monday the Texas Democratic party was heard on the famous Delay redistricting and got bounced around by a majority of justices. I another case about Campaign finance Roberts hammered a State Attorney General if money was corrupting politics. The AG said it was a big problem in his state. Roberts asked how many cases the AG's brought so far. ZERO!!!! He also asked if that's why we have elections.

Yesterday there was a case on States using tax incentives to lure business. Obviously Blue states are getting killed with this tax competition. The high tax states won't be getting any help with this Supreme Court.

Posted by: rdw on March 2, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

Do your own research. This horse was beat to death a long, long time ago.

Ah. In other words, you have no cite. Thanks for clearing that up, rdw. Until you can do better. I'll chalk up that particular assertion of yours as just more right-wing fantasy.

We know the SBVs were by far the most effective of the 527's.

Again, thank you for confirming once more that you positively celebrate smearing veterans for political gain.

Your assertion that Bush released his entire record is questionable in light of its significant gaps, but that's the point -- Bush's own record -- entirely apart from the memos -- fails to prove that he fulfilled his duty (no record of duty in Alabama, no record at all of reporting in Mass.).

C'mon, rdw...admit it. You love the fact that the GOP's lies about both Bush's and Kerry's records got Bush elected. Go ahead, gloat. It's what you do best, right?

As for the Supreme Court, so what? January 2009 is less than three years away. A Democratic president will have as much opportunity as Bush did to change the makeup of the court. (It'll be interesting, of course, to see whether Senate Republicans insist on up-or-down voites -- oh, wait, y'all already blew that talking point with Meiers, who never got one). Your triumphalist assertions presumethat the makeup of the Court is unchangeable, an assertion not at all in evidence. Frankly, it's boring.

I note for the record that c.n. still has not provided any evidence that Kerry did not deserve his medals. Big surprise, not.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

A Democratic president will have as much opportunity as Bush did to change the makeup of the court. (It'll be interesting, of course, to see whether Senate Republicans insist on up-or-down voites -

Not likely. The next two retiree's are very likely Stevens and Ginsburg. Stevens will be 86 and is reported to be getting frail. If he dies before 09 we're getting another 55-yr old Alito except she'll have a longer life expectancy.

Consider 4 uber-conservatives under the age of 60. Scalia will be near 70.

Stevens and Ginsburg will try to hang on as long as possible. If they last until 2009 here's your problem. Schumer has changed the rules. It's now expected to vote against anyone no matter how qualified if you don't like how they're expected to vote. If Stevens holds on the bext you can hope for is a very moderate liberal and that will be hard. The same is true for Ginsburg. No matter what happens the court will become more conservtive. There is no possibility of replacing the liberals with liberals.

There's also the fact the country is clearly been turning more conservative. Larry Summers was canned by a faculty far, far to the left of the student body. Liberal secularists since the 1960's have not been having kids. They are far less likely to have kids than religious conservatives. That's why the Blue states are losing population AND aging. That's why college campuses have become progressively more conservative.

In 2015 the hippies of 1965 will be 70 - 80 years old. They're leaving us and in many cases with no or just one kid and two or fewer grandchildren. My father had 4 and we had 10 and by 2015 all will be voting GOP.

You better pray Hillary wins in 2008. President John McCain will be another pro-life conservative and he'll absolutely replace both Stevens and Ginsburg with conservatives.

Posted by: rdw on March 2, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

solar
Leftist is just a pejorative
Sure, so is liberal since you leftists started using the liberal label.

Leftists are interested in that one-world socialist government. They think redistribution of wealth is the answer, they think centralized government is the answer. And no matter how many times these ideas fail, a leftist never leaves off promoting the unworkable.

Here's your test:
- You think the UN is a good system
- You think Sweden has a good system

If these are true, you are a leftist. You will also believe in the reduction of US military spending and are concerned with the worldwide detrimental economic impact of the US. And those 2 concerns run contrary to all that is liberal.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 2, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Conspiracy nut, since you've claimed that nay government that redistributes tax income to the poor -- meaning every government in the G8, including the USA, just for starters -- is Marxist, why should anyone credit your definitions?

Remember when you also said the GOP is too Marxist for your taste because of its tacit support of progressive income tax? Hilarious!

Now, to business: Present your evidence that Kerry didn't deserve his medals, or admit -- well, you have already, really, but just for the record -- that you just want to presume he didn't to maintain your dishonest false equivalence.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Nutless provides more proof that he is a fuckwit:

"Leftists are interested in that one-world socialist government."

Which one-world socialist government would that be? Do lunatic fringe fuckwits like yourself think there is one?

"You will also believe in the reduction of US military spending and are concerned with the worldwide detrimental economic impact of the US."

Except I have never said any such thing. Now, using your lunatic fringe, black helicopter crowd definition of a "leftist" you can't find any words of mine that would include me in that group. On the other hand, I can choose any random spew of your own words and prove that you are a fuckwit. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory
You know, your same old dance is getting old. Got a new one?

Kerry did deserve his medals, they were his ticket out. He wanted out, and his superiors wanted him out. The medals were his ticket and both parties recognized it. So everyone was happy. Even I'm happy. But it is irregular, even if you're too dense to figure that out.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 2, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

solar
It seems I've hit a nerve there. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

And ya, you may be able to claim that what I wrote isn't word for word correct; but in the main it was dead on.

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 2, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

You know, your same old dance is getting old. Got a new one?

The only one dancing is you, c.n., but refusingto answer the question. But wait:

Kerry did deserve his medals

Aha! You concede Kerry deserved his medals. So the so-called "irregularity" of Kerry's service is that he received medals he deserved, whereas the irregularity of Bush's service is that he didn'tshow up for duty. Thank you for confirming your false equivalence.

But wait! Having failed to smear Kerry with his odious false equivalences and snide implications, c.n., dishonest as ever, tries a new, unsourced, unsupported assertion!

He wanted out, and his superiors wanted him out. The medals were his ticket and both parties recognized it.

Source? Cite? Anything? Especially any contemporaneous documentation that "his superiors wanted him out?" Leaving aside the fact that awarding a sailor the Silver Star seems an odd way of getting rid of someone, especially someone you claim his superiord wanted to get rid of, I'm afraid your word is no good, nut. So again your dancing begins anew. Well, I call. Put up or shut up.

But it is irregular, even if you're too dense to figure that out.

There is nothing "irregular" about Kerry receiving medals you concede he deserved, even if you're too dishonest to admit it.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory
It's good to see you clinging to an impossible situation. Nobody, say it slowly: Nobody. collects medals at the rate Kerry did. You are left with 2 alternatives, either he is the greatest war hero ever known, or something irregular happened.

Or, you can keep pretending that nothing odd happened, and that every old Navy ensign gets a Purple Heart a month without losing any time to injuries. Nothing here, just move along...

You're too much fun.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 2, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

cn: Think for a moment, what kind of hero puts in for a Purple Heart for a wound that doesn't even require a Band Aid?


ME: so you can give -yourself- medals when you are in the military?


the answer is no....you cannot give yourself medals.....


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK


dead ender logic...

bush has a honorable discharge, so what happened between his signing up and awol doesnt matter...


kerry...has official military documentation of medals awards and action reports....

those are all to be questioned....

lol

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK


cheney....

Any member of the U.S. Army who believes that he or she is eligible for the Purple Heart, but through unusual circumstances no award was made, may submit an application through military channels, to Commander, PERSCOM, ATTN: TAPC PDA, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471. Application will include complete documentation, to include evidence of medical treatment, pertaining to the wound."


so.....the answer is....

no...

you can't give yourself medals in the military..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody, say it slowly: Nobody. collects medals at the rate Kerry did. You are left with 2 alternatives, either he is the greatest war hero ever known, or something irregular happened.

You know, I'm glad you brought this up, c.n., because -- now that you've conceded Kerry deserved his medals, which really renders any point you're trying to make here rather moot anyway -- I'm through accepting your claim that there's anything unusual about the "rate" at which Kerry did so for argument's sake. It's time for a cite, c.n. Your word is no good.

I also notice, speaking of "clinging to an impossible situation," that you provide no cite that Kerry's superiors wanted to get rid of him, as you claim. Another unsourced assertion from c.nut. No surprise, and no value.

Or, you can keep pretending that nothing odd happened, and that every old Navy ensign gets a Purple Heart a month without losing any time to injuries. Nothing here, just move along...

As you well know, I pretend no such thing. The two alternatives are that Kerry either deserved his medals or he did not. Since you concede that he deserved them, the rate at which he received them is immaterial. You're the one making claims that Kerry was an unusual war hero, but what of it? For all that you've been able to demonstrate to the contrary, maybe he was. I'm not claiming he was, just pointing out that you concede he deserved his medals had have absolute bupkus to prove otherwise.

And again, the point of all your dancing and distortion is to justify one of your usual false equivalences -- that your giving a pass to Bush is justified because there's something "irregular" in Kerry's service. If the only "irregularity" you can cite is that Kerry received a bunch of medals in a short time -- and I remind you that your word alone is not good on this point,and you haven't produced any actual citation -- what of it? That's only a problem if he didn't deserve them, and you concede he did. QED.

You're too much fun.

I know dishonest debate is fun for you, c.n. It just undermines your contention that the problem here is with the other posters. The one making this thread a cesspool of bullshit is you.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut,

Can you cite a specific example from the Clinton administration analogous to the Medicare drug program deception (i.e. a case where there was an official finding of wrongdoing where the administration hid its own numbers from Congress in order to get a bill passed) ? My guess is that you'll just reassert that everybody does it.

Another example of administration dishonesty: McLellan saying that the idea that Libby and Rove were involved in the Plame leak was ridiculous. Even if you think they didn't do anything illegal, it's pretty clear they were involved, so it seems indisputable to me that either Libby and Rove lied to McLellan or McLellan lied.

Posted by: Foo Bar on March 2, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

foo bar: McLellan saying that the idea that Libby and Rove were involved in the Plame leak was ridiculous. Even if you think they didn't do anything illegal, it's pretty clear they were involved, so it seems indisputable to me that either Libby and Rove lied to McLellan or McLellan lied.


dont forget....the liberal media like matt cooper and john dickerson both with TIME magazine...

knew mcclellan was lying...because we now know

that rove and libby talked to both...and they had compared notes...

yet

they said nothing....


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK


its official.....

you cannot give yourself medals while in the military..

thanks for clearing that up cheney

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know that Kerry deserved all of his medals - we were never able to find out - there is very specific criteria for the Purple Heart (see above).

Charlie/Cheney/Chuckles, the citations for Kerry's medals are a matter of record. What no one was able to "find out" is any credible evidence at all to the contrary.

Do you have any evidence to contradict those citations? Noting that some lying scumbags like you "questioned" Kerry's Purple Hearts is worthless. Put up or shut up.

But when it's claimed that the GOP supports the troops, your loathsome intimations that Kerry did not deserve his medals will be remembered. Isn't bearing false witness against your so-claimed "Christian" ethics? Shame on you, liar.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, the Trolletariat came out in full force for this thread, I wonder why? After all, the election is over a year past, this is an issue only discussed by political partisans and not anyone else, and therefore has no real impact in the politics of today. Yet the responses and intensity of those responses by the Trolletariat in this thread is as if this was the last days of the election campaign. The only answer that makes any sense is that there is still something in this story that they are afraid of, and that only makes sense if one accepts the premise that Bushco is somehow involved in these unsourced/unvalidated documents. After all, these CBS documents have not been conclusively proven to be fakes any more than they have been conclusively proven authentic. What they are is in a state of limbo. Too bad that the only thing these documents provided that was new was a confirmation of GWB refusing orders for a physical which resulted in his flight status being revoked.

Every other detail regarding questions about GWB's service in getting into TANG, his transfer to Alabama yet no one ever seeing him in his unit doing his service, that for the last weeks of his flying service GWB's flying capabilities clearly deteriorated (remember, when he first qualified as a pilot he scored exceptionally well on instrument landings yet at the end of his flying career was having real troubles with such), he clearly failed to have a physical which was a mandated requirement to keep flight status, and he never showed up in Mass to complete his service requirements there when he started at Harvard. All of this is from the official documentation released by the WH themselves so their authenticity is not in doubt. Thanks to the work of Paul Lukasik this is available for all to examine at http://www.glcq.com/, and none of these documents are in dispute as to their authenticity.

Gregory:

Nice work on CN and all the nonsense he was spewing regarding Kerry's medals being unusual, and how to believe in them automatically translates into believing Kerry was the greatest soldier in American history. I guess though a Silver Star in his books is more impressive than say a CMH and means that whomever gets the CMH is not as heroic as someone with the Silver Star and a Bronze Star or two, despite the clear differences in the requirements to be considered eligible for each medal. I think CN is either paid to do what he does or simply does it out of a love of being a propagandist, to be that stupid in not understanding the underlying premises and the inherent contradictions within so many of his arguments and yet put together as much as he does just doesn't work for me.

Either way though the only thing any of the Kerry critics of his Vietnam service in this thread have been able to actually cite with any credibility behind it was the Cambodia business and his having his dates mixed up because of the amount of times he was in that area and crossed into Cambodia to drop off personnel. Aside from that they have nothing. This business with the PH being self awarded by Kerry is yet another dodge, as is well he didn't bleed enough for it. Seeing as there is no criteria within the PH requirements for "x" amount of blood first before one qualifies that is a completely bogus argument period.

Nor have they explained how Senator Warner (R) who was SecDef when Kerry's Silver Star award crossed his desk for confirmation was so taken in by Kerry that he falsely awarded this medal. Nor do they explain how the main challenger of Kerry's Bronze Star claimed there was no combat in the event that the BS was being awarded to Kerry for when his (the SBVfT accuser) very own Bronze Star award from the very same engagement said there was. In other words if Kerry's was bogus then so was his, yet he wasn't in any rush to turn in his Bronze Star or to claim that it was equally bogus, no it was only Kerry's that was the problem, not his own.

Like you I can go through these claims and shred them chapter and verse, since like yourself I had so much practice with it in Aug/Sept of 2004 at this blog. The hypocrisies of the GOP and their Trolletariat on military service given their standard bearer GWB and the willingness to embrace the tactics of personal destruction, deception, and smear campaigns against opponents with good military records (McCain 2000, Kerry 2004) by GWB's political strategist Karl Rove, indeed be admiring of Rove's methods, speaks quite clearly to their contempt for such service unless it is from someone of their own political persuasion. In other words the service only matters to them when it is a political asset for their side, and not for the service itself and what it means on its own both for the soldier and for the nation he served. That is a level of contempt so egregious, so offensive, that once this is understood/recognized by those in uniform and those now out of uniform but once were in it it is going to seriously harm the GOP.

The GOP have played the "well we are the friends of the military, we are the ones that respect service" card with the "destroy any veteran's record if they are political opponents, no matter how heroic and verified that record may be" card a few too many times in a row. Bushco and the GOP Congressional rubber stamp have done much to harm the frame that the GOP is the only trustworthy party on security, and the Dubai deal only further undercuts that to this day, along with Iraq's ongoing civil war, and the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the increasing violence there as well.


Posted by: Scotian on March 2, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Nutless, you arrogate yourself to a position you will never achieve- for the record, unemployed momma's boys with a schoolgirl crush on Dubya don't hit any of my nerves- they just make me go "ewwwwww".

Now let's go back to your dumbass freeper definition of leftist:

"Leftists are interested in that one-world socialist government."

"You will also believe in the reduction of US military spending and are concerned with the worldwide detrimental economic impact of the US."

Please quote anything I have written here that supports your claim that I meet your looney fringe definition, above. Can't do it? I guess you are still a lying fuckwit. Hoist by your own freeper petard.

Also for the record, you know nothing about the military, including whether earning a number of medals in a short period of time is unique.

In response to this lying fuckwittery:
"Nobody. collects medals at the rate Kerry did."

For your edification (because, as we all know, what fuckwits require more than anything else, besides a good swift kick, is edification) here are the awards of one of my favorite soldiers:

Individual Decorations & Service Medals:

Distinguished Service Cross (with one Oak Leaf Cluster)
Silver Star (with nine Oak Leaf Clusters)
Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters)
Distinguished Flying Cross
Bronze Star Medal (with "V" Device & seven Oak Leaf Clusters)(Seven of the awards for heroism)
Purple Heart (with seven Oak Leaf Clusters)
Air Medal (with "V" Device & Numeral 34)(One for heroism and 33 for aerial achievement)
Army Commendation Medal (w/ "V" Device & 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Good Conduct Medal
World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany and Japan Clasps)
National Defense Service Medal (with one Bronze Service Star)
Korean Service Medal (with Service Stars for eight campaigns)
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Vietnam Service Medal (2 Silver Service Stars = 10 campaigns)
Armed Forces Reserve Medal
Unit Awards:

Presidential Unit Citation
Valorous Unit Award (with one Oak Leaf Cluster)
Meritorious Unit Commendation
Badges & Tabs:

Combat Infantryman Badge (w/ one Star; representing 2 awards)
Master Parachutist Badge
Army General Staff Identification Badge
Foreign Awards:

United Nations Service Medal (Korea)
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with two Gold Stars)
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with two Silver Stars)
Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal (1st Class)
Vietnam Staff Service Medal (1st Class)
Vietnam Army Distinguished Service Order, 2d Class
Vietnam Parachutist Badge (Master Level)
Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation (with three Palm oak leaf clusters)
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation (with one Palm oak leaf cluster)
World War II Merchant Marine Awards:

Pacific War Zone Bar
Victory Medal

Audie Murphy won three purple hearts, the MOH, and a silver star in less than four months.

The 442nd Regimental Combat team won over 9,000 purple hearts (with some 3,000 personnel), and had a casualty rate of over 90%. Lt. Young Oak Kim, earned two purple hearts, the MOH and the silver star within a few days.

In Vietnam, we gave out more than 200,000 purple hearts- and 19,000 so far in Iraq. Multiple purple heart winners are not uncommon.

So, to sum up, you are an embarrasment to your fellow fuckwits.

Finally to forestall your main objection - we know you never served and are simply a cowering loon seated at a computer, doing a job a chimp could do better. Not knowing anything about the subjects you post on is simply no excuse for aggravated fuckwittery.

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

I have posted the criteria for the Purple Heart

You have failed to demonstrate how Kerry failed to meet these criteria.

given the lack of records to determine one way or another

Kerry's qualifications for these medals is a matter of record in the medal citation. The "lack of records" -- what "we have been unable to determine" -- is GOP oppo research unearthing any credible evidence that the medals were not, in fact, correctly awarded.

and the witnesses who claimed at least one "wound" did not require medical treatment

Finding lying scumbags to "question" Kerry's medals decades after the facts is hardly credible evidence.

the degree to which the enemy caused the injury, or possible self-inflicted wounds / gross negligence

Shame on you for suggesting that Kerry's wounds may have been self inflicted. Your disrespect of a veteran and hero is noted, and can only undermine the perception that the GOP honors vets.

perhaps this is just one of those issues "in a state of limbo" too?

Not at all -- the documentary evidence of Kerry's medals stands unchallenged. Simply because lying GOP scumbags like you -- and I have to hand it to you, Chuckles, when it comes to dishonesty you have c.n. beat all hollow -- refuse to admit the case is closed hardly makes it an open issue.

I grow tired of asking this, so it'll be the last time. If you have evidence for any of your claims, put up or shut up.

Scotian, thanks.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney, you are as big a liar as your namesake, and as big a fuckwit as Nutless:


"I have posted the criteria for the Purple Heart - given the lack of records to determine one way or another, and the witnesses who claimed at least one "wound" did not require medical treatment, the degree to which the enemy caused the injury, or possible self-inflicted wounds / gross negligence, perhaps this is just one of those issues "in a state of limbo" too?"

The Navy IG had this to say on the matter:

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."

So the Navy has no questions- but the tinfoil you wear on your head gives you some special insight, right?

So let's sum up, shall we:

1. You never served.

2. You are a pathological liar.

3. You suffer from penis envy.

4. You are a snivelling coward.


Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK


cheney: given the lack of records to determine one way or another


he received the awards....


and since you cant give yourself the awards...

what's your point?

Posted by: thisspacevailable on March 2, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Last I checked, solar, Audie Murphy served during WWII - no doubt Kerry cannot hold a flame to any of those Greatest Generation - the point is that NO OTHER VIETNAM vet received as many medals as Kerry.

Sweet Jesus, Chuckles, solar's posting includes medals Audie Murphy won for service in Vietnam.

That does it, kiddies...no more claims about Kerry having some unusual number/rate of medals without a cite to back it up. Let's get real.

Oh, hell, we might as well come clean. Y'all have nothing. If you did, you'd have posted it ages ago. Let's just call it what it is, shall we? You smear Kerry's honorable record because he's in the political opposition, give Bush's failure to do his duty a pass because he's your boy, and draw bullshit false equivalences to tell yourselves it's okay.

Like I said -- why can't you just gloat honestly about the fact that the GOP lies about Kerry's and Bush's service gained more traction in the public perception than the truth? It's a done deal, after all. It's genuinely fascinating to me why you still have to lie about it, to yourselves most of all.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Just to save you a little trouble, Chuckles, don't bother posting any so-called "wtiness testimony" that isn't contemporaneous with Kerry's medal citations.

As I've said, just because the GOP found some lying scumbag to slander Kerry after the fact and after all, Chuckles, they found you -- hardly raises credible questions about Kerry's service.

If you have evidence -- real evidence, thank you, and not 30-years-after-the-fact-Swift Boat liar bullshit -- Kerry didn't deserve his medals, bring it on. You didn't then and you won't now.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

cheney...should he have though?


so the fact that kerry...

FACT a. was awarded medals...

FACT b. you cant give --yourself-- medals in the military...

FACT c. the official record backs up kerry

and last of all...

d. you offer NO evidence to contradict it...

if proof of what?

again?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

"...the point is that NO OTHER VIETNAM vet received as many medals as Kerry."

Keep posting, fuckwit:

The medals I listed above were for Vietnam veteran David Hackworth. A few of them were from his service in Korea but most (and far more than Kerry received) were earned in Vietnam.

He's not the only one. Multiple medal winners were not uncommon in Vietnam. I know you never served and have never been on a military base, but more than one bronze star, silver star, or purple heart is not unusual. John Kerry is not even the most decorated Vietnam vet in Congress for the love of God.

You are a complete and utter idiot.

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

My "point" is that questions whether Kerry deserved said medal(s) remain unanswered

No, it doesn't, Chuckles. Liars like you who won't admit you're smearing an honorable veteran are the only ones who refuse to accept the facts, even as you have no facts at all on your side.

I like you new standard of evidence BTW: "so-called 'witness testimony' that isn't contemporaneous with" the event - throw out every death penalty appeal then and fry them all tomorrow.

Well, Chuckles, if either side in a criminal case presented an obviously biased witness who may well have been paid off to give testimony and whose testimony in fact contradicts his or hear earlier claims, the courts would be within their rights to accord such testimony the little value the latter-day Swift Boat Liars' have.

You hang your hat on the fact that Kerry's medals have been "questioned." The question before you is, do you have any evidence. The answer, as we both know, is no.

This is getting tiresome, so I'm done. Congratulations to Chuckles, rdw, and conspiracy nut for their condoning -- indeed, celebrating! -- the slander of an honorable veteran while giving Bush's iserable failure to do his duty a free pass. Really admirable there, guys.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

The medals I listed above were for Vietnam veteran David Hackworth. A few of them were from his service in Korea but most (and far more than Kerry received) were earned in Vietnam.

I stand corrected, solar. I was confused because you mentioned Audie Murphy's name, not Hackworth's, immediately after your list.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

You notice, by the way, solar, that neither Chuckles not c.n. have provided a cite to back up their claim that there was anything unusual at all in the rate at which Kerry was decorated. There may well have been, but their word is no good. Of course, thier conspicuous failure to back up their bullshit provides ample evidence why.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Dickless Cheney:

No one uses ad hominem arguments against you either. It is not ad hominem to prove 1) that what you say is a lie and 2) that you are a dishonest, scumbag piece of shit. Your lies are not lies because you are a piece of shit (nor is anyone claiming this), they are lies because they are untrue.

Like many other things you doubtless mistake, ad hominem does not mean what you think it means. Living in a permanent state of confusion must make life difficult for you. Good thing your parents haven't thrown you out yet- nothing sadder than a homeless wingnut.

By the way, your near limitless dishonesty is emblematic of the party you represent- incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest. I see why a person of your nature would gravitate towards the GOP (shitbirds of a feather).

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Why are you so sure the fake National Guard memos aired by 60 Minutes weren't a long shot RNC dirty trick that suceeded beyond wildest expectations.

Here's a fact rarely explored by ANYONE, anyone I've read anyway:

The memos were attacked as forged within an hour of their airing on a right wing blog. The blogger who made the post based his objections on the typeface of the memos, which I guess he was able to see clearly on a television screen.

That blogger is a LAWYER who worked on the project to get Clinton disbarred in Arkansas and was also on the Bush recount Team in 2004.

As you probably realize identifying typefaces is an esoteric art.

What's the odds that a lawyer, one deeply involved in RNC projects, can identify one accurately off an original of the memos much less off a tv screen.

I'd say slim and none.

Posted by: johnny_nyc on March 2, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Facts" and "evidence" include the affidavits submitted by hundreds of Vietnam vets - you are well within your rights to claim they are not credible and try to make that case stick - they are still evidence as much as you want to deny that reality.

Ha! Chuckles compounds his dishonesty by conflating the affidavits of the so-called SBVfT who considered Kerry unfit to be President due to his antiwar activities, but who acknowledged that they actually met or knew Kerry, and the biased, unsupported, and in some cases, self-contradictory testimony of the few GOP shills who slandered Kerry -- you know, Chuckles, with false allegations -- that he didn't deserve his medals.

Y'all have had plenty of time to post your evidence, and have come up with bupkus. Chuckles, more dishonest than most, pretends that the so-called SBVfT who disagreed with Kerry's political stance give credence with the liars who tarnished Kerry's record so the so-called SBVfT's disagreement would have more resonance. A lesson some of the same political operatives, I might add, learned in the Nixon era, when Kerry's status as a bona fide -- and unquestioned, even by Nixon's minions! -- war hero lent moral weight to his opposition to the war. Which is, of course, what all this is about.

You call it evidence, Chuckles. I call you a liar. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

In less than 4 months, he is - I am unaware of any other - as Gregory says "put up or shut up".

Um, Chuckles, cite? Your assertions, your word, is of no value. Sheesh.

Put up or shut up, indeed.

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Correx:

"but who acknowledged that they actually met or knew Kerry"

s/b:

but who acknowledged that they never actually met or knew Kerry

Posted by: Gregory on March 2, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

You are welcome. I have to admit, this was one of the more trying threads to have to read through the comments of thanks to the work of the Trolletariat. It never ceased to amaze me though the complete lack of evidence/cites/links they provided to corroborate their claims, instead acting as if their declarations were sufficient, especially given the amount of copious contemporaneous documentation from the military which corroborated Kerry's accounting of his service. Indeed, they completely fail to acknowledge that every one of the SBVfT that truly served with Kerry had been on the record previously, including in Vietnam and afterwards, as confirming the account that Kerry earned his commendations with good reason. Then suddenly for the 2004 election they sign affidavits that run counter to everything they said to that point, provide zero additional evidence other than their changed stories, yet this is taken as sufficiently credible to challenge everything on the Kerry side of the books.

Not content with that then they decide to start declaring what is and what is not considered an unusual number of awards within a four months service in Vietnam, declare that Kerry's are so unusual it makes him the most decorated vet ever, yet when provided with further evidence that Kerry was far from the only multiple medal earner in Vietnam, and that others earned more and higher quality medals in a four months period, well that is sublimely ignored by our Trolletariat.

The fact is for three weeks the first SBVfT attack was solely on Kerry's medals and whether he earned them was based on no actual evidence except for people suddenly contradicting their accounts of the past 30 years without any explanation as to why they were lying then if they aren't lying now. This was taken as so credible by the major news media organizations that they treated it with complete credibility for those three weeks. Yet the CBS story was immediately treated with suspicion and contempt despite GWB's own records already released providing a solid basis for believing these documents to be true. Serious difference in treatment, which when one examines the respective foundations underlying each claim the one against GWB is far, far, FAR more credible and established than any of the claims against Kerry's medal and Vietnam service.

It just goes to show how the Trolletariat can ignore any evidence/facts/reality which does not fit into their preconceptions of the world. It also shows just how preprogrammed their thinking is, since they do not show one whit of critical thought skills by swallowing such blatant propaganda and then repeating it as if it was the writ of God. The only question I ever wonder is whether these are paid operatives or volunteers that simply are too ignorant, too lazy, and too willing to believe what they are told by "their side". I would prefer the former, the latter only underscores how far America has fallen in terms of it having an informed citizenry that actually takes interest in the activities of their elected representatives. That would be such a fundamental betrayal of all the Founding Fathers of America fought for.

Posted by: Scotian on March 2, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

cheney...none of that matters....

since you already admit

you can't give yourself medals in the military...

perhaps your problem is with those who approved such medals...

again....

bush gets an honorable discharge...despite no documentation of his whereabouts for more than one year....

cheney has no problem with that...

kerry has official military documentation...yet cheney claims the end result here is up for discussion...

dead ender logic....immune to facts or irony

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

how do medals help you trash vets?

lol

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK


so he had to have medals to toss.....

so he went to viet nam to get some?

lol

wouldnt have been easier to get some medals in say....

the national guard?

and a lot safer too...


cheney:How about Kerry's sworn testimony against Vietnam vets - did you even know about that?


you mean where he read a statement about what the winter soldiers --told-- him?

yeah...saw the whole video...

kerry was sworn in? really?

and to think the gop didn't swear in the attorney general a few weeks ago...

how times have changed...

lol

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 2, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Dickless Cheney wrote:

"...the point is that NO OTHER VIETNAM vet received as many medals as Kerry."

Then Dickless Cheney, perhaps thinking that everyone else was as stupid as he is, lied:

"As you can see above, I never disputed that brave Vietnam vets (who actually stayed longer) received more medals than Kerry..."

Uh, except in the sentence you wrote which is still on the same page as your new lie. Helpfully, you wrote the first lie ALL IN CAPS.

When caught in the first lie, Cheney tries to change what he said above:

"In less than 4 months, he is - I am unaware of any other - as Gregory says "put up or shut up"."

Unfortunately for Ol' Dickless, he can't edit what he wrote above, so he falls back on that old GOP standard- lying his ass off.

Now Dickless, there are many Vietnam vets who won just as many or more medals in a shorter period of time. I'll give you just one- John McCain. And then there's poor luckless Gary Linderer who got two purple hearts in the same day. I'll leave you to research the rest on your own, you worthless moron.

I realize that being home-schooled by creationists and white supremacists tends to put a crimp in your education but sheesh- you think what is written here is slander (slander is oral communication, dimwit) and that slander (a legal term regarding making false statments) is the same as ad hominem argument (a logical fallacy concerned with addressing the personal failings of the opponent rather than the merits of their argument). Again, it is not ad hominem to say that what you write is a lie AND that you are a worthless shitbag.

In conclusion, buy a book. You are really too stupid to converse with, as is.

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

This is typical dittohead claptrap and way off the topic of this thread too:

If you didn't serve, like Clinton, then you're a draft dodger.

If you did serve like Murtha and Kerry, then your service and medals aren't good enough.

Posted by: johnny_nyc on March 2, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Dickless,

A fuckwit with google is still a fuckwit- try to remember that about yourself.

The "I served" garbage (from a racist psychopath) has been thoroughly debunked. I can understand your attraction for this as you are such a big supporter of the Scumbag Veterans for Lies. Lying shitbirds of a feather...

Now if you did any research (and this is beyond your basic simian capacity, I know) you would find that McCain served about 30 hours in combat, and that the bulk of his citations encompass that brief period and the short time after his capture. This would be a shorter period of time than John Kerry served in Vietnam, with a larger haul of medals. McCain did receive "anniversary" medals during his time of imprisonment.

Unlike you, a home-schooled, butt-fucked, still-living-with-mommy full-on chickenshit chickenhawk coward who criticizes better men and women who actually served their country (and venerates coke sniffing alkie frat boys like Dubya), I don't demean the men and women who were lucky enough to serve my country and come home alive to tell about it by questionning the validity of their medals. You see, I was in the service, I have a drawerful of medals, and I know how you get them. You, on the other paw, don't know shit about valor and your only opinion about medals is "Democrat- didn't deserve them- Republican- I heart Dubya".

Stupid freeper trash.

P.S. at least two soldiers in Iraq have been awarded multiple purple hearts for separate combat events on the same day. I am certain that if you discovered they were Democrats you would make up some cowardly lies about them to. Go Cheney yourself.


Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Dickless,

You are confused. This is probably not a novel condition for you. (The only thing that you are not confused about is answering to the name Dickless- at least you have that much self-knowledge).

You said no Vietnam vet ever earned more medals than Kerry. This was proven to be a lie. You said no Vietnam vet ever got more medals than Kerry in a four month period. This was proven to be a lie (Hackworth himself, the recipient of 8 purple hearts and umpteen Silver and Bronze stars probably got more in four months than did Kerry).

After being outed, for the thousandth time, as just a miserable liar, you sidestep into a discussion that no one is having other than your own crazy self. I know far more about Hack than you do, and unlike you, I've actually read his opinion of McCain's medals. Sadly for you, no one is talking about whether McCain deserved his medals. I'm certainly not.

Hack was a genuine hero of two of America's wars. He earned the right to criticize with his own blood (BTW, he was an adamant critic of the type of wingnut you represent). If it helps your glacial mental processes, you can draw a distinction from yourself by putting Hack over here (American war hero) and you over there (chickenshit coward).

And thanks for your continued attacks on America's veterans. They really do display what a cesspool of shit scumbag Republicans live in and what is really important to vile pigs like you.

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Solar, you are my new hero. Well done indeed, sir -- you really knnow how to take the fight to the enemy. I'm proud you're on our side.

Posted by: Stefan on March 2, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

And thanks for your continued attacks on America's veterans.

solar, stefan,


Please. Do you really want to relive the 2004 election?

It was John Kerry who trashed Vietnam Vets as we saw almost constantly during the brilliant PR campaign managed by the SBVs. We saw him and heard in his own words. It was his own words which cost him the Presidency. They saw what kind of man he is and voted accordingly.

Posted by: rdw on March 2, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

Dickless bleats:

"You're proud of all that cussing too?"

Oh please. It's bad enough that you are too cowardly to serve your country but you're afraid of a few curse words, too? Even your mother bemoans your effeminacy. Who are you, Lynne Cheney?

"Since you know so much more about Hack than I do, perhaps you can tell us which of his Purple Hearts (I know at least one was in Korea) he received in Vietnam in less than a 4 month period?"

The answer, fuckwit, is each and every one. Study the English language, use it, learn it.


I said:

"Dickless,

You are confused. This is probably not a novel condition for you. (The only thing that you are not confused about is answering to the name Dickless- at least you have that much self-knowledge)."

and just to prove his utter and complete moronic confusion, Dickless replies:

"Why would I be confused simply because you keep putting the word "Dickless" before the word "Cheney"? Maybe it does not take much to confuse you, and you think everyone is like that? You can prove me wrong here:"

Comprehension is just not your thing, huh? Perhaps you can have someone at the Home for Wayward Fucktards read this and explain it all to you.

BTW, we knew you would get around to trashing Murtha. Dickless wonders like you only feel warm and fuzzy when they are tearing down better men (and we use the word "man" loosely when referring to you, Lynne).

Posted by: solar on March 2, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

The memos "were fakes." You KNOW this, Kevin? How? What evidence, besides the liars from LGF, Powerline, and media flunkies like Howard Kurtz etc., do you have? None? I didn't think so.

Not even the phony panel CBS cobbled together bothered to tackle that one. And why? Because they knew they weren't and the typesetting was consistent with other typewriters of the era, which any typist could tell you.

You know, I really can't stand liars and ignorant people, regardless of political persuasion.

Posted by: Susan Nunes on March 2, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

susan,

the memo's were not only fake but they were really, really, really bad fakes.

Posted by: rdw on March 2, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

bush gets an honorable discharge...despite no documentation of his whereabouts for more than one year....

dead enders have no problem with that...

kerry has official military documentation...yet dead enders claim the end result here is up for discussion...

dead ender logic....immune to facts or irony

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 3, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

Dickless Lynne,

It warms the cockles of my heart to see the ...challenged such as yourself try, even if it is one last time. Give it the old fuckwit try!

You seem to have difficulty keeping up with what you say, never mind what the rest of us say. I ascribe this to low general intelligence, native dishonesty, and a poor education. I'll do my part, in your final try, to help you to make sense of any single English sentence (even one would be an improvement over the ignorance-shrouded fog you find yourself in).

Now here is your fractured English question:"..perhaps you can tell us which of his Purple Hearts (I know at least one was in Korea) he received in Vietnam in less than a 4 month period?"

The answer, of course, is each and every one of them. I know this is beyond you, as it involves simple reading comprehension, but surely there must be a slightly smarter primate at the Closeted Young Republican Fuckwit meeting you can ask to explain. Maybe they can help you construct simple English sentences as well. Think of it as homework.

As to further research, it doesn't really help things that you are not only a dishonest fuckwit, but also a lazy dishonest fuckwit. It is your contention that no Vietnam vet earned more medals than Kerry (the lies you told after to evade this doltish supposition notwithstanding). Then you said that no Vietnam vet ever earned as many in a four month period. It is incumbent upon you, the serial liar, to prove the so-called facts you posit (you remember, those lies you cut and paste from lunatic fringe websites?). So please provide us with a list of all Vietnam vets, including all military honors and the dates of action on each citation. It is your lie, after all, Lynne, can't you defend it? Or is defending something, in any manner, too scary for the unmanly rodent that you are?

Posted by: solar on March 3, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

dead ender logic....immune to facts or irony

All of the relevent facts were out there is full view of the American public and 60M voted to return George W. Bush to offcie.

They knew this fighter pilot served honorably and was discharged honorably. While he had a lot of critics about his service just about every one of these critics never served a day or a minute. This was well known in 11/04 and has never been disputed.

They know Kerry served honorbly as well and was discharged honorably. They also know he embellished a few things. Heroes don't brag about being heroes and they don't lie. He made up every aspect of Xmas in Cambodia. Heroes don't come home and trash everyone else serving there. He accused veterans of massive and heinous atrocities without naming anyone. When you don't name anyone it has the effect of naming everyone. He smeared all Vietnam Vets.

There's nothing to argue or debate. The SBVs wisely developed an extensive campaign to make sure the public got to see Kerry's actual testimony. It could not have been fairer. It was Big John in his own words as he spoke them.

George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America. Kerry is just another bitter wannabe. He earned his status.

Posted by: rdw on March 3, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Solar,

You've got to let the anger go. Kerry is never going to be President. It's over. He lost. It was correct and fair for the SBVs to point out for at least two of his purple hearts he didn't get a band aid and it was fair to point out that at no point did he ever get admitted to a hospital or get as much as a dose of aspirin.

If he wants to sell himself as a war hero based on that it was his right. It was the SBVs right to shine light on the degree of his heroism. Kerry got to see what happened to Gore for his exaggerations. He went ahead anyway. His eyes were wide open and he knew what he was doing.

He lost because he was stupid.

Posted by: rdw on March 3, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Rightwing DickWad chimes in, eager to add his ignorance and illiteracy to the mix. Oh goody.

First, who (other than morons like you) says I'm angry? The only emotions I feel towards your ilk are pity and revulsion. You may be (and probably are) happy to be a semi-retarded, unemployed lying fuckwit. If so, God bless. The internet has certainly been a blessing to your type of pathological liar- a way to lie and lie and not get your ass kicked for it.

As to Kerry being President I don't see that as any part of this dicussion. You might, because you are well, pretty fucking stupid. It's hard not understanding half of what goes on around you isn't it?

As you are just another chickenshit coward who never served you just aren't qualified to discuss heroism. Hiding under your moommy's bed and sniping at better men is more your style.

And really fuckwit, as you continue to lie, distort, and mangle the English language it just isn't seemly for you to call someone else stupid. Certainly you are acquainted with the feeling of being stupid, but this does not make you an expert.

P.S. it's always interesting to see vile, effeminate cowards like you whine about the degree of injury of men who put themselves in harm's way for their country. You're just a shameless scumbag troll.

Posted by: solar on March 3, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly