Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL
I agree, it has gotten quite the rise out of you.
Apparently we are diametrically opposed because that is exactly what I was thinking about you.
I need to offer no more proof then the SBVFTT did, just a lot of different people saying things. That is the way they did it. I'm not afraid to sling mud with the rest of them. Hell, they started it.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL
I agree, it has gotten quite the rise out of you.
Apparently we are diametrically opposed because that is exactly what I was thinking about you.
I need to offer no more proof then the SBVFTT did, just a lot of different people saying things. That is the way they did it. I'm not afraid to sling mud with the rest of them. Hell, they started it.
I admire honesty. Btw, is the campaign in S.D. as nasty as this one?
Currently at $37,900 and possibly rising.Originally posted by: Sketcher
Nothin' like puttin' your money where your Blog is...
Powerlineblog.com
DefeatJohnJohn.com is offering $10,500 (or more if its readers kick more in) to anyone who "can reasonably recreate the CBS memos on equipment available in early 1972." The memos have already been reasonably recreated on modern word processing systems by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs. So until they are recreated by a system available in early 1972, the strong presumption must be that the CBS memos were forged.
DefeatJohnJohn is supremely confident that the memos won't be recreated on the IBM Selectric Composer, since the manual makes it clear that the super- and sub-scripting available to these typewriters only involved the raising or lowering of letters; it couldn't make them any smaller, since the wheel was fixed-point. Thus, CBS; claim that "typewriters in the day could do superscripts" ignores the key fact that the superscripting that appears in the forged documents apparently couldn't be done, at least not by the IBM Selectric Composer.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So just don't talk about anything you don't want to? Like his lies about WMD's and his cocaine use. That may work for some voters, but not for me. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since the great depression. He needs to be put out to pasture before he does something REALLY stupid.
Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," anchor Dan Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."
It's an anti-Bush diversionary tactic. Whenever their arguments hit a brick wall or they run out of witticisms they trot out that rhetoric. This tactic is usually followed with "We need to talk about the real issues". Wait for it... wait...Originally posted by: jetaime
Why are people still slinging around this propaganda about Bush lying about WMD's? There is a difference between being WRONG and LYING.
The Swift Boar LIARS lies are nowhere near as important as the serious lies, failures and corruption of the Bush administration. However, the ads have had a measurable impact on the campaign, and since all their claims have been thoroughly discredited, it is in the best tradions of journalism, and the best interest of the country, that the full truth about them is published.
That is, only IF you still hold onto the fairytales told by the Not So Swifties which every credible major news outlet has thoroughly discredited.
There is no comparison. The Not So Swift boat liars and their lies have been thoroughly discredited by reputable, credible third parties. Regardless of who you think made Kerry's service record an issue, it's an honorable record of which Kerry can and does stand proud. Even Bushwhacko explicitly conceded that, despite his cowardly failure to condemn the ads.
Originally posted by: Dimsdale
The Swift Boar LIARS lies are nowhere near as important as the serious lies, failures and corruption of the Bush administration. However, the ads have had a measurable impact on the campaign, and since all their claims have been thoroughly discredited, it is in the best tradions of journalism, and the best interest of the country, that the full truth about them is published.
That is, only IF you still hold onto the fairytales told by the Not So Swifties which every credible major news outlet has thoroughly discredited.
There is no comparison. The Not So Swift boat liars and their lies have been thoroughly discredited by reputable, credible third parties. Regardless of who you think made Kerry's service record an issue, it's an honorable record of which Kerry can and does stand proud. Even Bushwhacko explicitly conceded that, despite his cowardly failure to condemn the ads.
Just curious, but since you repeatedly state that "all their claims have been thoroughly discredited" in several posts (see above), could you please tell me precisely what "lies" have been "thoroughly discredited?"
I have been following the Swiftboat Vet/Kerry thread for several months, and the only person that has been seriously discredited has been Kerry, i.e. his "Christmas in Cambodia" story has been proved to never have happened, he has been forced to admit that his first Purple Heart was self inflicted, and there is a new question about the "V" on his Silver Star, something the Navy does not award.
As yet, the Swiftboat claims are still unchallenged because the press does not seem to want to pursue them, and Kerry will not address them. There have been no serious, factual rebuttals, simply ad hominem smears and slander against the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth." If you have contrary data, please offer it, as this controversy seems awfully one sided against Kerry.
Speaking of missing military records, if Kerry simply released his FULL military record (which he alone can authorize by signing DD180), then the whole matter can be put to rest once and for all. But he refuses to do so for some reason. The Boston Globe has repeatedly asked Kerry to release the documents, and he flatly refused to do so. Now, with these accusations weighing so heavily on his candidacy, why wouldn't he be wise to defuse it ASAP by refuting the charges with his Naval documents?
Kerry was unwise to use his Vietnam experiences as the basis for his candidacy, as it forced scrutiny of said record, and reignited the anger of veterans who were accused of being "babykillers" etc. He should have run on his Senate record, as it is the most pertinent and timely. Yet he did not. Why is that?
Should you choose to attack me, I am a Massachusetts independent and have not made a decision as to who I will vote for. I just wonder about Kerry's refusal to crush these accusations quickly and with facts. It just looks like he is trying to hide something, and that cannot help him. The longer he waits, the worse it looks.
Yep. Believe it or not, CBS's document examiner, Marcel Matley, essentially wrote the same thing in a published piece two years ago.Originally posted by: maluckey
Additionall, the "expert" that CBS retained for services RE: the "Bush" document, now claoms that he could ONLY verify the signature of the document as "authentic", and did not make a judgement about the body of the document.
So, the signature could have been added via scanning, and still be "authentic". Without an original copy, you cannot verify a signature. In my 12 years as a Federal Law enforcement officer, not once was a photocopy EVER admitted as evidence of a signature. The reason is because you cannot verify it to be authentic via photocopier or FAX.
Without originals, you have nothing....not even a way to track the forgers.
The Problem with Copies
Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally,
is in some way false to the original.
In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of
quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original
but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding
of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity
is possible.
From Mass or not you are a sadly missguided (sic) and weakminded ....
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
His own sister-in-law doesn't deny her statments that he was snorting cocaine at Camp David while his Daddie was President, but GWB declares he hasn't used hard drugs since 1978. That leaves the period that he refused to take a physical while in the ANG wide open to drug abuse by his own admission.
Bush addressing Nation Guard convention
AURORA, Colorado (AP) -- President Bush is honoring the sacrifice of National Guardsmen in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting their special role in the war on terror, and saying he also is proud of his own Vietnam-era stint as a citizen soldier.
Bush was not expected to address the controversy swirling around unexplained gaps in his service in the Texas Air National Guard in his address to the 126th National Guard Association of the United States conference Tuesday in Las Vegas. (Professor: Bush revealed National Guard favoritism)
He was to express his pride in commanding the tens of thousands of guardsmen mobilized for the war on terror and other missions at home and abroad. In all, the Washington-based association says more than 225,000 guardsmen -- roughly half the force -- have been called to active duty since the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
His own sister-in-law doesn't deny her statments that he was snorting cocaine at Camp David while his Daddie was President, but GWB declares he hasn't used hard drugs since 1978. That leaves the period that he refused to take a physical while in the ANG wide open to drug abuse by his own admission.
Maybe you should read the news?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5993020/
"Kelley has been accused frequently of smearing her subjects, most notoriously when she implied that Nancy Reagan had an affair with Sinatra. She has again been attacked for ?The Family.? A key source, Sharon Bush, former wife of the president?s brother Neil, has denied telling Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David."
Kelley and Doubleday stand by her reporting, with the publisher issuing a statement last week saying that ?everything she attributes to Sharon Bush in her book is an accurate account of their discussions.? Doubleday also notes that while Sharon Bush has criticized Kelley to the press, she has not asked for a retraction or even contacted the publisher.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Dan Rather stands by his assertion that the Bush memos are real too.
Maybe Dan and Kitty Kelly should hook up?
Bush's sister-in-law has come out publicly and flatly denied that he used coke at Camp David. Kelly says she's wrong (as if she was there). Geez, who to believe? Bush's sis-in-law, who is normally low-key and doesn't have a habit of spouting off at the mouth; or some sensationalistic, trash-talking hack like Kelly?
It's not a tough decision to figure out who has more veracity in this matter, and it ain't Kitty Kelly.
Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley
NEW YORK, Sept. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by
Doubleday regarding Kitty Kelley:
In an appearance on the Today Show on Monday, September 13, 2004, Sharon
Bush repeated a denial she made earlier last week. After telling Kitty Kelley
that she had knowledge of President George W. Bush "doing cocaine" at Camp
David -- "not once, but many times," Mrs. Bush now denies that statement.
This denial has already been utterly discredited by a third party to the
meeting at which Mrs. Bush made the statements. Doubleday and Kitty Kelley,
author of "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty," firmly uphold the
accuracy and veracity of reporting on this topic. Further, Doubleday and Ms.
Kelley affirm that Mrs. Bush was read her comments on the day following the
meeting in a telephone conversation, lasting over an hour, that was witnessed
by Random House Vice President Peter Gethers -- that those comments included
her remarks on cocaine use at Camp David -- and that she once again agreed
that these comments were true.
The following are undisputable facts:
-- Mrs. Bush confirmed that she was aware of cocaine use by President
George W. Bush at Camp David when his father was President
-- Mrs. Bush confirmed that such usage occurred on more than one occasion
-- Mrs. Bush knew that Ms. Kelley planned on using this information in her
book and was read the exact quotes that would be utilized
-- Mrs. Bush continued to have a good relationship with Kitty Kelley --
long after the meeting in April at which she confirmed the cocaine
report
-- Mrs. Bush called Ms. Kelley in May, 2004 after which there was a
friendly correspondence.
Additionally, Today Show host Matt Lauer and Mrs. Bush suggested that
Kitty Kelley had a "relationship" with Lou Colasuonno, a public relations
executive who witnessed the April 1, 2003 lunch meeting between Kitty Kelley
and Sharon Bush. Kitty Kelley had never met or spoken with Mr. Colasuonno
prior to April 1, 2003. Kitty Kelley has never had and does not have any
personal, social or financial relationship with Mr. Colasuonno.
Not at all.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you daft?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Not at all.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you daft?
I don't have a huge stick up my ass concerning a certain president either.
FYI. I don't care for Bush. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and I won't vote him in November. I don't like Kerry either. They're both twerps.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Not at all.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Are you daft?
I don't have a huge stick up my ass concerning a certain president either.
LOL, if it's come down to this then just let me say that yes, I hate Bush AND what he stnads for. There are many reasons to vote for Kerry, but the best one is "He's not Bush".
If I have a stick up my ass in regards to a certain President, then you have a vibrating dill doe up your ass and you aparently like it.
iMy convictions are to the positive side, not the negative. YMMV.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
That's quite a holier then thou stand you've taken. Real easy to do for a fence sitter. Because you have no conviction don't condemn someone who does.
Nor have you.It's easy to back out of an argument saying you "haven't decided" and "I didn't vote for Bush". Then accusing me of "swallowing their tripe". You have produced no refuteable evidence to disprove beyond doubt who is lying.
Dannyboy allowed himself to be duped, if that's even the case, over his sheer joy that his partisan a$$ though he had something that could destroy Bush. In his zeal to lay the smack down he forgot one little thing, fact checking. If he was duped it's his own fault. He's a seasoned reporter and should have known better than to make a rookie mistake.The facts are, someone is lying here. In the case of Dan Rather, he may have been duped. He certainly hasn't produced any of the follow up evidence that I thought he would be able to.
Surely Kelley has recorded transcripts of her session with Sharon Bush? It's a standard practice. If she wants to put this issue to rest, release them. If not, then I'll take Sharon Bush's word over someone who has been known many times in the past to fabricate crap and claim "anonymous sources." Kitty Kelley is not known for being straightforward and I'm sure not going to back the corporation behind her whose primary interest is to ensure she sells as many books as possible. As if Doubleday is going to come out and say, "Oh yeah, Kitty made that all up. It's not really true." C'mon.I do believe Doubleday over Sharon Bush. If you would rather believe her, fine. GWB is trying to be so clever about this, but he is so obvious it is funny. He is in denial, and that worries me.
Group offers $50,000 for proof of Bush service
(CNN) -- The founder of the group Texans for Truth said Tuesday that he is offering $50,000 to anyone who can prove President Bush fulfilled his service requirements, including required duties and drills, in the Alabama Air National Guard in 1972.
The group made the announcement as Bush was in Las Vegas, Nevada, to address the National Guard Association's convention.
"Today would be a fine day for him to finally answer all the questions that have dogged him since he entered public life," the group's founder, Glenn Smith, said in a statement.
"Bush's dishonesty about missing from service during Vietnam goes to the heart of his presidency. He was dishonest then just as he is misleading us about why we went to war with Iraq. He dodges responsibility then just as he dodges responsibility for Iraq today."
White House communications director Dan Bartlett has said that the fact Bush received an honorable discharge means he fulfilled his military duties. Bartlett has dismissed questions about Bush's service as partisan attacks.
Smith said the controversy about whether documents obtained by CBS News -- alleging the future president failed to obey an order to undergo a physical exam and failed to complete his service in the Alabama Air National Guard -- was irrelevant.
"Authentic or not, they don't really answer the question about where Mr. Bush was when he was supposed to be doing his duty in the National Guard," he said.
On Monday, first lady Laura Bush said that she believed such documents were probably forgeries.
"You know, they probably are altered, and they probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really," she said in an interview with Radio Iowa.
"That's actually one of the risks you take when you run for public office or when you're in the public eye for any reason, and that's that obviously a lot of things are said about you that aren't true and that's the drawback -- that's the one thing that's not great about serving in public office."
CBS News has said it stands by its story and will continue to report on it.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that the president has seen the documents and "he has no recollection" of any of them.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the first lady's comments do not mean the White House has done an investigation into the authenticity of the documents but that news organizations' probes have raised questions about whether the documents are real.
CBS reported that the memos were written in 1972 and 1973 by Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander. Killian died in 1984.
In the memos put forward by CBS News, the author complained he was being pressured to "sugarcoat" the future president's performance evaluations and that Bush failed to meet performance standards while a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, including getting a required physical exam.
Killian also purportedly wrote that he believed Bush -- at the time the son of a Texas congressman -- was "talking to someone upstairs" to get permission to transfer to the Alabama National Guard to work on a Senate campaign.
But the authenticity of the documents has come under fire in media reports, with some experts insisting they were not written on a typewriter in the 1970s but generated on a computer at a later date.
Forensic document experts who have examined the memos have told CNN that they cannot conclusively determine whether the documents are authentic -- but some features do raise questions about whether the documents were written in the early 1970s.
Killian's son, Gary, and former wife, Margorie Connell, have said they do not believe he would have written the memos.
The CBS report came days after the Texans for Truth group began airing television ads questioning whether Bush fulfilled his military obligations. Its name is a takeoff on Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been airing ads questioning the military record of Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry. That group's allegations are at odds with the official Navy records and Kerry's former crew mates.
As if Doubleday is going to come out and say, "Oh yeah, Kitty made that all up. It's not really true." C'mon.