NationStates Jolt Archive

Just as several points made in Michael Moore's Farneheit 9/11 have been disproved, is CBS guilty of distributing false information in order to affect the upcoming US presidential election?

Just as several points made in Michael Moore's Farneheit 9/11 have been disproved, is CBS guilty of distributing false information in order to affect the upcoming US presidential election?
No, they're not that bad. They decided not to air the monstrosity "The Reagans", so you have to figure they're not exactly Indymedia. :p

:rolleyes:

They're definitely shrewd propagandists. Cam Ne, anyone?

No, they're not that bad. They decided not to air the monstrosity "The Reagans", so you have to figure they're not exactly Indymedia. :p

They didn't air "The Reagans" on CBS following a huge public outcry. President Reagan was, and is, greatly loved and admired in the US. They did, however, air the movie as "fiction" on a CBS-owned premium channel.

Why no mention of Fox News?

Why no mention of Fox News?
Its a thread about CBS?

Agreed, Drabikstan. Except there's a difference. Whereas Moore (who CBS was compared to) is a sharp guy (even though I disagree completely with him), Fox News is completely stupid (in my opinion).

They didn't air "The Reagans" on CBS following a huge public outcry. President Reagan was, and is, greatly loved and admired in the US. They did, however, air the movie as "fiction" on a CBS-owned premium channel.
No not greatly loved, Greatly talked about there is a difference.

I can talk greatly about someone and yet not love them.
REagon did many bad things but he did some good things so he isn't loved just did good.

No not greatly loved, Greatly talked about there is a difference.

I can talk greatly about someone and yet not love them.
REagon did many bad things but he did some good things so he isn't loved just did good.

I believe our nation's response to his funeral procession speaks for feelings for him. The world owes him a lot towards the end of the cold war...even France, though Chirac (aka Chiraq) pointedly skipped his funeral although he was only a few hundred miles away from DC.

Just as several points made in Michael Moore's Farneheit 9/11 have been disproved, is CBS guilty of distributing false information in order to affect the upcoming US presidential election?
CBS News, led by Dan Rather is doing everything it can to ruin Bush and to get Commrad Kerry elected. Their credibilty has gone the way of the Dodo.

Agreed, Drabikstan. Except there's a difference. Whereas Moore (who CBS was compared to) is a sharp guy (even though I disagree completely with him), Fox News is completely stupid (in my opinion).

Moore is sharp in as much as he has made millions on the 9/11 tragedy and attacking Republicans. He's also sharp as he has declined a consideration for nomination for "Best Documentary" in the academy awards and is lobbying for "Best Film" nomination. As a documentary, the film cannot be shown on tv, but, as a film, it can be shown...he's hoping before the election.

As for FOX News, I agree they lean to the right. After a desert of liberal biased news stations, it's refreshing to hear a different point of view. That is probably why they consistently pull viewer ratings higher than CNN and MSNBC combined.

The world owes him a lot towards the end of the cold war...

Have we not yet found that he really didn't do anything to that end? His build-up actually helped the Soviet spending along a bit. At most he sped up the fall of the Soviet Union be a few months but he did not in fact "end the cold war"

In regards to CBS, they are the liberal version of fox.

Have we not yet found that he really didn't do anything to that end? His build-up actually helped the Soviet spending along a bit. At most he sped up the fall of the Soviet Union be a few months but he did not in fact "end the cold war"

In regards to CBS, they are the liberal version of fox.

Gorbechev acknowledges that Reagan's personality and assistance led to the end of the soviet republic and the dismantling of the wall.

I wasn't aware that FOX had produced a movie about Clinton's sexcapades, or had their secretaries type up a few quick "documents" exposing Kerry's Nam discrepancies.

I watched most of the RNC on CNN as I wanted to hear the speeches, not listen to more pundits. I was shocked though when 3 of their "reporters" interviewed (though attacked is the better description) Karen Hughes. It looked like hyenas closing in for a kill. Karen baffled them with facts and disarmed their strategy. :p

Gorbechev acknowledges that Reagan's personality and assistance led to the end of the soviet republic and the dismantling of the wall.

I wasn't aware that FOX had produced a movie about Clinton's sexcapades, or had their secretaries type up a few quick "documents" exposing Kerry's Nam discrepancies.

I watched most of the RNC on CNN as I wanted to hear the speeches, not listen to more pundits. I was shocked though when 3 of their "reporters" interviewed (though attacked is the better description) Karen Hughes. It looked like hyenas closing in for a kill. Karen baffled them with facts and disarmed their strategy. :p

CNN Clinton's News Network. I mean come on, carville is a paid anchor for CNN and they are allowing him to directly work for the Kerry campaign as an advisor. What the hell is that????

Being partisan is one thing(a good thing as long as there is an oppossing partisan) but actually working for one sides campaign?

Gorbechev acknowledges that Reagan's personality and assistance led to the end of the soviet republic and the dismantling of the wall.

I wasn't aware that FOX had produced a movie about Clinton's sexcapades, or had their secretaries type up a few quick "documents" exposing Kerry's Nam discrepancies.

I watched most of the RNC on CNN as I wanted to hear the speeches, not listen to more pundits. I was shocked though when 3 of their "reporters" interviewed (though attacked is the better description) Karen Hughes. It looked like hyenas closing in for a kill. Karen baffled them with facts and disarmed their strategy. :p

Gorbachev was also the most U.S. friendly Soviet Premier. Once he was out of office, he went to the U.S., toured it, and stared in a commercial or two. Pretty much any other Soviet leader or even historian will tell you Regean did not have the affect most people thought he did.

FOX covered the Clinton sexcapade relentlessly while it went on. They didn't need a movie for it, it was always on.

I watched the RNC on FOX and CNN. Maybe I missed the reporters, but I didn't really see a difference in the way it was covered.

Gorbachev was also the most U.S. friendly Soviet Premier. Once he was out of office, he went to the U.S., toured it, and stared in a commercial or two. Pretty much any other Soviet leader or even historian will tell you Regean did not have the affect most people thought he did.

FOX covered the Clinton sexcapade relentlessly while it went on. They didn't need a movie for it, it was always on.

I watched the RNC on FOX and CNN. Maybe I missed the reporters, but I didn't really see a difference in the way it was covered.

FOX wore out the analysts...they all but stuck a mike in the janitor's face.

Was Gorbachev the friendliest or the most rational? Seems to me that Reagan made it pretty clear what the two scenarios were and Gorbechev picked the best one.

I'm from Arkansas. When Clinton first started running for the presidency, Arkies made it clear he had the morals of an alley cat, had a less than romantic marriage, and had practiced good 'ol boy politics as to having a man accused of raping his cousin castrated and left to bleed to death (no charges were ever brought even though the local chief of police kept the "jewels" in a jar on his desk for several weeks before flushing them). The mainstream media at that time poo-poohed it and said his character didn't matter. When the scandal hit the fan though, FOX paid attention and pointed out what had been in the Arkansas press for years!! The other news channels didn't drop the ball...they hid it.

Was Gorbachev the friendliest or the most rational? Seems to me that Reagan made it pretty clear what the two scenarios were and Gorbechev picked the best one.


No, he was just the friendliest. Gorbachev wasn't all that smart with the two options. With MAD in place, he could have ingorned the build up and continued on, but he chose the other option which really didn't have much of an affect either, all it did was drain soviet coffers a little faster.

As for Clinton and the Arkansas incident: I'm not old enough to remeber it so unless someone else disproves it, I'll take you're word on it.

No, he was just the friendliest. Gorbachev wasn't all that smart with the two options. With MAD in place, he could have ingorned the build up and continued on, but he chose the other option which really didn't have much of an affect either, all it did was drain soviet coffers a little faster.
.

The key word is "faster". And the incorrect word is "little". That was the whole point of the military buildup. It was war through attrition in the best sense of the term.

No, he was just the friendliest. Gorbachev wasn't all that smart with the two options. With MAD in place, he could have ingorned the build up and continued on, but he chose the other option which really didn't have much of an affect either, all it did was drain soviet coffers a little faster.

As for Clinton and the Arkansas incident: I'm not old enough to remeber it so unless someone else disproves it, I'll take you're word on it.

His name is Wayne DuMond. There are tons of articles online about this topic. Later DNA testing proved he didn't commit the rape. He was convicted of rape and murder in Liberty, MO after his release on this charge, however.

its great to see at least once in a blue moon the corporate media can finally do its job and expose yet another example of Bush lies and hypocrisy. Now they need to expose Bushs abortion in the 70s and his abuses of cocaine and who bailed out all the businesses he bankrupted his entire life, how he had himself appointed President and then in the worst crime of all how he sacrificed 3000 american lives on 911

CNN Clinton's News Network. I mean come on, carville is a paid anchor for CNN and they are allowing him to directly work for the Kerry campaign as an advisor. What the hell is that????

Being partisan is one thing(a good thing as long as there is an oppossing partisan) but actually working for one sides campaign?
limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly and coulter have been working for the Republicans for years now

Its simple as this:

Right Wing News Agencies: Fox News, and their associated networks (i.e. the extra Fox channels).

News Agencies whose bias DEPENDS ON THE PERSON ANALYZING: CNN. They started off purely right wing when Kerry entered, ignoring him completely, then painting him as an extreme liberal, but now with Carville and others getting more face time, its suddenly appearing to swing the other way. CNN hasn't had the slightest consistency in its broadcasts yet.

Left Wing News Agencies: CBS.


Both sides have things they can complain on.

Right Wing Complaints: Why so many attacks during interviews with Republicans? Why so little coverage of Bush's successes? Well actually, there are far fewer complaints for the Right Wing than normal...but continuing on.

Left Wing Complaints: Why are the Swift Vets erroneous statements not being painted as such, yet the erroneous statements by democracts being immediately attacked? Why isn't there analyzation of the economy, and the 9,000 dollar drop in salaries gained as compared to salaries lost? Why isn't anyone talking about Bush's 2000 promises? The long term effects of his tax cuts? Etc etc.

Both sides have their complaints, and although I feel the Left Wings have a bit more ground (I'm conservative, and thereby I feel that the economic issues at hand are not nearly being talked about enough), yet we continue to dawdle on stupid issues.

Bring on the debates!

They are not as bad but they are biased.

The difference is simply:

Hannity, Rush and Coulter tell every viewer up front they are Republican and Biased, Dan Rather does not, and never has, yet obviously is. Fox has never hired an ex-Republican other than to state their obvious Republican views, such as Newt Gingrich and Ollie North.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC all hire ex-Democrat politicians and pass them off as journalist majors simplky reporting the news. Chris Mathews used to work in the Carter White house, George Steponatonashit worked for Clinton, James Carville, Paul Bagala, the list goes on and on, just name anyone at CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC.

Also, Fox did cover the Clinton scandals daily, but you ignore the FACT he was actually GUILTY!!! Everything I have seen thus far on Bush is rumor at best, nothing has been documented and proven, and any idiot would see that it is just more biased bull crap. When you show me a blue dress with Bush DNA and cocain I'll believe it, just like I did for Clinton. Just becuase James Carville can pull crap out of his ass doesn't mean it is reality. So do yourself a favor and pull your nose out of his ass and think for yourself for a change lapdogs. :headbang:

When you show me a blue dress with Bush DNA and cocain I'll believe it, just like I did for Clinton. :headbang:
I don't think there is doubt in anyones mind...well any rational person's mind, that Bush used cocaine. He won't deny it, though of course he can't admit it, but I'd say the chances of a rich man's college son in the 70s NOT being on coke is smaller than the reverse.

The difference is simply:

Hannity, Rush and Coulter tell every viewer up front they are Republican and Biased, Dan Rather does not, and never has, yet obviously is. Fox has never hired an ex-Republican other than to state their obvious Republican views, such as Newt Gingrich and Ollie North.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC all hire ex-Democrat politicians and pass them off as journalist majors simplky reporting the news. Chris Mathews used to work in the Carter White house, George Steponatonashit worked for Clinton, James Carville, Paul Bagala, the list goes on and on, just name anyone at CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC.

Also, Fox did cover the Clinton scandals daily, but you ignore the FACT he was actually GUILTY!!! Everything I have seen thus far on Bush is rumor at best, nothing has been documented and proven, and any idiot would see that it is just more biased bull crap. When you show me a blue dress with Bush DNA and cocain I'll believe it, just like I did for Clinton. Just becuase James Carville can pull crap out of his ass doesn't mean it is reality. So do yourself a favor and pull your nose out of his ass and think for yourself for a change lapdogs. :headbang:
and you dont address that o'reilly CLAIMS he is an unbiased independent.
and the fact he was guilty is irrelevant, that was NOT news because it did NOT effect his ability to run this country, you think i give a fuck if the guy running this country has a harem as long as he does his damn job? hell no.
do i care if the guy running this country is a puppet and has problems keeping his statements alone consistent without the assistance of a writer? fuck yes.


rofl, you are telling us to think for ourselves
here is something for you, pull your head of the asses and realise you are a biased Republican and have no right to tell ANYONE to think for themselves

The difference is simply:

Hannity, Rush and Coulter tell every viewer up front they are Republican and Biased, Dan Rather does not, and never has, yet obviously is. Fox has never hired an ex-Republican other than to state their obvious Republican views, such as Newt Gingrich and Ollie North.

CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC all hire ex-Democrat politicians and pass them off as journalist majors simplky reporting the news. Chris Mathews used to work in the Carter White house, George Steponatonashit worked for Clinton, James Carville, Paul Bagala, the list goes on and on, just name anyone at CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC.

Also, Fox did cover the Clinton scandals daily, but you ignore the FACT he was actually GUILTY!!! Everything I have seen thus far on Bush is rumor at best, nothing has been documented and proven, and any idiot would see that it is just more biased bull crap. When you show me a blue dress with Bush DNA and cocain I'll believe it, just like I did for Clinton. Just becuase James Carville can pull crap out of his ass doesn't mean it is reality. So do yourself a favor and pull your nose out of his ass and think for yourself for a change lapdogs. :headbang:
your post is filled with a billion inaccuracies-for starters those other networks you mentioned are also conservative and dont present any kind of counter coverage to the outright lying that goes on at Foxnews. Also 99.99% of all the Clinton "scandals" ultimately fell flat on their face in the courts so the only thing he was really "guilty' of and is a mortal sin in the minds of republicans is that he helped enrich the middle and lower classes, something the GOP can never forgive him for

1. and you dont address that o'reilly CLAIMS he is an unbiased independent.
2. and the fact he was guilty is irrelevant, that was NOT news because it did NOT effect his ability to run this country, you think i give a fuck if the guy running this country has a harem as long as he does his damn job? hell no.
3. do i care if the guy running this country is a puppet and has problems keeping his statements alone consistent without the assistance of a writer?
f--- <edited for my own sensibilities>yes.

1. I have heard O'Reilly rip Bush and his people (esp Rumsfeld) repeatedly. He does rip the dems more often, though, because they keep repeating the same drivel that has been proven wrong over and over and over.

2. It did affect his ability to run the country. While he was trying to figure out how to counter accusations and perjurying himself under oath about his affairs, he was giving too little attention to world affairs that eventually led to 9/11. Where was he when Janet Reno was having the guard attack a cult compound filled with children? :confused: Ask Monica. He used the AR highway patrol to ferry in his lady friends and sneak them in the back door...This while AR was giving up the moto "Land of Opportunity" in favor of "The Natural State" because it was a lie. AR ranked 49th and 50th in the nation in every survey on economy, education, health care, and equal rights.

3. When did you switch topics from Bush to Kerry?

Just as several points made in Michael Moore's Farneheit 9/11 have been disproved, is CBS guilty of distributing false information in order to affect the upcoming US presidential election? Dan Rather does not, and never has, yet obviously is. Do you both understand the irony in the fact neither of you have provided sources?Fox has never hired an ex-Republican other than to state their obvious Republican views, such as Newt Gingrich and Ollie North.
Do I need to link to the Fox memos yet again? Or do you not consider news managment to be bias. CBS and CNN aren't the equivalent of Fox. Pravda is.

Agreed, Drabikstan. Except there's a difference. Whereas Moore (who CBS was compared to) is a sharp guy (even though I disagree completely with him), Fox News is completely stupid (in my opinion).

You are completely right! They say there nuetral but its so obvious that they're Republican. And they say the dumbest things.

I personally agree with Michael Moore, Ive seen two of his movies and they both make excellant points if it were up to me they would make a law that everyone should see F 9/11.

No Dont see F. 9/11! secret service, ATTACK this free thinking scumbag! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: THAT'LL TEACH YOU TO MESS WITH TEXAS! :sniper:

its great to see at least once in a blue moon the corporate media can finally do its job and expose yet another example of Bush lies and hypocrisy. Now they need to expose Bushs abortion in the 70s and his abuses of cocaine and who bailed out all the businesses he bankrupted his entire life, how he had himself appointed President and then in the worst crime of all how he sacrificed 3000 american lives on 911

You are now my best friend.

limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly and coulter have been working for the Republicans for years now
Not a one of them works directly for the bush campaign. Go back to sleep. :rolleyes:

I've seen no conclusive proof that the memos CBS showed were falsified. Of course, people are going to dispute them, but I've not seen a single shred of plausible evidence to disprove them.

[QUOTE=The Holy Word]Do you both understand the irony in the fact neither of you have provided sources?[QUOTE]

Now I know the source of your bias. You haven't been reading, watching or listening to the news. Otherwise you would already be aware of several sources. We both assumed you were aware of current issues. Tell me which of these points you are not familiar with, and I'll post the sources. Here's a starting point.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

I've seen no conclusive proof that the memos CBS showed were falsified. Of course, people are going to dispute them, but I've not seen a single shred of plausible evidence to disprove them.
You have your eyes closed then, becuase there is plenty of evidence showing that they are frauds.

I've seen no conclusive proof that the memos CBS showed were falsified. Of course, people are going to dispute them, but I've not seen a single shred of plausible evidence to disprove them.


Except that his wife and son say that they were not his style and that he didn't type. Major Hodges, the "expert" that CBS referred, to says that he was misled by CBS and didn't see the documents. As typewriters of that era did not have subscript capabilities and gave equal spacing to each characher, the proportionate spacing and subscript type of the supposed memos make it obvious they were done in MS Word.

Except that his wife and son say that they were not his style and that he didn't type. Major Hodges, the "expert" that CBS referred, to says that he was misled by CBS and didn't see the documents. As typewriters of that era did not have subscript capabilities and gave equal spacing to each characher, the proportionate spacing and subscript type of the supposed memos make it obvious they were done in MS Word.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=356887
please thanks bye

Except that his wife and son say that they were not his style and that he didn't type. Major Hodges, the "expert" that CBS referred, to says that he was misled by CBS and didn't see the documents. As typewriters of that era did not have subscript capabilities and gave equal spacing to each characher, the proportionate spacing and subscript type of the supposed memos make it obvious they were done in MS Word.
They are amatuerish forgeries made on somebodies PC at Kerry Campaign HQ. Tools.

The Democrats are about to launch a new attack based on the forged documents. This is going to be great.

The Democrats are about to launch a new attack based on the forged documents. This is going to be great.
Don't they know when to quit? :p

1. I have heard O'Reilly rip Bush and his people (esp Rumsfeld) repeatedly. He does rip the dems more often, though, because they keep repeating the same drivel that has been proven wrong over and over and over.

2. It did affect his ability to run the country. While he was trying to figure out how to counter accusations and perjurying himself under oath about his affairs, he was giving too little attention to world affairs that eventually led to 9/11. Where was he when Janet Reno was having the guard attack a cult compound filled with children? :confused: Ask Monica. He used the AR highway patrol to ferry in his lady friends and sneak them in the back door...This while AR was giving up the moto "Land of Opportunity" in favor of "The Natural State" because it was a lie. AR ranked 49th and 50th in the nation in every survey on economy, education, health care, and equal rights.

3. When did you switch topics from Bush to Kerry?
1.dems were never proved wrong from a liar like O'reilly
2. The republican witch hunts was what kept Clinton hamstrung from focusing on important issues like terrorism but even at that Clinton still prevented the millenial bombings while Bush allowed 911. And Reno only took office a day before the WACO massacre that Bush Srs FBI director started

You are now my best friend.
my only goal in life is the be the rightwings worst nightmare-I will go to the wall fighting their sick and evil values :)

Not a one of them works directly for the bush campaign. Go back to sleep. :rolleyes:
neocon vermin all lie for each other

I've seen no conclusive proof that the memos CBS showed were falsified. Of course, people are going to dispute them, but I've not seen a single shred of plausible evidence to disprove them.
it was found out that the same typewriting flaws that critics are using to try and discredit the Killian report are also present in the records the pentagon released of Bushs so-called "military service"

Was Gorbachev the friendliest or the most rational? Seems to me that Reagan made it pretty clear what the two scenarios were and Gorbechev picked the best one.

I have seen Gorbachev speak, in person, fairly recently, and while I'm sure most of it was a rational decision, he did seem pretty friendly, to judge from how he came off during his speech.

The Democrats are about to launch a new attack based on the forged documents. This is going to be great.
if its ok for republicans to use swiftboat libels and slanders then its ok for dems to tell the aweful truth

Gorbechev acknowledges that Reagan's personality and assistance led to the end of the soviet republic and the dismantling of the wall. Wrong. Gorbachev has stated the USSR collapsed because his government was undermined by nationalist elements led by Boris Yeltsin.



Gorby had the lead role, not Gipper

By LAWRENCE MARTIN

Fiction has its place -- especially at the time of one's passing. And so, the American airwaves glisten these days with tales about how it was Ronald Reagan who engineered the defeat of communism and the end of the Cold War.

It was his arms buildup, Republican admirers say, and his menacing rhetoric that brought the Soviets to their knees and changed the world forever. He was a pleasant man, the 40th president, which makes this fairy tale easier to swallow than some of history's other canards. Truth be known, however, the Iron Curtain's collapse was hardly Ronald Reagan's doing.

It was Mikhail Gorbachev, who with a sweeping democratic revolution at home and one peace initiative after another abroad, backed the Gipper into a corner, leaving him little choice -- actors don't like to be upstaged -- but to concede there was a whole new world opening up over there.

As a journalist based first in Washington, then in Moscow, I was fortunate to witness the intriguing drama from both ends.

In R.R., the Soviet leader knew he was dealing with an archetype Cold Warrior. To bring him around to "new thinking" would require a rather wondrous set of works. And so the Gorbachev charm offensive began. The first offering, in 1985, was the Kremlin's unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests. "Propaganda!" the White House declared.

Then Mr. Gorbachev announced a grandiose plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons by 2000. Just another hoax, the Reagan men cried. More Commie flim-flam.

Then came another concession -- Kremlin permission for on-site arms inspections on Soviet land -- and then the Reykjavik summit. In Iceland, Mr. Gorbachev put his far-reaching arms-reduction package on the table and Mr. Reagan, to global condemnation, walked away, offering nothing in return.

Glasnost and perestroika became the new vernacular. For those in the White House like Richard Perle, the prince of darkness who still thought it was all a sham, Gorby now began a withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. He released the dissident icon Andrei Sakharov and hundreds of other political prisoners. He made big strides on freedom of the press, immigration and religion. He told East European leaders that the massive Soviet military machine would no longer prop up their creaking dictatorships. He began the process of something unheard of in Soviet history -- democratic elections.

By now, the U.S. administration was reeling. Polls were beginning to show that, of all things unimaginable, a Soviet leader was the greatest force for world peace. An embarrassed Mr. Reagan finally responded in kind. Nearing the end of his presidency, he came to Moscow and he signed a major arms-control agreement and warmly embraced Mr. Gorbachev. A journalist asked the president if he still thought it was the evil empire. "No," he replied, "I was talking about another time, another era."

The recasting of the story now suggests that President Reagan's defence-spending hikes -- as if there hadn't been American military buildups before -- somehow intimidated the Kremlin into its vast reform campaign. Or that America's economic strength -- as if the Soviets hadn't always been weak by comparison -- made the Soviet leader do it.

In fact, Mr. Gorbachev could have well perpetuated the old totalitarian system. He still had the giant Soviet armies, the daunting nuclear might and the chilling KGB apparatus at his disposal.

But he had decided that the continuing clash of East-West ideologies was senseless, that his sick and obsolescent society was desperate for democratic air. His historic campaign that followed wasn't about Ronald Reagan. It would have happened with or without this president. Rather, it was about him, Mikhail Gorbachev: his will, his inner strength, his human spirit. As for the Gipper, he was bold and wise enough, to shed his long-held preconceptions and become the Russian's admirable companion in the process.

In the collapse of communism he deserves credit not as an instigator, but an abettor. Best Supporting Actor.

if its ok for republicans to use swiftboat libels and slanders then its ok for dems to tell the aweful truth

For a group of Viet Nam vets to expose testimony that Kerry made and that caused great harm to the vets, esp the POW's, is not libel or slander. It's saying "I don't support this guy because he did this...", which is merely a statement of fact and opinion. To falsify documents on someone's military record, as the dems have obviously done to Bush, IS libel and slander. There's a huge difference.

Wrong. Gorbachev has stated the USSR collapsed because his government was undermined by nationalist elements led by Boris Yeltsin.



Gorby had the lead role, not Gipper

By LAWRENCE MARTIN
------------------------------------et al



source?

Just as several points made in Michael Moore's Farneheit 9/11 have been disproved, is CBS guilty of distributing false information in order to affect the upcoming US presidential election?


Yep they are as false as fat Moore is a liar. Why: because they have the arogance to tell things in another view like the view of our great, patriotic Republican party. They better should learn quality news from FOX :rolleyes:

For a group of Viet Nam vets to expose testimony that Kerry made and that caused great harm to the vets, esp the POW's, is not libel or slander. It's saying "I don't support this guy because he did this...", which is merely a statement of fact and opinion. To falsify documents on someone's military record, as the dems have obviously done to Bush, IS libel and slander. There's a huge difference.
But those vets want to crucify Kerry for speaking an ugly truth about war crimes everyone knows occured and they want to reward a President who is killing vets NOW based on lies

Of course the Soviets were in favor of peace. They had no chance in an arms race - what choice did they have?

source? theglobeandmail.com

Of course the Soviets were in favor of peace. They had no chance in an arms race - what choice did they have? The Soviets had actually caught up to the US by the early 1980s and maintained the largest military forces on the planet.

For a group of Viet Nam vets to expose testimony that Kerry made and that caused great harm to the vets, esp the POW's, is not libel or slander. It's saying "I don't support this guy because he did this...", which is merely a statement of fact and opinion. To falsify documents on someone's military record, as the dems have obviously done to Bush, IS libel and slander. There's a huge difference.

That's the thing. Kerry's testimony didn't cause great harm to the POW's. The Vietnamese quoted Kerry out of context to turn his testimony into propaganda. Why the hell the Swift Boat Vets want to repeat Vietnamese propaganda is beyond me.

If you think Kerry's testimony had anything to do about wishing anyone harm, then you simply haven't read it. Are you just digesting the little snippets of it that are fed to you by those who are opposed to Kerry, turning his speech into the same kind of propaganda the Vietnamese used?

Republican smear tactics = the same propaganda that was used to torture the POW's.

As usual, the Bush-apologists run away in denial.

Strange isn't it.

I've never heard a right wing conservative ever once admit they were wrong.

I guess that's the real difference about both sides.

Strange isn't it.

I've never heard a right wing conservative ever once admit they were wrong.

I guess that's the real difference about both sides.

I ask that question about Vietnames propaganda often. I have yet to see a Kerry-Basher even attempt to answer it.

Socrates (I'm pretty sure) said, "If I am wise, it is because I alone know that I know nothing."

also in his speeches Kerry calls for more benefits for veterans something that Bush is cutting even now when hes asking vets to make the ultimate sacrifice to enrich Cheneys greedy employer

That's the thing. Kerry's testimony didn't cause great harm to the POW's. The Vietnamese quoted Kerry out of context to turn his testimony into propaganda. Why the hell the Swift Boat Vets want to repeat Vietnamese propaganda is beyond me.

If you think Kerry's testimony had anything to do about wishing anyone harm, then you simply haven't read it. Are you just digesting the little snippets of it that are fed to you by those who are opposed to Kerry, turning his speech into the same kind of propaganda the Vietnamese used?

Republican smear tactics = the same propaganda that was used to torture the POW's.

I don't have to take info fed to be by anyone else. I was in high school and college throughout the Viet Nam war. Several of my friends and family fought there (one spent 2 1/2 years as a POW) and I know what they came home to. Insults and curses, cries of "baby killer", balloons filled with animal blood and human excrement thrown on them, rocks thrown at them, spat upon. Some were even beaten by anti-war activists (ironic). These people came back from a war they weren't prepared for and met with accusations and hatred fueled by Kerry's testimony.

Talk to a Nam vet, if you can get them to speak of the war. Most won't. They just want to forget the horror. But, a Kerry led America didn't let them and they're still not!!

If you're under 50, go talk to a vet and them come back here KNOWING what happened. Unless you do that, then you are doing nothing but spreading left-wing propoganda meant to cover Kerry's betrayal of his fellow soldiers. Of course there were atrocities. There is a sick element in every part of our society. Fortunately, this is a small percentage of people. Kerry claimed the atrocities were wide spread, throughout the military. This was later proven false. Most of these people were just good kids that got drafted and handed a gun and just did what they had to do to survive and get home. Kerry compared them to one of history's worst butchers.

theglobeandmail.com

Link please?

I don't have to take info fed to be by anyone else. I was in high school and college throughout the Viet Nam war. Several of my friends and family fought there (one spent 2 1/2 years as a POW) and I know what they came home to. Insults and curses, cries of "baby killer", balloons filled with animal blood and human excrement thrown on them, rocks thrown at them, spat upon. Some were even beaten by anti-war activists (ironic). These people came back from a war they weren't prepared for and met with accusations and hatred fueled by Kerry's testimony.

Talk to a Nam vet, if you can get them to speak of the war. Most won't. They just want to forget the horror. But, a Kerry led America didn't let them and they're still not!!

If you're under 50, go talk to a vet and them come back here KNOWING what happened. Unless you do that, then you are doing nothing but spreading left-wing propoganda meant to cover Kerry's betrayal of his fellow soldiers. Of course there were atrocities. There is a sick element in every part of our society. Fortunately, this is a small percentage of people. Kerry claimed the atrocities were wide spread, throughout the military. This was later proven false. Most of these people were just good kids that got drafted and handed a gun and just did what they had to do to survive and get home. Kerry compared them to one of history's worst butchers.
the only people who "betrayed" those soldiers were the people that sent them to nam in the first place and then denied compensating them for Agent Orange poisoning when they came home. I think its hypocritical that you would condemn Kerry for telling the truth about war crimes but defend a President who went AWOL whose now smearing the war record of yet another Veitnam Vet

Again you're wrong!! Bush has increased funding to vets by 40%. If you've ever visited a VA hospital before Bush's presidency, go visit one now. The one my husband goes to is no longer drab and underequipped. It now offers what the big commercial hospitals offer. He no longer has to wait for weeks for an appointment as it now has a staff large enough to care for the patients in a timely manner. He has access to prescriptions that used to be denied due to their cost. Again, go ask a vet.
Its nice to see that Bush is improving services at VA hospitals at exactly the same time that hes shutting so many of them down

also in his speeches Kerry calls for more benefits for veterans something that Bush is cutting even now when hes asking vets to make the ultimate sacrifice to enrich Cheneys greedy employer

Again you're wrong!! Bush has increased funding to vets by 40%. If you've ever visited a VA hospital before Bush's presidency, go visit one now. The one my husband goes to is no longer drab and underequipped. It now offers what the big commercial hospitals offer. He no longer has to wait for weeks for an appointment as it now has a staff large enough to care for the patients in a timely manner. He has access to prescriptions that used to be denied due to their cost. Again, go ask a vet.

the only people who "betrayed" those soldiers were the people that sent them to nam in the first place and then denied compensating them for Agent Orange poisoning when they came home. I think its hypocritical that you would condemn Kerry for telling the truth about war crimes but defend a President who went AWOL whose now smearing the war record of yet another Veitnam Vet--Blind partisanship is an ugly thing

Nothing has been proven about Bush's service other than that he received an honorable discharge. "Discrepancies" in his service has been explained. Unfortunately, the repository in St Louis (also Kansas City) did have a fire and thousands of records were lost. At least Bush has admitted that he was irresponsible at times. Kerry, on the other hand, has admitted that his testimony was "over the top" (his words) because he wanted the war to end, and that the end justified the means. Well, the vets don't think so.

Yes, the government betrayed these men. And so did a large portion of the American civilians. And so did Kerry. GO TALK TO A NAM VET!! It will open your eyes if you will listen.

Blind partisanship is an ugly thing

And you practice it so well.

Its nice to see that Bush is improving services at VA hospitals at exactly the same time that hes shutting so many of them down

The older ones that are not in good enough shape to be salvaged, are being shut down. The funding for these hospitals are being funneled to the bigger ones, allowing much better health care. It's a simple principal of economics...get the most bang for your buck.

The older ones that are not in good enough shape to be salvaged, are being shut down. The funding for these hospitals are being funneled to the bigger ones, allowing much better health care. It's a simple principal of economics...get the most bang for your buck.
sicne you admit they are being shutdown i assume you have the proof for your assertion sicne you proved his

Nothing has been proven about Bush's service other than that he received an honorable discharge. "Discrepancies" in his service has been explained. Unfortunately, the repository in St Louis (also Kansas City) did have a fire and thousands of records were lost. At least Bush has admitted that he was irresponsible at times. Kerry, on the other hand, has admitted that his testimony was "over the top" (his words) because he wanted the war to end, and that the end justified the means. Well, the vets don't think so.

Yes, the government betrayed these men. And so did a large portion of the American civilians. And so did Kerry. GO TALK TO A NAM VET!! It will open your eyes if you will listen.



And you practice it so well.
LOL what a timely fire, so far as Bush is concerned.

sicne you admit they are being shutdown i assume you have the proof for your assertion sicne you proved his

Sure...right here in the state where I live, they have closed down 2 small VA facilities with limited services, and poured all of those funds in the larger VA in Little Rock. They have more up-to-date equipment, skilled full-time physicians, nursing staff, therapists, and support staff than ever. Instead of sitting around in waiting rooms these people are being seen, treated, and their care is being followed through by the same physician each visit. There are no more leaky ceilings or out of service toilets...the whole place is being remodeled and made all clean and bright. No more parking beds in the hallways because there are no rooms available (most of the rooms used to be wards with a dozen or more men in them). No being turned away because treatment is too expensive and not cost effective. Our vets are starting to be treated with the respect that they deserve. There's still a lot more to be done, but Bush has made more progress in the last 4 years than we had seen in the previous 25 years.

Sure...right here in the state where I live, they have closed down 2 small VA facilities with limited services, and poured all of those funds in the larger VA in Little Rock. They have more up-to-date equipment, skilled full-time physicians, nursing staff, therapists, and support staff than ever. Instead of sitting around in waiting rooms these people are being seen, treated, and their care is being followed through by the same physician each visit. There are no more leaky ceilings or out of service toilets...the whole place is being remodeled and made all clean and bright. No more parking beds in the hallways because there are no rooms available (most of the rooms used to be wards with a dozen or more men in them). No being turned away because treatment is too expensive and not cost effective. Our vets are starting to be treated with the respect that they deserve. There's still a lot more to be done, but Bush has made more progress in the last 4 years than we had seen in the previous 25 years.
which you take to represent the whole country?

LOL what a timely fire, so far as Bush is concerned.

and I suppose you think Bush started the fire? Sorry, it was electrical. No hidden scandal there.

also in his speeches Kerry calls for more benefits for veterans something that Bush is cutting even now when hes asking vets to make the ultimate sacrifice to enrich Cheneys greedy employer


The part about that statement I could never understand, not just you I've heard it many times, is Bush has increased funding to several Veteran Orginizations in his four years in office.

And no one ever admits they are wrong if they truely think they are right. That was quite a high and mighty statement on a board, from what I can tell, where everyone has solid political opinions formed already. Everyone thinks their views are right, its human nature.

Kerry compared them to one of history's worst butchers.


By that single phrase, you just showed that you have no idea what Kerry actually said. You are spewing propaganda. Both the Republicans and the Vietnamese chopped up Kerry's testimony to make it seem as damning as possible, completely erasing the original intent of Kerry's words, words that you have utterly failed to look up in their entirety. His speech isn't that long, or can you only handle 5 second excerpts?

The point is that the Republicans have altered Kerry's words the same way the Vietnamese did.

You are giving credence to what the Vietnames did by parroting it!! What if I took words out of context from the Bible to torture a prisoner. Would it be the Bible at fault, or my altering of it?

I understand why the POW's might be angry at Kerry. They were treated, essentially, to a dose of aversion therapy. Kerry is forever linked to the most horrible time of their lives, through no fault of Kerry's. You, on the other hand, are just parroting hate filled speech without verifying the source itself.

If you're under 50, go talk to a vet and them come back here KNOWING

So, I should ask a vet about what the Vietnamese torturers said Kerry said. rather than reading the original? Why the hell are you believing the Vietnamese torturers would be truthful?

Sure...right here in the state where I live, they have closed down 2 small VA facilities with limited services, and poured all of those funds in the larger VA in Little Rock. They have more up-to-date equipment, skilled full-time physicians, nursing staff, therapists, and support staff than ever. Instead of sitting around in waiting rooms these people are being seen, treated, and their care is being followed through by the same physician each visit. There are no more leaky ceilings or out of service toilets...the whole place is being remodeled and made all clean and bright. No more parking beds in the hallways because there are no rooms available (most of the rooms used to be wards with a dozen or more men in them). No being turned away because treatment is too expensive and not cost effective. Our vets are starting to be treated with the respect that they deserve. There's still a lot more to be done, but Bush has made more progress in the last 4 years than we had seen in the previous 25 years.
hes also made alot of progress increasing the ranks of the uninsured, making drugs far more unaffordable, and stealing affordable canadien drugs out of the hands of seniors on their death beds just so he can pander to his wealthy patrons at Pfizer

and I suppose you think Bush started the fire? Sorry, it was electrical. No hidden scandal there.
theres no such thing as coincidence--Bush NEEDED this fire just like he NEEDED a 911--he got both

The part about that statement I could never understand, not just you I've heard it many times, is Bush has increased funding to several Veteran Orginizations in his four years in office.

And no one ever admits they are wrong if they truely think they are right. That was quite a high and mighty statement on a board, from what I can tell, where everyone has solid political opinions formed already. Everyone thinks their views are right, its human nature.
Bushs very first instinct was to cut veterans pay and health benefits -just like hes stealing workers overtime pay now--but his own party in congress shamed Bush into backing down on this issue so far as veterans are concerned

Link please?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040610%2FCOMARTIN10%2FTPComment% 2FTopStories&ord=1095250906308&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Anything else sir?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040610%2FCOMARTIN10%2FTPComment% 2FTopStories&ord=1095250906308&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Anything else sir?

No, thank you. I was having a senior moment or something because I couldn't find that site for love nor money. I'll follow up on that article this evening. Thanks again,

Ms Zooke

Bushs very first instinct was to cut veterans pay and health benefits -just like hes stealing workers overtime pay now--but his own party in congress shamed Bush into backing down on this issue so far as veterans are concerned

Wow.... I wish someone could SHOW me where my disability pay or my retirement pay has been cut. For the life of me I cannot find it anywhere. I keep hearing this, but noone can show me where it has actually happened.

Wow.... I wish someone could SHOW me where my disability pay or my retirement pay has been cut. For the life of me I cannot find it anywhere. I keep hearing this, but noone can show me where it has actually happened.

Same thing at our house. Since Bush started getting things done my husband is starting to feel like someone is finally doing something for him as a vet, especially in the form of health care. His retirement pay hasn't been cut either. Where do these stories come from?

Same thing at our house. Since Bush started getting things done my husband is starting to feel like someone is finally doing something for him as a vet, especially in the form of health care. His retirement pay hasn't been cut either. Where do these stories come from?

I don't know..... My health insurance remains at $460 a year. My retirement goes up every year as does my disability pay. I am befuddled at all these allegations.

Ms Zooke Sorry. :(

Sorry. :(

That's OK, I know it's kinda hard to see from there. ;)

Wow.... I wish someone could SHOW me where my disability pay or my retirement pay has been cut. For the life of me I cannot find it anywhere. I keep hearing this, but noone can show me where it has actually happened.
like I said the self serving republicans in congress even had to draw the line at Bush doing this which forced Bush to back down--the issue is why did Bush even THINK of wanting to steal soldiers pay/benefits in the first place?

Same thing at our house. Since Bush started getting things done my husband is starting to feel like someone is finally doing something for him as a vet, especially in the form of health care. His retirement pay hasn't been cut either. Where do these stories come from?
they come from people who stay on top of the news they get from the relevant media

I don't know..... My health insurance remains at $460 a year. My retirement goes up every year as does my disability pay. I am befuddled at all these allegations.
then stop watching Foxnews to end your confusion.

they come from people who stay on top of the news they get from the relevant media

So, you are saying that you know more about veteran's benefits than an actual veteran who receives those benefits?

So, you are saying that you know more about veteran's benefits than an actual veteran who receives those benefits?

No, he's saying that Bush wanted to cut veterans funding (and danger pay) but that the Democrats and Republicans in congress stopped him, hence no change in said veteran's coverage. Get it?

No, he's saying that Bush wanted to cut veterans funding (and danger pay) but that the Democrats and Republicans in congress stopped him, hence no change in said veteran's coverage. Get it?

source please

they come from people who stay on top of the news they get from the relevant media

And what is your relevant media source? If I remember correctly you usually link to an anarchist webzine. Got any others?

Here's my links.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/images/20031216-5_d121603-1-515h.html

http://www.vba.va.gov/ro/south/spete/news/notes/0401/1.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/12/eveningnews/main635591.shtml

In this last link check about 3/4 of the way down in the article. Even CBS admitted that there had been a 40% increase in vets' benefits under Bush.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/11/EDGL92UHNT1.DTL&type=printable

well, here's one, for example

What kind of shit is this?Not a thing said in that movie is false.And there's no liberal bias in the media in fact there's a huge conservative one.In the 2000 (I can't honestly call it an election)thing bush got about twice the positive coverage of Gore.Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen.

and you dont address that o'reilly CLAIMS he is an unbiased independent.
and the fact he was guilty is irrelevant, that was NOT news because it did NOT effect his ability to run this country, you think i give a fuck if the guy running this country has a harem as long as he does his damn job? hell no.
do i care if the guy running this country is a puppet and has problems keeping his statements alone consistent without the assistance of a writer? fuck yes.


rofl, you are telling us to think for ourselves
here is something for you, pull your head of the asses and realise you are a biased Republican and have no right to tell ANYONE to think for themselves
Damnit you stole all the good lines.Now all I have left to say is diddo.

[QUOTE=Zooke]1. I have heard O'Reilly rip Bush and his people (esp Rumsfeld) repeatedly. He does rip the dems more often, though, because they keep repeating the same drivel that has been proven wrong over and over and over.

2. It did affect his ability to run the country. While he was trying to figure out how to counter accusations and perjurying himself under oath about his affairs, he was giving too little attention to world affairs that eventually led to 9/11. Where was he when Janet Reno was having the guard attack a cult compound filled with children? :confused: Ask Monica. He used the AR highway patrol to ferry in his lady friends and sneak them in the back door...This while AR was giving up the moto "Land of Opportunity" in favor of "The Natural State" because it was a lie. AR ranked 49th and 50th in the nation in every survey on economy, education, health care, and equal rights.

3. When did you switch topics from Bush to Kerry?[/QUOWasn't it Bush who got the august briefing about 911.And din't he steal the 2000 what was supposed to be an election.And didn't he lie to the nation about reasons for going to Iraq.And didn't the bottom 60 percent only get about 16 percent of his tax cuts.And didn't he give us the biggest deficit ever.And didn't he piss off the whole world.He through upon the Japenise Prime minister.That didn't get covered in the mainstream press and you call that a liberal bias.He also killed civil liberties supposedly in defense of our freedom when civil liberties are our freedom.I could come up with much more.HOW CAN YOU RIGHT WING NUTJOBS BE SO DAMN THICK HEADED? :mp5:

I don't have to take info fed to be by anyone else. I was in high school and college throughout the Viet Nam war. Several of my friends and family fought there (one spent 2 1/2 years as a POW) and I know what they came home to. Insults and curses, cries of "baby killer", balloons filled with animal blood and human excrement thrown on them, rocks thrown at them, spat upon. Some were even beaten by anti-war activists (ironic). These people came back from a war they weren't prepared for and met with accusations and hatred fueled by Kerry's testimony.

Talk to a Nam vet, if you can get them to speak of the war. Most won't. They just want to forget the horror. But, a Kerry led America didn't let them and they're still not!!

If you're under 50, go talk to a vet and them come back here KNOWING what happened. Unless you do that, then you are doing nothing but spreading left-wing propoganda meant to cover Kerry's betrayal of his fellow soldiers. Of course there were atrocities. There is a sick element in every part of our society. Fortunately, this is a small percentage of people. Kerry claimed the atrocities were wide spread, throughout the military. This was later proven false. Most of these people were just good kids that got drafted and handed a gun and just did what they had to do to survive and get home. Kerry compared them to one of history's worst butchers.
All kerry did was expose the truth,can you call yourselve patriotic if you think the american people are too stupid to handle the truth.

All kerry did was expose the truth,can you call yourselve patriotic if you think the american people are too stupid to handle the truth.

What honest person can claim that there were no atrocities? If 150 people had given you their story of the horror of war, would you not feel compelled to do your duty to stop the war? The whole "Kerry lied to Congress." thing is bullshit of the highest order.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/11/EDGL92UHNT1.DTL&type=printable

well, here's one, for example

A quote from my source, the Veterans Administration...

VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2003

In an Oval Office ceremony held December 16, 2003, President Bush signed H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, a bill composed of 7 titles with 39 substantive provisions. All totaled, the new law authorizes $1 billion over the next ten years for new and expanded benefits for disabled veterans, surviving spouses, and children. As enacted, H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003:

A quote from your source, a webzine published by the SF Chronicle, noted for its far-left bias. <11/11/03>...

Now he wants to slash $2 billion more from the VA's strained budget for 2004, and continue the assault on benefits over the next decade. House Republicans voted to take a whopping $28 billion from vets over 10 years -- on the same March day they passed a resolution supporting our troops in Iraq

Amazing how they were reporting the government's plans to drastically cut benefits only a month before Bush signed a $1 billion law for veteran benefits.

This same webzine is also offering this "fair and balanced" look at our Republican candidate...

Love Masochism? Vote BushCo!
Could four more brutal years of the Dubya nightmare actually be good for America?

I rest my case.

All kerry did was expose the truth,can you call yourselve patriotic if you think the american people are too stupid to handle the truth.

Well, if Kerry has done nothing but tell the truth why isn't he being prosecuted for war crimes? He did testify that he participated in burning villages and filmed soldiers attacking and torturing Viet civilians. Isn't that what we're prosecuting people for doing at Abu Ghraib? Why is he exempt?

What honest person can claim that there were no atrocities? If 150 people had given you their story of the horror of war, would you not feel compelled to do your duty to stop the war? The whole "Kerry lied to Congress." thing is bullshit of the highest order.
Kerry stretched his testimony to the point of it becoming falsehood. He stated before congress that, basically, he and other service members in Vietnam were being ordered by everyone above him in the chain of command, up to and including the president to commit those atrocities.

source please
Im the source and I endorce what he said

Kerry stretched his testimony to the point of it becoming falsehood. He stated before congress that, basically, he and other service members in Vietnam were being ordered by everyone above him in the chain of command, up to and including the president to commit those atrocities.

Actually, the concept of a "free fire zone" is a war crime, and it was endorsed all the way up the chain of command.

So when is any one going to want to actually talk about how Bush has been a total failure for the last 4 years? Who cares about 30+ years ago. Sheesh!

Kerry stretched his testimony to the point of it becoming falsehood. He stated before congress that, basically, he and other service members in Vietnam were being ordered by everyone above him in the chain of command, up to and including the president to commit those atrocities.

Kerry admitted to being involved in free fire zones and search and destroy missions. In order to indict Kerry on war crimes, they'd also have to investigate everyone in the chain of command.

Here's an idea, why don't you read what Kerry actually said, rather that what partisans tell you he said?

So when is any one going to want to actually talk about how Bush has been a total failure for the last 4 years? Who cares about 30+ years ago. Sheesh!
Kerry cares. He keeps bringing it up. His camp cares, they keep bringing up Bush's national guard record.
You're right, let's talk about what a total failure Kerry has been in the US senate for the last 19 years.

Kerry admitted to being involved in free fire zones and search and destroy missions. In order to indict Kerry on war crimes, they'd also have to investigate everyone in the chain of command.

Here's an idea, why don't you read what Kerry actually said, rather that what partisans tell you he said?
Lol.. you assume I havent.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam, in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Well, if Kerry has done nothing but tell the truth why isn't he being prosecuted for war crimes? He did testify that he participated in burning villages and filmed soldiers attacking and torturing Viet civilians. Isn't that what we're prosecuting people for doing at Abu Ghraib? Why is he exempt?
Im not sure, but I believe that there might be a statute of limitations?

Kerry cares. He keeps bringing it up. His camp cares, they keep bringing up Bush's national guard record.
You're right, let's talk about what a total failure Kerry has been in the US senate for the last 19 years.
Kerry is doing his duty as an american patriot exposing all the lies and smears of our coward in chief.You cant name one success that the terrorist in the White House can run on can you.He destroyed our economy and he got us stuck in a billion dollar quagmire in Iraq that we lost total control over

STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRY, VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR

Mr. KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington, Senator Pell. I would like say for the record, and also for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic.. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony.

I would simply like to speak in very general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification yesterday you would hear me and I am afraid because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.

WINTER SOLDIER INVESTIGATION

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

FEELINGS OF MEN COMING BACK FROM VIETNAM

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned With a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.



Yeah, Kerry was lying, the fact that he was testifying on behalf of a large organization of Vets means nothing. The fact that he clearly and inarguably blamed the government and not his fellow soldiers means nothing.

Yeah, Kerry was lying, the fact that he was testifying on behalf of a large organization of Vets means nothing. The fact that he clearly and inarguably blamed the government and not his fellow soldiers means nothing.
It means everything, that's the lie. He states under oath that the president, the pentagon and everyone down the chain of command ordered the things they did.

It means everything, that's the lie. He states under oath that the president, the pentagon and everyone down the chain of command ordered the things they did.

And he was correct in doing so.

And he was correct in doing so.
So, you are supporting perjury before congress. Oh wait, you already did support perjury when Clinton did.

So, you are supporting perjury before congress. Oh wait, you already did support perjury when Clinton did.

Wait, are you saying that an openly hostile Nixon Whitehouse passed up a chance to investigate Kerry? Oh wait, the FBI followed him for months, and Nixon got NOTHING! No perjury. Not even a parking ticket. We know Nixon wanted Kerry out of his hair, why would he ignore evidence that a serious crime was committed?

Answer: Kerry didn't lie

Even Clinton was formally investigated for his perjury. Are you seriously suggesting that Kerry was somehow protected from the law better that a sitting President?

Wait, are you saying that an openly hostile Nixon Whitehouse passed up a chance to investigate Kerry? Oh wait, the FBI followed him for months, and Nixon got NOTHING! No perjury. Not even a parking ticket. We know Nixon wanted Kerry out of his hair, why would he ignore evidence that a serious crime was committed?

Answer: Kerry didn't lie

Even Clinton was formally investigated for his perjury. Are you seriously suggesting that Kerry was somehow protected from the law better that a sitting President?

And even more people wanted Nixon out of the White house. And even more people hated the military and the Pentagon. Are you seriously suggesting that no one would file charges for those so called atrocities if there were some basis of truth to them?

And even more people wanted Nixon out of the White house. And even more people hated the military and the Pentagon. Are you seriously suggesting that no one would file charges for those so called atrocities if there were some basis of truth to them?

Yes, because the Government and Pentagon have defenses that a private citizen does not.

You are suggesting that Nixon, a President who was not above committing a crime (for which he was pardoned by Ford,) in order to further his policies and hurt his opposition failed to sieze and easy way to get rid of a rival?

That's insane.

It's much easier to believe that the Government covered it's own ass, something that has happened since time immemorial.

Kerry took on the Vietnamese, and then came back and took on the Government. Doesn't sound wishy washy or weak to me.

Kerry took on the Vietnamese, and then came back and took on the Government. Doesn't sound wishy washy or weak to me.
Kerry took on unarmed, wounded vietnamese when he was sure he could get away with it. He took on unarmed villagers when he burned down their homes. He shot innocents. He ran from a mine detonating, he ran away fom vietnam after 4 months, he lied to the American people, and the American government.

Kerry took on unarmed, wounded vietnamese when he was sure he could get away with it. He took on unarmed villagers when he burned down their homes. He shot innocents. He ran from a mine detonating, he ran away fom vietnam after 4 months, he lied to the American people, and the American government.

prove it. prove it. prove it. prove it. prove it. prove it.

I find your nickname to be very apropos.

prove it. prove it. prove it. prove it. prove it. prove it.

I find your nickname to be very apropos.
His own words. His own words. His own words. His own words. His own words.

I find you to be a tool.

His own words. His own words. His own words. His own words. His own words.

I find you to be a tool.

Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up.

I find it likely that you cannot use tools, as one needs opposable thumbs to do that.

Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up. Prove he said those words, or shut the hell up.

I find it likely that you cannot use tools, as one needs opposable thumbs to do that.
Your momma likes the tools.

So when is any one going to want to actually talk about how Bush has been a total failure for the last 4 years? Who cares about 30+ years ago. Sheesh!


Its your pony that needs some strategic help. Mine must be thinking that his hotline to god must be working pretty well.

Of course, the socio economic shift in the country cannot be helping the dems much either.

Im not sure, but I believe that there might be a statute of limitations?

No limitations on murder. I doubt there is a limitation on war crimes.

Kerry is doing his duty as an american patriot exposing all the lies and smears of our coward in chief.You cant name one success that the terrorist in the White House can run on can you.He destroyed our economy and he got us stuck in a billion dollar quagmire in Iraq that we lost total control over


What part of you cannot understand that quite possibly BOTH G.W. Bush AND John F. Kerry are intelligent capable people. Perhaps they just have a differant vision of how to make America better.

All I ever hear from an ever increasing number of dems(including campaign officials) is how stupid, evil, misguided, corrupt and clueless G.W. Bush is. And lets not forget fascist.

If he were all these things, and your canditate is running neck and neck with him, then what does it say about Kerry?

Moreover, do you really think this finds traction with people who are in the middle?

Moore is sharp in as much as he has made millions on the 9/11 tragedy and attacking Republicans. He's also sharp as he has declined a consideration for nomination for "Best Documentary" in the academy awards and is lobbying for "Best Film" nomination. As a documentary, the film cannot be shown on tv, but, as a film, it can be shown...he's hoping before the election.

As for FOX News, I agree they lean to the right. After a desert of liberal biased news stations, it's refreshing to hear a different point of view. That is probably why they consistently pull viewer ratings higher than CNN and MSNBC combined.

FOX News caters to people with short attention spans and airs too many celebrity driven fluff shows to maintain any credibility,IMHO.

[QUOTE=Isanyonehome]CNN Clinton's News Network. I mean come on, carville is a paid anchor for CNN and they are allowing him to directly work for the Kerry campaign as an advisor. What the hell is that????

Being partisan is one thing(a good thing as long as there is an oppossing partisan) but actually working for one sides campaign?[/QUOTE

Kind of like acting as the "neutral" head of elections in Florida at the same time you are state chair of George Dubya's 2000 campaign (read: Secretary Harris?)

Hmmm.......I guess bias and conflict of interest are OK so long as they favor the neoconservative Republicans.

[QUOTE=Isanyonehome]CNN Clinton's News Network. I mean come on, carville is a paid anchor for CNN and they are allowing him to directly work for the Kerry campaign as an advisor. What the hell is that????

Being partisan is one thing(a good thing as long as there is an oppossing partisan) but actually working for one sides campaign?[/QUOTE

Kind of like acting as the "neutral" head of elections in Florida at the same time you are state chair of George Dubya's 2000 campaign (read: Secretary Harris?)

Hmmm.......I guess bias and conflict of interest are OK so long as they favor the neoconservative Republicans.


You realize that her position gives her no leway one way or another. Its a rubber stamp, thats it. Do you understand what her position entailed and what it didnt? Perhaps in your little fantasy world, you think she could choose which ballots to count and which to ignore.

Leave alone that it was a democrat who designed the butterfly ballot that confused so many.

Actually lets leave that whole thing alone. Its 4 years later. There is a country to run. Issues to deal with. Are you telling me that you have been seething for the last for years.

Should I still be pissed because the only reason Kennedy won was because the dead rose from their graves and voted? Come on, life is too short. The direction of the country is too important.

And yes, it bothers me when someone who is in charge of giving me news and news commentary is allowed to become a vested interest. If Sean Hannity(an open partisan) worked for the Bush campaign, I would probably stop watching Hannity and Colmes.

In any case, CNN used to great about a decade ago. Now, after a slew of evens(working for Saddam, carville) I dont trust anything they have to say. A stupid way to kill an amazing reputation.

What part of you cannot understand that quite possibly BOTH G.W. Bush AND John F. Kerry are intelligent capable people. Perhaps they just have a differant vision of how to make America better.

All I ever hear from an ever increasing number of dems(including campaign officials) is how stupid, evil, misguided, corrupt and clueless G.W. Bush is. And lets not forget fascist.

If he were all these things, and your canditate is running neck and neck with him, then what does it say about Kerry?

Moreover, do you really think this finds traction with people who are in the middle?
the truth has never been popular--Look what it did to Jesus

the truth has never been popular--Look what it did to Jesus


And you know the truth? You have some special insight into both GW and Kerry? They call you up for advice in the middle of the night? You see a couple of snippets on TV and you know what makes them tick right?

well hell, what are you doing wasting your time here? You could be making billions saving the world. I mean certainly someone of your incredible intellectual caliber and insight could easily figure out everything. Because of course you know better than both the president and the his rival.

Why dont you try giving them some respect. Do you think that maybe MAYBE its possible that the president of the United States is working on more information than you have access to?

And you know the truth? You have some special insight into both GW and Kerry? They call you up for advice in the middle of the night? You see a couple of snippets on TV and you know what makes them tick right?

well hell, what are you doing wasting your time here? You could be making billions saving the world. I mean certainly someone of your incredible intellectual caliber and insight could easily figure out everything. Because of course you know better than both the president and the his rival.

Why dont you try giving them some respect. Do you think that maybe MAYBE its possible that the president of the United States is working on more information than you have access to?
nope

CBS News, led by Dan Rather is doing everything it can to ruin Bush and to get Commrad Kerry elected. Their credibilty has gone the way of the Dodo.
Interesting assessment, thine aptly-named feller.
So with such a charge, you wouldn't mind backing it up with some references and evidence or anything, would you?
Or you just another republican-branch stapled parrot squawking off in an obviously shady and dank forest of infective misery?
If, and i mean if, the case is that they're false, that doesn't turn the whole station into a big "liberal" conspiracy, so what else is Rather and CBS doing SPECIFICALLY, not rhetorically, not exaggeratively, not figuratively, to do exactly what you're charging it of?
If that's too steep an order for you, stating in such a manner as many a Republican does, not to exaggerate, falsify, insinuate, repeat ad nauseum and lie then don't bother replying.

[QUOTE=Zooke]1. I have heard O'Reilly rip Bush and his people (esp Rumsfeld) repeatedly. He does rip the dems more often, though, because they keep repeating the same drivel that has been proven wrong over and over and over.

2. It did affect his ability to run the country. While he was trying to figure out how to counter accusations and perjurying himself under oath about his affairs, he was giving too little attention to world affairs that eventually led to 9/11.

-Note, regarding #2 ..... it was the obviously preoccupied Republicans that decided to make a big stupid f*cking time&$wasting deal of a goddamned blowjob. $ well spent, what a bunch of f*ckheads! REPUBLICANS DID IT. No focus on capabilities of the office. It was TAXPAYER $ helping to find out the guy was the same as four or five other presidents in terms of domestic integrity, BFD! Sheesh, get a grip on reality and the back of your hairlines and pull your heads out of your arses! How the f*ck does a blowjob have anything to do with an impeachable offense? NO SENSE OF PROPORTION HERE!! If the Repbus had any integrity and skill they would've kept on about the Whitewater thing but they PUSSIED OUT and attacked the guy over, at best, a peripherality.
AND, he gave considerably more attention to the issues that led to 9/11 than Bush did and there is quite a bit of evidence of that, try reading the Commission report and a plethora of other reports. The problem is during the transition the Arbusto-fellators had no interest in carrying much of the programs the Dem's were doing and basically ignored a lot of it for sake of their new accursed PNAC perogative. Prove me wrong.
As for #1, i heard Savage talking smack about O'Reilly the other day, Savage thinks he can take him and O'Reilly'd have a tough time coming up to breathe.
Also, O'Reilly was one of the few who is generally considered to be on the side of the right that actually bothered to watch 9-11 from Moore, AND he interviewed him, being as tact and curt as he can possibly be, it would seem.

it was found out that the same typewriting flaws that critics are using to try and discredit the Killian report are also present in the records the pentagon released of Bushs so-called "military service"
-AND-
my only goal in life is the be the rightwings worst nightmare-I will go to the wall fighting their sick and evil values

--------------
Power to you MK.
I've heard about the "military service" typefont issue, NOT FROM HERE SURPRISINGLY, but i don't have a link on it. Could you link me on that?

For a group of Viet Nam vets to expose testimony that Kerry made and that caused great harm to the vets, esp the POW's, is not libel or slander. It's saying "I don't support this guy because he did this...", which is merely a statement of fact and opinion. To falsify documents on someone's military record, as the dems have obviously done to Bush, IS libel and slander. There's a huge difference.
So, when the Pentagon CLEARLY STATES that some of Bush's records were irretrievably lost on a disc regarding the time period in question and then again only a week or two later those documents pop up again, magically found like a disc drive .... does that say the Pentagon is flat out lying or maybe you don't know enough about it? And when i say you mightn't know enough about it, prove me wrong by including just how much $ was raised by the spokespeople for the SBV group SPECIFICALLY to reelect Bush.

Strange isn't it.

I've never heard a right wing conservative ever once admit they were wrong.

I guess that's the real difference about both sides.
Amen to that. I noted Savage's absence for a whole week, unexplained, when he found out that SBV was legally advised/rep'd by Bush's head counsel for his reelection AND that O'Neill was a Nixon aide with contacts to boot. When he came back, he still and is as ever trying to turn it into a Kerry issue while not bringing up legitimacy anymore of the group he touted even more than his ever-invasive interest in irrelevant cuisine.

What part of you cannot understand that quite possibly BOTH G.W. Bush AND John F. Kerry are intelligent capable people. Perhaps they just have a differant vision of how to make America better.

All I ever hear from an ever increasing number of dems(including campaign officials) is how stupid, evil, misguided, corrupt and clueless G.W. Bush is. And lets not forget fascist.

If he were all these things, and your canditate is running neck and neck with him, then what does it say about Kerry?

Moreover, do you really think this finds traction with people who are in the middle?
They may or may not have different visions, Bush's vision is some kind of deific delusion he expects every other Munkef*ck to believe and fellate him about, and Kerry doesn't have so many delusions of grandeur of purpose even if he has delusions of his own self worth.
But you're not thinking clearly, it would seem, about your third statement in here, 'bout what it says about Kerry. It doesn't say anything about Kerry in terms of neck and neck, other than maybe the partisan population backs him up to that degree to beat that excrement Bush out of his unmerited post of the presidency. Population there. Not values or morals, many are voting simply to get rid of Dubya. That's a lot of people.
And the people in the middle are being forced out of the middle IN EVERY RESPECT over this president's choices in policy and campaign. I know that i was much more towards the middle myself until quite a few of this current administrations efforts came to light, especially when followed immediately by the Republican's efforts to blame anyone and everyone else for every other little stupid thing to get off the topic.

Why dont you try giving them some respect. Do you think that maybe MAYBE its possible that the president of the United States is working on more information than you have access to?

Like his whereabouts between 1972-73?

Dan Rather now admits that some of the documents are probably forged. But he insists that the message ON them is legitimate. :rolleyes:

Ok, how does one reconcile this? The documents are fake but the information ON them is correct? Ok, if I forge up a bunch of documents proving that humans are nothing more than the offspring of apes and aliens does that make the information ON those documents correct even if the documents are fake?

Dan Rather will be gone soon.....CBS has lost so many viewers over this their advertising dollars will dry up and that will be that.

Dan Rather now admits that some of the documents are probably forged. But he insists that the message ON them is legitimate. :rolleyes:

Ok, how does one reconcile this? The documents are fake but the information ON them is correct? Ok, if I forge up a bunch of documents proving that humans are nothing more than the offspring of apes and aliens does that make the information ON those documents correct even if the documents are fake?

Dan Rather will be gone soon.....CBS has lost so many viewers over this their advertising dollars will dry up and that will be that.
Dan Rather should get a purple heart for standing his ground in exposing the lies of the most evil administration to ever poison the American landscape-Rather shows more courage then our Coward in Chief--the only real scandal here is that after all this time Bush STILL wont apologize for getting preferntial treatment in the Guard and for going AWOL and then later going on to smear the war records of any TRUE vet who ever opposed him. Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush