NationStates Jolt Archive

Quoting the (at the time of our founding) almost uniquely american principle of presumption of innocence, Bill O'Reilly defended Dan Rather in his story about the Bush National Guard service. "To say that Dan Rather would knowingly present fake documents in absurd and unprovable". O'Reilly goes on to say that he might have been duped, but that's not Rather's fault, but rather CBS's fault in not researching things better.

Anti-american was used in that it goes against the american principle of innocent until proven guilty.

if bill o reilly says it he must be trying to damn him because every intelligent person knows o reilly is a self righteous ass and alot of unintelligent people are republicans, so either way everyones gonna be pissed at cbs

Quoting the (at the time of our founding) almost uniquely american principle of presumption of innocence, Bill O'Reilly defended Dan Rather in his story about the Bush National Guard service. "To say that Dan Rather would knowingly present fake documents in absurd and unprovable". O'Reilly goes on to say that he might have been duped, but that's not Rather's fault, but rather CBS's fault in not researching things better.

Anti-american was used in that it goes against the american principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe, but Rather has a history of anti-Bush leanings and actions. it would not surprise me if it comes out that he knew about the documents being fake. Time will tell......

if bill o reilly says it he must be trying to damn him because every intelligent person knows o reilly is a self righteous ass and alot of unintelligent people are republicans, so either way everyones gonna be pissed at cbs

lol, this was what I was hoping you would jump at.

I was merely pointing out that O'Reilly believes in innocent until proven guilty. You believe in innocent until proven republican. Even when defending your side of the debate, you find fault with him. Talk about rabid.

Maybe, but Rather has a history of anti-Bush leanings and actions. it would not surprise me if it comes out that he knew about the documents being fake. Time will tell......

Wouldnt surprise me either, however I find a more likely theory is that his anti-Bush leanings made him more susceptable to being conned by some of the more unscrupulous members of the unofficial Kerry campaign.

He's against the swifties...has said that the war in Iraq may have been a mistake...and he's defending Rather?

O'Reily's moving up o_O

lol, this was what I was hoping you would jump at.

I was merely pointing out that O'Reilly believes in innocent until proven guilty. You believe in innocent until proven republican. Even when defending your side of the debate, you find fault with him. Talk about rabid.


Well most democrats are so filled with hate for the right they cant see past thier hatred. They hate the right because MOST Republicans can admit when either they are wrong or there is a better way of doing things. In other words republicans are more flexible. The dems especially this radical Chess Squares loves to sread his hate filled propaganda in every thread in the forum. Saying how stupid everyone else is except Democrats. But I am glad that they do this only because it shows how ignorant, stupid, and big headed they are and shows the hipocracy of the left. Oh one more thing... They hate it the most when someone from the right defends them as did O'Reilly because if this happens the the left cant cry and pout over Republicans being unfair.

Maybe, but Rather has a history of anti-Bush leanings and actions. it would not surprise me if it comes out that he knew about the documents being fake. Time will tell......

CBS in general has been pushing Kerry's agenda and belittling the republicans. The Reagans is a prime example. They pull their toes in though when their ratings start dropping.

Well most democrats are so filled with hate for the right they cant see past thier hatred. They hate the right because MOST Republicans can admit when either they are wrong or there is a better way of doing things. In other words republicans are more flexible. The dems especially this radical Chess Squares loves to sread his hate filled propaganda in every thread in the forum. Saying how stupid everyone else is except Democrats. But I am glad that they do this only because it shows how ignorant, stupid, and big headed they are and shows the hipocracy of the left. Oh one more thing... They hate it the most when someone from the right defends them as did O'Reilly because if this happens the the left cant cry and pout over Republicans being unfair.

woah, what?

it's been my experience as a neutral, non-american, that some people from both sides of the political spectrum are assholes who hate the other side who can't admit when they're wrong and senselessly buy into propaganda that suits their political outlook.

it's stupid to say that it's only democrats or only republicans who do that. i mean, who are the ones who brought out the purple heart band-aids and the hair pulling?

They hate it the most when someone from the right defends them as did O'Reilly because if this happens the the left cant cry and pout over Republicans being unfair.

It blows them out of the water when they claim that FOX isn't fair and balanced and you point out that O'Reilly has some liberal views and that Combs is a screaming far-left advocate. Throw in the Dem pundits debating with the Rep pundits and they'll claim the Dem representative wasn't given an equal forum.

Well most democrats are so filled with hate for the right they cant see past thier hatred. They hate the right because MOST Republicans can admit when either they are wrong or there is a better way of doing things. In other words republicans are more flexible. The dems especially this radical Chess Squares loves to sread his hate filled propaganda in every thread in the forum. Saying how stupid everyone else is except Democrats. But I am glad that they do this only because it shows how ignorant, stupid, and big headed they are and shows the hipocracy of the left. Oh one more thing... They hate it the most when someone from the right defends them as did O'Reilly because if this happens the the left cant cry and pout over Republicans being unfair.
you are so full of shit its almost funny


the republicans are flexible like a damned concrete block. read the forums, how much do the republicans dismiss shit out of hand without even thinking because its liberal, or believe anything a republican says

i read this, i realised it is bill o'reilly, the big blubbering vagina (google maddox bill o'reilly), he is so full of himself and biased its not even funny, if he is jumping at this he is smarter than you dipshits, he realise the right will pretend he didnt say it and the more incompetent left (who you are referring to) will start questioning dan rather

I on the other hand see past his little trick and he can kiss my ass, so can you and your ignorant republican hypocritical buddies


"Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me."

-- Bill O'Reilly, The O'Reilly Factor, 2/26/03

In his zeal to get a story, Rather made a mistake. It was not intentional, but it was also very sloppy. In the old days it would have been shunted to the sides and never revealed - but in modern times it is more difficult to get away with that - Blogs and cable are keeping the mainstream media on their toes. Thay are the watchdogs of America's watchdogs.

Rather's error is not unforgiveable, but his refusal to acknowledge it is.

You're one of those idiots who believed in the "massive right wing conspiracy" that was supposedly going after Clinton, aren't you, Chess Squares?

You're one of those idiots who believed in the "massive right wing conspiracy" that was supposedly going after Clinton, aren't you, Chess Squares?
and your one of the idiots who believes fox is fair and balanced huh

and your one of the idiots who believes fox is fair and balanced huh

Chess.. you are unable to form arguments without screaming, lying, insulting and swearing. Everything you write seems to drip with hatred and vitriol.

you are so full of shit its almost funny

Case in point.

the republicans are flexible like a damned concrete block. read the forums, how much do the republicans dismiss shit out of hand without even thinking because its liberal, or believe anything a republican says

This statement is really about yourself and your dismissing anything conservative now isnt it?

i read this, i realised it is bill o'reilly, the big blubbering vagina (google maddox bill o'reilly), he is so full of himself and biased its not even funny, if he is jumping at this he is smarter than you dipshits, he realise the right will pretend he didnt say it and the more incompetent left (who you are referring to) will start questioning dan rather

You are saying nothing, but spewing forth insults and vulgarities.

I on the other hand see past his little trick and he can kiss my ass, so can you and your ignorant republican hypocritical buddies

Dude, seek help. You really need it.

I'm glad about this. Even if those memos were false (and that's a big if), some tree-hugging hippie in California probably typed it, not anyone at CBS, and certainly not Rather. Besides, he's spent twenty years on the air, and hasn't been hit by one major scandal. There's a reason why the big three have kept their anchors for so long.

i imagine the one rule is going

blah blah blah i am smart blah blah blah you are dumb blah blah balh i am smrt balh blah blah smarrrt blah blah i amr right blah blah

Wow. The Republicans are patting themselves on the back in such an orgiastic ritual of self-satisfaction it's a wonder they aren't growing hair on their palms.

Bill O'Reilly makes a valid point, one that can't be argued against merely on the basis that O'Reilly is often a odious blowhard.

I love the black-and white behavior of those overly filled with political vitriol. Both sides are often at fault. The thing is, is that while Fox may be biased in the extreme, and caters to the worst kind of political discourse (the kind that usually involves mutual shouting,) it still covers some good news...they just have to be watched like a hawk, and their facts must be checked. Just because it's on Fox, doesn't mean it's false, though. Attack the argument and facts, not the messenger.

Also, to think that Rather would throw away his career and his reputation in order to do some Bush bashing is ludicrous. Also, everyone is talking like the authenticity of the memos had been proven or disproven

News Flash: Dick hasn't been decided. The original documents are yet to be examined, and all we have at this point are some questions brought up. Those questions have been refuted. the debate rages on, but if you think anything has been decided, you're a straight up moron.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
and your one of the idiots who believes fox is fair and balanced huh

Chess.. you are unable to form arguments without screaming, lying, insulting and swearing. Everything you write seems to drip with hatred and vitriol.


Originally Posted by Chess Squares
you are so full of shit its almost funny


Case in point.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
the republicans are flexible like a damned concrete block. read the forums, how much do the republicans dismiss shit out of hand without even thinking because its liberal, or believe anything a republican says


This statement is really about yourself and your dismissing anything conservative now isnt it?

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
i read this, i realised it is bill o'reilly, the big blubbering vagina (google maddox bill o'reilly), he is so full of himself and biased its not even funny, if he is jumping at this he is smarter than you dipshits, he realise the right will pretend he didnt say it and the more incompetent left (who you are referring to) will start questioning dan rather


You are saying nothing, but spewing forth insults and vulgarities.

Originally Posted by Chess Squares
I on the other hand see past his little trick and he can kiss my ass, so can you and your ignorant republican hypocritical buddies
Dude, seek help. You really need it.

Posted it to help Chess read what TOR wrote.

It blows them out of the water when they claim that FOX isn't fair and balanced and you point out that O'Reilly has some liberal views and that Combs is a screaming far-left advocate.
Well, since FOX executives and O'Reilly say that their TV channel is biased in favour of the Republicans, I think they're telling the truth.

Alan Combes is a quiet guy, and he surely is the most moderate of all leftists. Certainly not "screaming" or "far-left".

I think O'Reilly's a self-important blowhard, but good on him for standing up for what he believes in, even in defense of an acknowledged enemy. Now, when Ann Coulter comes out in support of Rather's innocence, I'll paint myself blue and dance naked in the street for my neighbor's amusement.




Oh never mind. I already do that.

I think O'Reilly's a self-important blowhard, but good on him for standing up for what he believes in, even in defense of an acknowledged enemy. Now, when Ann Coulter comes out in support of Rather's innocence, I'll paint myself blue and dance naked in the street for my neighbor's amusement.




Oh never mind. I already do that.
Oh? Are you of pictish ancenstry?

if bill o reilly says it he must be trying to damn him because every intelligent person knows o reilly is a self righteous ass and alot of unintelligent people are republicans, so either way everyones gonna be pissed at cbs
Im not pissed at CBS at all-Im glad theyre finally showing some spine

Posted it to help Chess read what TOR wrote.
you do realise there is a reason he is ignored right?

Maybe, but Rather has a history of anti-Bush leanings and actions. it would not surprise me if it comes out that he knew about the documents being fake. Time will tell......
all that time is telling us is that these documents may be as real as Bushs phoney "official" war records since they both have the same typographical characteristics in them

I think O'Reilly's a self-important blowhard, but good on him for standing up for what he believes in, even in defense of an acknowledged enemy. Now, when Ann Coulter comes out in support of Rather's innocence, I'll paint myself blue and dance naked in the street for my neighbor's amusement.
pssh, when ann coulter can write a single paper without insulting liberals or democrats i will petition the local government to become the town idiot and dress up in a jester suit and dance in the city square

Wouldnt surprise me either, however I find a more likely theory is that his anti-Bush leanings made him more susceptable to being conned by some of the more unscrupulous members of the unofficial Kerry campaign.
Dan Rather is the picture of restraint when compared to the rabidly partisan dogs at Foxnews

Waitwaitwait.

O'Reily... Defending... Rather?

My world is rapidly destabilizing.

Well most democrats are so filled with hate for the right they cant see past thier hatred. They hate the right because MOST Republicans can admit when either they are wrong or there is a better way of doing things. In other words republicans are more flexible. The dems especially this radical Chess Squares loves to sread his hate filled propaganda in every thread in the forum. Saying how stupid everyone else is except Democrats. But I am glad that they do this only because it shows how ignorant, stupid, and big headed they are and shows the hipocracy of the left. Oh one more thing... They hate it the most when someone from the right defends them as did O'Reilly because if this happens the the left cant cry and pout over Republicans being unfair.
get real--the rightwing is the one who profits from the politics of hate fear and loathing--the dems are just starting to fight back now

CBS in general has been pushing Kerry's agenda and belittling the republicans. The Reagans is a prime example. They pull their toes in though when their ratings start dropping.
meanwhile everything in the Reagan doco was completely factual--the repubs just dont want to accept any version of reality that doesnt lionize their villanous heroes

Seriously, the conservatives are having to resort to every weapon they can use. Their only devense is to call anyone anti-bush anti-american. Just watch, they'll end up calling people like michael moore and john kerry terrorists by the time the election arrives.

It blows them out of the water when they claim that FOX isn't fair and balanced and you point out that O'Reilly has some liberal views and that Combs is a screaming far-left advocate. Throw in the Dem pundits debating with the Rep pundits and they'll claim the Dem representative wasn't given an equal forum.
Colmes is a self admitted centrist patsy for Hannity and O'Reilly is prolly just taking this stance to try and deflect the accurate criticizms about Foxnews radical bias in favor republican war profiteering. At the GOP convention in NYC a reporter walking by the Foxnews trailer heard Foxnews reporters chanting "4 more years"--when she questioned them about it they told her a Foxnews lie saying they were chanting for one of their employees who is retiring to stay on for 4 more years (yeah riiight)

In his zeal to get a story, Rather made a mistake. It was not intentional, but it was also very sloppy. In the old days it would have been shunted to the sides and never revealed - but in modern times it is more difficult to get away with that - Blogs and cable are keeping the mainstream media on their toes. Thay are the watchdogs of America's watchdogs.

Rather's error is not unforgiveable, but his refusal to acknowledge it is.
Rather should stand his ground and sue his republican critics for slander

You're one of those idiots who believed in the "massive right wing conspiracy" that was supposedly going after Clinton, aren't you, Chess Squares?
meanwhile it was true and headed by Richard Scaife

Chess.. you are unable to form arguments without screaming, lying, insulting and swearing. Everything you write seems to drip with hatred and vitriol.



Case in point.



This statement is really about yourself and your dismissing anything conservative now isnt it?



You are saying nothing, but spewing forth insults and vulgarities.



Dude, seek help. You really need it.I dont think its his vulgarity that bothers you so much as the fact that hes telling the truth

Seriously, the conservatives are having to resort to every weapon they can use. Their only devense is to call anyone anti-bush anti-american. Just watch, they'll end up calling people like michael moore and john kerry terrorists by the time the election arrives.
they already are LOL

This is an edict, and God told me to tell you this:

If you don't have something worthwhile to say, don't say a damn thing

meanwhile everything in the Reagan doco was completely factual--the repubs just dont want to accept any version of reality that doesnt lionize their villanous heroes
As God is my witness I have no idea why Im going to do this (feeding the troll, giving in to temptation, masochistic tendencies whatever)

That movie was not completely factual, and nowhere near a documentary. The script was completely made up, and written by 2 self proclaimed liberals.

They, like you, have an agenda.

pssh, when ann coulter can write a single paper without insulting liberals or democrats i will petition the local government to become the town idiot and dress up in a jester suit and dance in the city square
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac000320.shtml

Please take a video of you dancing in your jester suit so that we might all enjoy your crowning as the town idiot.

Wouldnt surprise me either, however I find a more likely theory is that his anti-Bush leanings made him more susceptable to being conned by some of the more unscrupulous members of the unofficial Kerry campaign.
Considering Karl Rove's history of dirty tricks campaigning--he once bugged his own office in order to accuse his client's Democratic opponent of doing it--it's just as likely that if they are fakes, they were planted by a Republican group looking to resurrect the swiftly dying "liberal media" meme and discredit CBS for the remainder of the campaign.

And as I noted in another thread, while the construction of the documents is still open to debate (i.e. they haven't been proven as fakes yet), the information inside them continues to be verified by people who served directly with Killian, and is not being denied by the Bush administration.

As God is my witness I have no idea why Im going to do this (feeding the troll, giving in to temptation, masochistic tendencies whatever)

That movie was not completely factual, and nowhere near a documentary. The script was completely made up, and written by 2 self proclaimed liberals.

They, like you, have an agenda.
but your historical revisionism is an attempt to rewrite history and you claim that Im the one with an agenda? :rolleyes:

but your historical revisionism is an attempt to rewrite history and you claim that Im the one with an agenda? :rolleyes:

Im not the one claiming that the farce is "completely factual"

They BSed conversations and pretended they happened. That's not factual.

Am I the only one who smells a rat here? Fact: it is proven by military documents that Bush missed large enough blocks of time in the Guard to be suspended, didn't show up for medical exams, and also it is true that he got in because of his dad's power and connections. Because of that, some poor shmuck had to go to Vietnam and possibly die in his place. These facts have nothing to do with the alleged forged documents.

So what of these documents? Bush and his pals saw them before the 60 minutes interview. They didn't question them. Why not?

Would anyone here (repugs excluded) doubt that Karl Rove, the master of push-polls and dirty tricks, would throw this clever little red-herring out there himself to distract Americans from the real issue of Bush not serving his commitment, then lying about even up to today?

Hmmmmmmmm..........

some people from both sides of the political spectrum are assholes who hate the other side who can't admit when they're wrong and senselessly buy into propaganda that suits their political outlook.

it's stupid to say that it's only democrats or only republicans who do that.
good to see someone is still in touch with reality...I suppose it's too hopeful to expect you comments to trigger a sudden rash of good sense in the wider community.....

Am I the only one who smells a rat here? Fact: it is proven by military documents that Bush missed large enough blocks of time in the Guard to be suspended, didn't show up for medical exams, and also it is true that he got in because of his dad's power and connections. Because of that, some poor shmuck had to go to Vietnam and possibly die in his place. These facts have nothing to do with the alleged forged documents.

So what of these documents? Bush and his pals saw them before the 60 minutes interview. They didn't question them. Why not?

Would anyone here (repugs excluded) doubt that Karl Rove, the master of push-polls and dirty tricks, would throw this clever little red-herring out there himself to distract Americans from the real issue of Bush not serving his commitment, then lying about even up to today?

Hmmmmmmmm..........

So let me get this straight... if the docs are fake, then they were planted by republicans to discredit cbs and Rather. If they are real, then those same republicans are slanderous a**holes for attacking cbs and Rather. And if they cant be proven true or fake, then they still should be taken as gospel and prove that Bush recieved special treatment.

Talk about your win/win/win situation for the Left.

Doesn't seem to bother you Bush ditched serving and lies about even today, does it? Didn't think so.

Doesn't seem to bother you Bush ditched serving and lies about even today, does it? Didn't think so.
Please, provide some from of proof. And include some understanding how the national guard service worked in 1970's.
Doesn't seem to bother you parroting partisan propoganda does it? Didn't think so.

REPORT SHOWS BUSH WAS AWOL

Earlier this year, President Bush told the nation "I did my duty" in the National Guard in 1972 when he was supposed to report for service.[1] But according to a major new report, that is not true.

As a new examination of documents by the Boston Globe shows, "Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation." Twice during his Guard service - first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School - Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. But "he didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show."[2]

Bush also has claimed "I did show up in Alabama"[3] in 1972 when he was supposed to report there for duty. But as the Globe notes, "Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year." Furthermore, "even that service is in doubt" as "no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973."

A new group called Texans for Truth will begin airing 0:30 second television ads featuring a National Guardsman who in 1972 served in the very same Alabama unit Bush was supposed to have joined. That Guardsman testifies that he never saw Bush show up for service - a story corroborated by others. See the ad here: http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2977485&l=53732 .[4]


Sources:

1. Transcript for Feb. 8th airing on "Meet the Press", MSNBC, 2/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2977485&l=53733.
2. "Bush fell short on duty at Guard," Boston Globe, 9/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2977485&l=53734.
3. Transcript for Feb. 8th airing on "Meet the Press", MSNBC, 2/13/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2977485&l=53733.
4. TexansforTruth.com, 9/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2977485&l=53732.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush administration distortion. »


'Didn't Meet His Commitments'

One day before CBS's much-anticipated segment on President Bush's record in the National Guard, the Boston Globe published a major expose that concludes he "didn't meet the commitments" of service. As the story points out, "Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation" in two separate periods during his Guard service. The White House has insisted it released all documents to prove otherwise, but a new report today proves those denials were false. As the Associated Press reports, "Months after insisting it could find no more records of President George W. Bush's Air National Guard service, the Defense Department has released more than two dozen pages of files" – though still none which prove the president fulfilled his obligations.

The documents also show, "Bush was not with his Texas Guard unit – the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group – in 1972 when it joined in a '24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack' in the southern United States."

IN DESPERATION, MCCLELLAN ATTACKS HIS OWN MOTHER'S BACKER: CBS's 60 Minutes II will interview former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who now admits to helping Bush get into the Texas National Guard and avoid combat during Vietnam. In anticipation, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan attacked Barnes, saying "It is not surprising coming from a longtime partisan Democrat." Barnes, however, gave his endorsement to and is a top fundraiser for Republican Texas State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn – Scott McClellan's mother.

NATIONAL GUARD COLLEAGUE SAYS BUSH WASN'T THERE: Texans for Truth, a 20,000-member online activist group, has produced a new 30-second television advertisement featuring Robert Mintz – one of many who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard unit when Bush claims to have been there. Mintz testifies that he has no memory of Bush on the base, even though he sought him out. Watch the ad.


allrighty then.

This one just for fun:

August 26, 2004

It Takes Real Courage to Desert Your Post and Then Attack a Wounded Vet

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a purple heart, you'd better be hit with a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a purple heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's polls numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).
Some people have said "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time you in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22, 1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a purple heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you.
Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their face on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks their life for this country. It's the least they deserve.
Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

PS. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac000320.shtml

.


another townhall reader. good job

By the way, The Washington Times is a right-wing rag owned by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon (spelling perhaps incorrect). It is the home of Tony Blankley and in my opinion has about as much credibility as FOX news, the New York Post, and other biased neo-con news organizations. So that being said, Here's some more info for you:

Media obsesses over CBS documents, ignores uncontested evidence that Bush didn't meet his Guard obligations

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002

The September 14 edition of CNN's Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics began with a lengthy segment that was ostensibly about the controversy surrounding President George W. Bush's National Guard service. But the segment made only passing mention of the allegations against Bush -- and it made no mention at all of the substantial and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical for as-yet-unexplained reasons, that he was grounded from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge anyway.

Show host Judy Woodruff and CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash focused almost exclusively on the Bush team's defense and on controversial documents released by CBS that are not the primary evidence against him; the specific criticisms of -- and evidence against -- Bush have been ignored. CNN aired a clip of Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe speaking about the topic, but the clip CNN chose to air showed McAuliffe defending the DNC's decision to criticize Bush, rather than showing him actually criticizing Bush. Woodruff then followed the McAuliffe clip by reading a baseless Republican National Committee allegation -- that Democrats gave the memos to CBS -- without indicating that there is no evidence for the charge.

The Inside Politics report was just one of many recent media reports about Bush's Guard record that have focused on the authenticity of four relatively trivial memos or on the Bush campaign's defenses, while ignoring the facts and evidence against Bush.

Among the facts left out of the CNN report, none of which have been seriously contested:

• Bush didn't fulfill the "military service obligation" he signed: An article in the September 20 edition of U.S. News & World Report reported: "Because Bush signed a six-year 'military service obligation,' he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard."

• Even White House methodology shows Bush didn't attend enough drills to meet requirements: The U.S. News article continued: "Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement."

• Bush didn't comply with time limits on making up missed drills: The U.S. News article reported: "[D]uring the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills."

• Bush never made up five months of missed drills: According to the U.S. News article, Bush "apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had 'served honorably.'"

• Bush twice signed documents pledging to meet requirements; twice violated that oath: According to a September 8 article in The Boston Globe: "Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice."

• Bush skipped a required physical, and was grounded from flying: The Globe article continued: "While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months."

• U.S. representative's son George W. Bush mysteriously escaped punishment: The Globe article reported: "The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been 'satisfactory' -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months."

• Former Texas speaker of the House swore under oath that he helped Bush get into the Guard: According to The Globe: "Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend."

• Bush's business school professor said Bush admitted his father's friends got him into the Guard: A September 13 CNN.com article reported that Bush's Harvard Business School professor Yoshi Tsurumi said that Bush told him that family friends had pulled strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard: "Bush confided in him [Tsurumi] during an after-class hallway conversation during the 1973-74 school year. 'He admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad -- he said 'Dad's friends' -- skip him through the long waiting list to get him into the Texas National Guard,' Tsurumi said. 'He thought that was a smart thing to do.'" But the videotaped interview has been largely absent from CNN's cable broadcasts, as Media Matters for America has noted.

CNN isn't alone in ignoring these significant -- and uncontested -- facts about Bush's failure to fulfill his military commitments. Nor is CNN alone in presenting the CBS documents as though they are the key to the story.

On September 14, a New York Times article about Bush's speech to a conference of the National Guard Association quoted Democratic criticism of Bush, but that criticism was followed directly by five paragraphs about the CBS documents. The article fails to note that there is considerable uncontested evidence about Bush's failure to perform his duty. The Times thus creates the false impression that the question of Bush's failure to meet his requirement hinges on the validity of the CBS documents.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz has noted that the CBS documents were dominating media coverage: "But the only topic of conversation in the media world remains whether CBS's National Guard documents are real or fake. ... The controversy over the 60 Minutes documents has now overshadowed the questions they purport to raise about George W. Bush's military service."

Kurtz then went on to write 1,500 words about the CBS documents, ignoring the voluminous evidence about the things that really matter about the National Guard story: the uncontested -- but not fully explained -- facts that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a mandatory physical, and that he was grounded from flying.


http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42735-2004Feb14?language=printer

By the way, The Washington Times is a right-wing rag owned by the Reverend Sun Yung Moon (spelling perhaps incorrect). It is the home of Tony Blankley and in my opinion has about as much credibility as FOX news, the New York Post, and other biased neo-con news organizations. So that being said, Here's some more info for you:

Media obsesses over CBS documents, ignores uncontested evidence that Bush didn't meet his Guard obligations

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002

You dismiss the Washington Times because it's a "right-wing rag" yet you cite mediamatters.org? What's your next proof, Moveon.org?

Cite me any times that Media Matters has lied, distorted, or otherwise told anything but the truth. And I have read the right wing slander that uses terms such as "many people say Media Matters lies" but offers no proof. This is typical right-wing slander. They say, "David Brock is a well-known liar" and repeat it over and over but refuse to present a single shred of credible documentation to that effect.

Just because you don't like the message doesn't make it a lie. I just ask that folks (not you because you are never going to believe anything that is critical of your right-wing heroes) look at statements like the ones you cite in that Times rag and do what I did - Google it, look at other sources, and make a critical evaluation. People with an agenda like yourself, and yes, me, can make any side of an argument sound correct even if it is based on lies. Your arguments are based on lies because your side has no record to defend itself with other than lies. Don't take my word for it - take the Google Challenge yourself!

Just because you don't like the message doesn't make it a lie. I just ask that folks (not you because you are never going to believe anything that is critical of your right-wing heroes)

Just because you didnt like the message of the article I posted doesnt make it a lie. Practice what you preach.

Just because you didnt like the message of the article I posted doesnt make it a lie. Practice what you preach.

That is why rather than take one point of view I researched it. Unlike guys like you who here something in the right-wing press and believe it like it is gospel.

Republicans are bad. Democrats are good.

No, wait.

Democrats are bad. Republicans are good.

No, wait.

Both have good intentions. Both have strong opinions.
Both are right and wrong.
Each hates and belittles the other for the same reason.

So sad.

Quoting the (at the time of our founding) almost uniquely american principle of presumption of innocence, (...)

It'S called coomon law. You inherited it from the British and it was in large use throughout the world (especially british colonies) when the US was founded.

Not that I don't agree with the spirit of your argument....

Im not the one claiming that the farce is "completely factual"
you supported swiftboat liars--there isnt any lie that your clay idols speak that you wouldnt support

Please, provide some from of proof. And include some understanding how the national guard service worked in 1970's.
Doesn't seem to bother you parroting partisan propoganda does it? Didn't think so.
If Bush has nothing to hide whyd he burn his military records in that fire?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm
bad link--the Washington Times is owned by moonies