NationStates Jolt Archive

Folks, whoever provided the questionable documents to CBS and Dan Rather, was probably attempting to drive a wedge between the folks in the National Guard and Reserves, and George W Bush. If you read this article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040915-121937-1263r.htm), it seems like the author of the documents (which I personally believe were forgeries,) has failed. George W Bush received an enthusiastic response by the National Guard Association's convention (the timing of those documents is amazing, isn't it?) in Las Vegas.

Also, the simply amazing Dick Morris has yet another article (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28562.htm) that dissects the mounting troubles faced by the Kerry campaign.

If you're counting on Dick Morris to lift your electoral spirits, you're in dire shape.

May I ask why, assuming the documents are forgeries (which hasn't been remotely proven yet, btw), the Bush administration has yet to deny the content of those memos? And the standing "o" doesn't prove anything. Political rallies are always lovefests, and the Bush campaign does a real good job of keeping dissenters out of the spotlight, when they're allowed to attend at all.

Lastly--why do you assume that the author of the documents, again, if they're forged, is trying to drive a wedge between Bush and the military? Isn't it just as likely, given Rove's history of dirty tricks (bugging his own office and blaming it on a Democratic opponent's campaign), that this was a setup to discredit CBS News and resurrect the dying "liberal media" meme?

If you're counting on Dick Morris to lift your electoral spirits, you're in dire shape.Considering that he was the real brains behind the Clinton operation for a long time (Carville, Begala, et al, were simply the attack dogs,) his opinion is certainly valid.

May I ask why, assuming the documents are forgeries (which hasn't been remotely proven yet, btw), the Bush administration has yet to deny the content of those memos?
Easy. The "documents" say what they say. It's all there in black and white. The content is not the issue. The likelihood of the technology available to a National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 (National Guard units always lag behind their active duty counterparts in regards to technology, always) being able to produce documents with characteristics that are readily available to someone using MS Word today (those same characteristics would have required professional assistance in 1972 and 73...) is an issue. The likelihood of someone who never kept personal records, who hated typing (in fact, was a lousy typist) suddenly keeping documents that have professional characteristics, that's an issue. The use by a career officer of non-early-1970's-military-documentation-standard notation in said documents is an issue. Using documents that allegedly were kept by someone who has been dead for 20 years, and yet his family or co-workers knew nothing about said documents, that's an issue. Need I continue?

And the standing "o" doesn't prove anything. Political rallies are always lovefests, and the Bush campaign does a real good job of keeping dissenters out of the spotlight, when they're allowed to attend at all.
I guess we shall see on Thursday, when Kerry speaks at the same National Guard Association convention, what welcome he receives. I don't think it would be a stretch to think the response might be similar to the one he got during the VFW convention...

Lastly--why do you assume that the author of the documents, again, if they're forged, is trying to drive a wedge between Bush and the military? Isn't it just as likely, given Rove's history of dirty tricks (bugging his own office and blaming it on a Democratic opponent's campaign), that this was a setup to discredit CBS News and resurrect the dying "liberal media" meme?
Hmmm, the classic "it's just another dirty scheme by Karl Rove" defense. Now, that is what I call "dire shape."

Easy. The "documents" say what they say. It's all there in black and white. The content is not the issue. The likelihood of the technology available to a National Guard unit in 1972 and 1973 (National Guard units always lag behind their active duty counterparts in regards to technology, always) being able to produce documents with characteristics that are readily available to someone using MS Word today (those same characteristics would have required professional assistance in 1972 and 73...) is an issue. The likelihood of someone who never kept personal records, who hated typing (in fact, was a lousy typist) suddenly keeping documents that have professional characteristics, that's an issue. The use by a career officer of non-early-1970's-military-documentation-standard notation in said documents is an issue. Using documents that allegedly were kept by someone who has been dead for 20 years, and yet his family or co-workers knew nothing about said documents, that's an issue. Need I continue?By all means, continue. You haven't addressed the crux of the question. If the content isn't factual, why hasn't the White House addressed it? I'll go ahead and answer--because the documents don't tell us anything we didn't already know from earlier documents, namely, that Bush didn't complete his service in the Air National Guard and was suspended from flight status. Nothing new.

So whether or not the docs are fake is really irrelevant to the whole debate--and yet, the right just can't seem to get enough of them. Why? Because it discredits the "liberal media." Whether Rove had anything to do with it or not, I don't know. I'd be surprised if he actually got his hands dirty with it, to be honest, but it smells like his kind of deal. No, I take that back--it smells like the kind of thing that someone from the Nixon days would have done.

Panhandlia for President...atleast let the guy run the campaign in his state.

This paragraph sums it up nicely. I think the evening of the election MANY MANY Democrats are going to wonder what went wrong, and Morris puts it on the table 40+ days before hand.

Kerry never had time to make America like him. He won the nomination before anyone really got to know him and has coasted on anti-Bush campaigning ever since. Even now, he relies on the old National Guard records of Bush to animate his campaign, as if we are about to form our judgment of how Bush would be as a commander based on 30-year- old, possibly forged records rather than on our own observation of how he has done the job. But Kerry has got to close the most fundamental gap of his candidacy: Voters don't like him very much.

This paragraph sums it up nicely. I think they evening of the election MANY MANY Democrats are going to wonder what went wrong, and Morris puts it on the table 40+ days before hand.

Kerry never had time to make America like him. He won the nomination before anyone really got to know him and has coasted on anti-Bush campaigning ever since. Even now, he relies on the old National Guard records of Bush to animate his campaign, as if we are about to form our judgment of how Bush would be as a commander based on 30-year- old, possibly forged records rather than on our own observation of how he has done the job. But Kerry has got to close the most fundamental gap of his candidacy: Voters don't like him very much.Too bad Morris hasn't been right since 1998 or so. How many times this year has he made the change that the Clitons have it in for Kerry so Hillary can run in 2008? Before that it was Hillary in 2004 when she was going to come in at the last minute and wipe the floor with the contenders, or she was going to mount a convention floor fight to steal the nomination from Kerry...he has so many conspiracy theories it's hard to keep track of them all.

Go ahead--believe Morris's analysis if you will, but look at his recent track record and caveat emptor.

By all means, continue. You haven't addressed the crux of the question. If the content isn't factual, why hasn't the White House addressed it? I'll go ahead and answer--because the documents don't tell us anything we didn't already know from earlier documents, namely, that Bush didn't complete his service in the Air National Guard and was suspended from flight status. Nothing new.And what exactly is the controversy? The Texas Air National Guard, and the US Air Force declared George W Bush's service complete and honorable. He requested a release from flying duties to go work in a political campaign. News flash: it happens now and it happened a lot then, particularly seeing how the Air Force and Air National Guard had excess numbers of pilots, since the drawdown of forces from Vietnam (propitiated by a certain young fellow who also requested a release from service in order to participate in politics, after labeling all serving in Vietnam as war criminals.) And, when Bush left service to attend Harvard's Business School, he had less than 6 months to go in his commitment, and had accumulated enough points for the year...again, in contrast to someone else we won't mention.
So whether or not the docs are fake is really irrelevant to the whole debate--and yet, the right just can't seem to get enough of them.Wrong and right. The veracity of the documents is central to the issue. Using documents that clearly are fake in order to bring up the old and tired non-issue of Bush's National Guard service does absolutely nothing for the credibility of news media such as CBS.Why? Because it discredits the "liberal media."Exactly. As if we on the Right needed more evidence of the Leftist slant of "news" coverage on the main stream media! Whether Rove had anything to do with it or not, I don't know. I'd be surprised if he actually got his hands dirty with it, to be honest, but it smells like his kind of deal. No, I take that back--it smells like the kind of thing that someone from the Nixon days would have done.
Wow...be careful handling that "Nixonian tactic" accusation...it's definitely an antique. And yet, it is us on the Right who get accused of being paranoid.

Panhandlia for President...atleast let the guy run the campaign in his state.
Thank you. BTW, the smack a little while ago, it wasn't personal...just business.

Too bad Morris hasn't been right since 1998 or so. How many times this year has he made the change that the Clitons have it in for Kerry so Hillary can run in 2008? Before that it was Hillary in 2004 when she was going to come in at the last minute and wipe the floor with the contenders, or she was going to mount a convention floor fight to steal the nomination from Kerry...he has so many conspiracy theories it's hard to keep track of them all.

Go ahead--believe Morris's analysis if you will, but look at his recent track record and caveat emptor.
Hmmm...1998...what happened in 1998? That's right, the Monica scandal. If I recall correctly, Dick Morris was the only one in the Clinton team at the time who told him to come clean with it. Such advice got him the classic Clintonian "thank you," a very convenient investigation and personal scandal, followed by character assassination by the Carvilles and Begalas.

If anything, knowing this makes his analysis all the more valid, in my view.

Hmmm...1998...what happened in 1998? That's right, the Monica scandal. If I recall correctly, Dick Morris was the only one in the Clinton team at the time who told him to come clean with it. Such advice got him the classic Clintonian "thank you," a very convenient investigation and personal scandal, followed by character assassination by the Carvilles and Begalas.

If anything, knowing this makes his analysis all the more valid, in my view.Like I said--it was the last time he was right. Hasn't been right since. That's a pretty impressive slump. But go ahead--don't let me discourage you.

Like I said--it was the last time he was right. Hasn't been right since. That's a pretty impressive slump. But go ahead--don't let me discourage you.
He did pretty well calling the results of 2000 and 2002. His track record does speak for himself.