Influential Democrat Promises Dirty Tricks Forthcoming

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

rainjack yes I have seen the interview and the Democrats are just salivating at the glands. And Dan Rather ,is now showing his true colors. How much he hates Bush, as well as CBS, and will do anything they can to have John Kerry elected as President. I am sure next Dan Rather, will be having a interview next with Kitty Kelley.

BUT before the Democrats pop those champagne corks, the Swift Boat Vets are all over this so called memo…
And they have uncovered some VERY interesting things about this memo:
Taken form their forum…

"…Can someone with typesetting experience look at this memo. It appears to be in a porportional spaced font which would not have been in use in the TANG in 1972. There were high-end 1st generation word processing systems around but not it the TANG, I wouldn’t think.

I think it’s a forgery!

"…Also, it appears that this memo was dated 19 May 72. Bush, according to his fitness reports, was released to Alabama on 15 May 72.

CBS is saying it was dated 19 May 1972.

Heres the article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

I think we’re dealing with a forgery and a major election fraud.

"…That was written by a civilian. No doubt. The language is all wrong for even an informal memo.

The date format is wrong. The name appears twice? No first name? No details usually seen in memos.

It looks pretty cheezy to me."

"…It looks very much like a forgery to me. The typesetting appears to be letter-spaced as on a computer. It would be simple enough to create a “look alike” document and the pass it through a lousy copier repeatedly until it got the multi-copied look. You have an excellent point. The type face appears to be in the Adobe family of fonts, perhaps Goudy or Garamond. Take a look at the serifs on the letters. Especially telling is the style of the capital “F”. I do not have my type face book handy but given a few hours I can locate the style which is usually copyrighted. There are lots of graphic arts people who can recognize type faces and if that face was not a font generally in use outside of typo-setting houses in 1972 they are cooked.

In 1972 there were no type-setting machines on the market outside of commercial type houses. One of the first typewriters with a memory was producted by IBM (I know, I used one) and it used one of the old plastic type balls. It only held about two paragraphs of memory. I notice that there appear to be no erasures or corrections on the type of this page. We used white out back then. Just some thoughts."

“…I spent 10 years in active (3) and reserve (7) service. This is the first memo I’ve ever seen that only used a last name. No military person who ever snapped a salute would have written this. I think you are absolutely right. This has to be a forgery. Also, no military personel would have ever written a memo and not put own his typed name and rank on the bottom along with his written signature. The only exception would be signing for a superior and putting “by direction” with the superiors name.”

"…FRAUD!

I never saw a superscript “th” on any darn typewrite in 1972. I was a clerk typist and I know my types. And, I was in graphic arts for years. That kind of letter character would have to have been typeset
This smells suspiciously like that faked flyer “someone” says they got at an RNC office that they claimed was made by the SBVT. It is definitely not Courier font (that typically found in the run of the mill office typewriter). Each letter would take up the same amount of space.

I find it difficult to believe that after all this time, and all the picking over of Bush’s files that have been done since he first ran for public office, that something that had “CYA” as the subject line would have been overlooked unitl now.

Mighty convenient that it comes from the files of a deceased man who obviously cannot dispute or confirm the veracity of this letter…"

Want to read the truth and see what the democrats, the anti Bush press and media are up to, go to the swift boat vets forum… When you go to the site and see all they are upto… ammazing…
h
ttp://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8487&start=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Do also check out the rest of their forum…

Remember too…this coming Sunday is their big rally in Washington. Will be interesting to see who will cover it?

Joe

42

Joe:

I’m reserving judgment, because this is almost too good to be true, especially when it comes to highlighting bias and making major fools of the media – if it is true though… DAMN.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200409091142.asp

ABOUT THAT BUSH DOCUMENT

I want to reserve my final judgment on this one ? but the early evidence doesn’t look good for CBS, or the Boston Globe.

The Boston Globe runs a front-page story today, declaring:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/09/bid_cited_to_boost_bush_in_guard/

[Begin excerpt]In August 1973, President Bush's superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard wrote a memorandum complaining that the commanding general wanted him to ''sugar coat" an annual officer evaluation for First Lieutenant Bush, even though Bush had not been at the base for the year in question, according to new documents obtained and broadcast last night by CBS News.

The commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, wrote that he turned aside the suggestion from Brigadier General Walter B. Staudt, Bush's political mentor in the Guard. But he and another officer agreed to ''backdate" a report ? evidently the evaluation ? in which they did not rate him at all. There is such a report in Bush's file, dated May 2, 1973.

''I'll backdate but won't rate," Killian apparently wrote in what is labeled a ''memo to file." Initials that appear to be Killian's are on the memo, but not his name or unit letterhead.

The August 1973 document, dated as Bush was preparing to leave Texas to attend the Harvard Business School, represents the first apparent evidence of an attempt to embellish Bush's service record as his time in the Guard neared its end. [End excerpt]

Check out the document here.

There does not appear to be a link to the document from the Globe. Instead, they type up what it says on their own site, and mention, “The document carries no letterhead or clear identification of the author.”

Kerry Spot readers have been e-mailing all morning, pointing to PowerLine blog’s contention this is a forged document, written on a modern computer.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php
The typeface doesn’t look anything like something written on a typewriter in 1973.

Now it appears this document includes include the superscript “th” in 187th, and as a Powerline correspondent points out, “There are no keys on any typewriter in common use in 1973 which could produce a tiny “th.” The forger got careless after creating the August 1, 1972 document and slipped up big-time.”

CBS News and the Globe ought to check this out big-time, and fast. If they ran with a story based on a forgery (and a forgery that the blogosphere managed to check out in just a few hours) this report will join Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, and Janet Cooke in journalism’s hall of infamy.

UPDATE: From Kerry Spot reader Christopher: “As a graphic designer, another thing pops out at me in that supposed Guard memo…the apostrophes. They don’t seem consistent with a typewriter. A typewriter would have straight apostrophes, not the curly-queue kind.”

UPDATE, AGAIN: Ready for real typeset-lingo? A couple of Kerry Spot readers explain that the memo linked above is “proportionally spaced,” meaning a thin letter like an “i” or an “l” takes less space than an “n” or an “m”. Apparently proportional spacing was impossible on typewriters during this period.

[Posted 09/09 11:42 AM]

Update:

See here for a comparison of an exact copy, produced with Microsoft Word today, and the CBS/Boston Globe doc:

43

Holy Crap -

This is really scary stuff - thanks for the info Chucks, BB.

If the allegations of forgery turn out to be true, could Rather wind up with early retirement, or even worse?

44

Best analysis so far:

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

Bottom line, I think this is enough to warrant an examination of the documents, but not enough to dismiss the documents right now as forgeries.

Also, it seems, for those interested, that CBS provided the White House with the docs – just in case anyone was wondering why docs provided by the White House would be questioned.

45

Some more from the Swift boat Vets forum on this subject:

Maybe somebody has all ready said this but how come on:
4th May 1972 there is superscript
19th May 1972 there is no superscript but there is spaces
01 August 1972 also no superscript but still has spaces
18 August 1973 there is superscript

Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:28 pm Post subject:

I think one of the giveaways to these 4 documents being fraudulent is in the superscripts. I typed a lot in the 1970’s and no typewriter I ever used had an automatic superscript - we always had to roll up the carriage a 1/2 roll and type in the superscript - and the print was the same size in the superscript as the regular text, not smaller as in one of these documents that the typist forgot to correct the superscript. In the 1980’s I typed a lot of theses on a Canon AP400 electronic typewriter with daisy wheels - as best I remember, I had to put in a code to put in a superscript or a subscript - I do not remember them being put in automatically.

In one of the memos, it is interesting to note that in the first part of the memo, “1st Lt.” and “147th” were used, but a bit later in the same memo - same typist, “147 th” and “9921 st” are put in WITH A SPACE LEFT AFTER THE NUMBERS - why the spaces? In the first two instances, the typist spaced a space and typed the “st” and “th” and then DELETED THE SPACE between the letters and the numbers, thus preventing the word processor they were using to automatically put in a superscript. BUT IN THE LATTER TWO INSTANCES, THE TYPIST FORGOT TO DELETE THE SPACES BETWEEN THE NUMBERS AND THE LETTERS. A dead give away to what the typist was doing - trying to correct the automatic superscript the word processor would put in. Someone on this thread mentioned how to do this earlier, I am sorry I forgot who, but they were exactly right, and these documents to me prove that is what the typist was doing

Also in another memo they forgot to correct the automatic superscript and the superscipt is smaller than the regular print, suggesting either a word processor or an electronic typewriter, and I am not sure either was available in the early 70’s.

Debbie

So if the typewriter on the 4th of May was capable of typing superscript why on the 19th of May and in August they didn’t use it. Did they have a newer version typewriter then stopped using it and used the old one which was unable to type superscript and then in 1973 they began using the new one again. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
noc wrote:
I used this for the original record. Has the Jerry Killian sig on page 5.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/2-Discharge.pdf

WOW! None of the fonts in these docs are anywhere close to the forged docs. They look like they were prepared on IBM Selectric vintage with fixed font character spacing that would be expected at the time.

have also printed out now, and started to examine these docs.

Here are my findings so far:
on the May 19 doc. look at the number “1” in the subject line next to the word Bush, and the 1 starting the first paragraph. If you look at the bottom of the "1"s the _ at the base is opposite. and the top line on the 1 slants on the paragraph #1 and goes straight accross on the Subject line #1. The subject line “1” looks like a typewriter. the Paragraph “1” is a word processor/ computer. I hope I just made sense. If not let me know and I will try and make it planer…

Next, on doc. dated 4 may 1972
In the memorandum line there is a blacked out line. Has anyone read what is under that blacked out line?
I havent seen it mentioned. It says 5000 Longmont #8, now I realize that must be his address, which is why it is supposedly blacked out, but, why can i still read it??? Yet on the docs that seem to be genuine, you can’t read the blacked out material, when you print it??

If anyone knows or has connections in Law enforcement, that would have a person who could look at these, that might be another avenue, if needed.

But from what i see and have been reading, I think the DNC is busted!!!

These are all I have found other than what others have posted, but I am just now getting into t he docs.

This is the best truth site on the WEB!!!
As some who has done a lot of typing on typewriters, old-fashioned word processors, and in current word processing programs, I’d like to point out the dead giveaway.

The standard in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (and well into the 90s) was two spaces after a period. That was the professional standard, and everyone used it. Email changed things, but just about any typed document from the 1970s, and certainly official correspondence (even a memo of this type), would have had two spaces after each period. There’s only one space after each period here.
All forgeries as far as military content goes. A squadron commander would never have written these. Credentials below. Bless everyone who took part in this incredible effort.

And so much more evidence coming out…

http://www2.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8487&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=195

Joe

46

Ben Barnes’ ‘Daughter’: My Dad Lied About Bush

A woman purporting to be Amy Barnes, daughter of former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, said Thursday that her father had fabricated claims that he used his influence to get President Bush into the Texas Air National Guard 36 years ago.

In a phone call to WBAP’s Mark Davis radio show in Dallas, Texas, Ms. Barnes told guest host Monica Crowley that her father was an “opportunist” who had lied about Bush’s Guard record during a “60 Minutes II” broadcast Tuesday night.

BARNES: I love my father very much, but he’s doing this for purely political reasons. He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And [the Bush story] is what he’s leading the book off with. … He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of Vietnam service]. Now he’s saying he did.

CROWLEY: Did he tell you, Amy ? and I’m glad I have you on the line with me? did your father tell you that he was prepared to do this on behalf of John Kerry? go after President Bush like this?

BARNES: He told me he was going to do it. In fact, I talked to him a couple of months ago. He told me he was writing the book. He told me that he was going to be talking about this. And he knows that I ? we have very diverse political opinions. He knows my opinions and we get into this debate every time I see him. But, you know, he said that he was going to be talking about it.

CROWLEY: Now you’re saying, Amy, that he has had two separate stories on President Bush’s Guard duty during the Vietnam era?

BARNES: Yes, yes. This came out in 2000 and I asked him then, at the time, if he [helped get Bush into the Guard]. He said: “No, absolutely not. I did not do that.” -

CROWLEY: So, I hate to put you in this position, but I will ask you, do you think your father, Ben Barnes who was on “60 Minutes II” with Dan Rather last night ? do you believe that he lied on the air to the American people last night about President Bush?

BARNES; Yes, I do. I absolutely do. And I think he’s doing he’s doing it for purely political, opportunistic reasons ? trying to get John Kerry elected and trying to make Bush look like the bad person. … Like I said, he’s going to be trying to promote his book that he’s got coming out. [End of Excerpt]

Crowley’s colleague, WABC Radio’s Mark Levin, aired a tape of the exchange in New York after confirming that Barnes does indeed have a daughter named Amy.

Overlay Found Here

www.jimroofcreative.com/may19.gif

Pretty much self-explanatory. I printed the scaled down version off of CBSNews and also printed a version I made today using MS Word and all default settings. I re-scanned both images and scaled the MS Word version to fit the same size as the scaled down “1972” memo.

The new version was also rotated and very slightly skewed to match errors introduced by who knows how many photocopier passes.

All of the alterations to the 2004 MS Word document were made GLOBALLY. No changes were made that affected the relative spacing between characters, words, lines or paragraphs.

This is very good too:

Joe

47

Who in the HELL made Tom Harkin the point man for The dems new charge against Bush’s N.G. Record?

I’m actually embarrassed for that old man. What does that say about the state of the Kerry Campaign?

48

[quote]jahwarrior wrote:
Give Kerry the benefit of the doubt about his service, about his medals, about the shrappnel in his leg. But do not forget that while we had men rotting in the Hanoi Hilton Kerry was telling the world that these men were war criminals. He help cause their stay to be longer and more painful. What Kerry is guilty of is treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This man helped cause the humiliation, verbal,physical and mental abuse of our vets as they returned to their homes.

No, Sen. Kerry does not deserve the position of commander in chief based on his treasonist actions.[/quote]

7/1/2004 ? Kerry Should be Prosecuted and Disqualified from National Office
A citizen petition demanding that John Kerry be prosecuted for “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” and disqualified for national office.

Signers: 150476

To Senate President Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft

We, the People of these United States, rightfully petition our national government to prosecute John Kerry for “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” and to disqualify him for national office.

Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing “aid and comfort” to the enemy in time of war – particularly in the case of North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba. Kerry, by his own account of his actions and protests, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Kerry met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as “giving aid and comfort” to the enemy in time of warfare.

Thus, in accordance with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President … having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” We, the People of these United States, believe John F. Kerry is unfit for public office.

It is for this reason – for his record of giving aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in violation of this oath – that Senator Kerry should be prosecuted and disqualified for national office.

http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/

49

If this is true, all you Kerry supporters may as well start thinking “Nader”.

Anatomy of a Forgery
By The Prowler

Published 9/10/2004 12:09:06 AM

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was “a retired military officer.” According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

“More than a couple people heard about the papers,” says the DNC staffer. “I’ve heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity.”

The concerns arose from the sourcing. “It wasn’t clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn’t confirm from what file, from what original source they came from.”

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush’s personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. “Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on,” says the staffer. “It wasn’t like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren’t sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain.”

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

“The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush’s file that had Killian calling Bush ‘an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.’ And someone who Killian said ‘performed in an outstanding manner.’ Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different.”

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. “This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn’t show it,” says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. “There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we’d do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we’d get more information,” says the producer. “If that’s the case, then we’re bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries.”

ABC News’ political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian’s son made public statements questioning the documents’ authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

The original post at the Spectator site is down as of 5:30AM PST

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I fully expect a dirty campaign. Why would this election be any different than most others.

Four years ago the democrats brought out the DUI Bush had just two days from the election. This year you have the swift boat group…I really hate that stuff and so wish they would debate the issues.[/quote]

ZEB, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wish they would only debate the issues. The reason that don’t is probably because the current admin doesn’t have a message that can withstand analysis, so they distract with their smear tactics (swift boat vets), wave their flag and tell America that if we don’t vote for them we will DIE (see recent news on Cheney’s statement), and focus on “symbolic” issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

Problem with fights like this is that if you want to win you have to drop to the lowest common denominator or you don’t have a chance. There should be rules on how campaigns are conducted to make them more civil. Maybe we should appoint someone to moderate campaigns, and if someone violates terms, they have to pull their campaign ads for an entire month or something like that. It would certainly level the playing field, and hopefully cripple sleazy strategists.

BB states that the swift boat people are not connected to the president. I will start another thread if you like, but there is a DIRECT link via a longtime Bush friend and fund raiser who bankrolled the group’s smear ads. Even if Bush were not connected to them, his silence on the issue while they tore into a decorated combat veteran is SHAMEFUL. He should have denounced them from the first ad, because by not doing that he condoned it in the public eye, and he opened the door to similar dirty pool by the democrats. Problem with Bush is that he lacks the intelligence to recognize that this was a Pandora’s Box. He didn’t have enough foresight to realize that his own shameful military record would have been best kept quiet, but he made it fair game.

51

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_09_05_corner-archive.asp#039546

THE CBS PAPERS [Jed Babbin]
I spoke to Col. Bill Campenni (USAF ret) earlier this morning. As I’ve written before, Campenni was a member of the President’s squadron and flew with him often. Campenni told me that there are a whole slew of reasons – beyond those being debated now – to question the authenticity of the CBS papers:

  1. The 4 May 1972 order and the 1 August 1972 memo both have a letterhead for the wrong organization. Correspondence and orders in those days would be issued in the name of the parent organization – the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group – rather than the squadron. The letterhead is typed. They used printed ANG letterhead;

  2. Orders were issued on the standard USAF orders form. (I still have a stack of my old ones. There’s not a “memo” among them). Campenni remembers that orders weren’t issued as “memos” like the 4 May 72 document;

  3. The Killian “CYA” memo of August 1973 refers to pressure by Gen. Standt. The problem with this is that Standt retired in 1972. Why would anyone be worried about pressure from him?

  4. Jerry Killian, according to Campenni, never went near a typewriter. In the Air Force, in those days, notes – if anyone kept them at all – were handwritten. That raises questions about both the 19 May 72 and the 18 August 73 memos. And, lest we forget, bureaucrats – not fighter jocks – write “cya” memos.

  5. Orders – like the purported 4 May 72 order to take the flight physical - wouldn’t normally have been signed by Killian. They would be signed by a senior sergeant “by order of” Killian.

If, as it appears, someone faked these papers they did a bad job of it. I can tell you that in the early to mid-1970’s when I was on active duty, the active service didn’t have anything fancier than the earliest models of the IBM Selectric typewriter, and many offices didn’t even have those. The reserves and national guard had our cast-offs, so it’s terribly unlikely they could have produced anything as fancy as these papers. (Is it just my imagination, or is Dan Rather’s nose growing longer every day?)

[ADDENDUM: See a comparison of signatures here: http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/sigs.html ]

52

Good synopsis of issues re: faked Bush docs here – too long to post the whole thing:

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/09/burden_now_on_c.html

53

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:

BB states that the swift boat people are not connected to the president. I will start another thread if you like, but there is a DIRECT link via a longtime Bush friend and fund raiser who bankrolled the group’s smear ads. Even if Bush were not connected to them, his silence on the issue while they tore into a decorated combat veteran is SHAMEFUL. He should have denounced them from the first ad, because by not doing that he condoned it in the public eye, and he opened the door to similar dirty pool by the democrats. Problem with Bush is that he lacks the intelligence to recognize that this was a Pandora’s Box. He didn’t have enough foresight to realize that his own shameful military record would have been best kept quiet, but he made it fair game.

[/quote]

Why - when supporters of Bush exercise their first amendment rights- does the left automatically cry foul?

Roy - It makes you look extremely small and petty to be regurgitating the standard Kerry whining points.

I think we should move the debate to Kerry’s voting record - which the Bush camp is doing.

The foresight you speak of would have been better used by Kerry. He’s the one who made his service a campaign cornerstone - and opened Pandora’s Box.

54

Rainjack… YOu make a valid point. Kerry did open the box on that issue. That wasn’t completely my point, but you are absolutely right on that. My point is, if Bush didn’t want his record being scrutinized under the national microscope, he should have stepped up IMMEDIATELY to denounce the attack on Kerry, especially if he was not connected to the attack. As Sherlock Holmes would have said, “His silence spoke volumes.”

55

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Rainjack… YOu make a valid point. Kerry did open the box on that issue. That wasn’t completely my point, but you are absolutely right on that. My point is, if Bush didn’t want his record being scrutinized under the national microscope, he should have stepped up IMMEDIATELY to denounce the attack on Kerry, especially if he was not connected to the attack. As Sherlock Holmes would have said, “His silence spoke volumes.”[/quote]

I don’t remember, nor can I find, anything that Bush has said that would hint that he is upset about what the left is doing to ‘scrutinize his record’ (including forged memos written on Microsoft word). The bitching and moaning you hear is that from the left.

I don’t think GDub has any need to defend Kerry from the swifties - Kerry made his bed…

If Bush did tell the swifties to shut up, and they did - wouldn’t that mean that Bush was complicit, and therefore be in violation of McCain Feingold?

Even if - and it’s a hypothetical if - the Bush campaign was complicit with a 529 org., why would they step into such a catch 22 position by telling the swifties to stop?

56

One more thing -

Bush went a step further than the Kerry crowd wanted and, instead of denouncing just one single 529, called for all of them to be shut down.

This must have met with deaf ears on the Kerry side, since I have heard nary a peep of agreement out of them. It would be hard for them to do so as one can hardly determine where MoveOn.org ends and the Kerry campaign begins.

57

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Rainjack… YOu make a valid point. Kerry did open the box on that issue. That wasn’t completely my point, but you are absolutely right on that. My point is, if Bush didn’t want his record being scrutinized under the national microscope, he should have stepped up IMMEDIATELY to denounce the attack on Kerry, especially if he was not connected to the attack. As Sherlock Holmes would have said, “His silence spoke volumes.”[/quote]

Bush didn’t step up to demonize the Swifties because there are valid issues with Kerry. Kerry, quite simply should have been tried for treason years ago (http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/). Bush also wasn’t concerned about his own service being under the microscope, because there is NOTHING to hide. The only think the DNC can produce are FAKE documents.

Personally, I commend President Bush for maintaining his silence and letting the Swifties exercise their first amendment rights. Michael Moore did the same thing, and he got a seat at the DNC. No matter how much I disagree with Moore’s tactics, he also has the right to enjoy the first amendment.

Wait for Moore to coordinate a bombardment of trash just days before the November vote.

58

Sorry, but you are completely full of shit! The very idea that someone who won a Silver Star be questioned by a sniveler like yourself is LAUGHABLE! And Bush is the only one who should have gone to jail. Not just for his drug use, or his DWI’s (which were many more than just one), but for going AWOL.

I am the first to condemn any faked documents, and the sorry asses who did it should be punished. The cold hard fact remains that the fakes weren’t necessary because there is enough to sink him in valid documents.

Don’t worry though, your candidate will probably win because the collective national intelligence has plummeted through the floor and there are plenty of sheep like yourself who believe all the republican propaganda. You will probably get four more incompitent years out of that dim wit!

59

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
Kerry, quite simply should have been tried for treason years ago (http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/). Bush also wasn’t concerned about his own service being under the microscope, because there is NOTHING to hide. The only think the DNC can produce are FAKE documents.

Sorry, but you are completely full of shit! The very idea that someone who won a Silver Star be questioned by a sniveler like yourself is LAUGHABLE! And Bush is the only one who should have gone to jail. Not just for his drug use, or his DWI’s (which were many more than just one), but for going AWOL.

I am the first to condemn any faked documents, and the sorry asses who did it should be punished. The cold hard fact remains that the fakes weren’t necessary because there is enough to sink him in valid documents.

Don’t worry though, your candidate will probably win because the collective national intelligence has plummeted through the floor and there are plenty of sheep like yourself who believe all the republican propaganda. You will probably get four more incompitent years out of that dim wit![/quote]

That’s rich! Sniveler? LOL

Name calling is beneath you, isn’t it?

Kerry’s acts were treasonous and damaging to the US Military and any active POW during that time; that is a fact. You can keep whistlin’ your tune, but while George may not be the best President, he is the best we have to choose from.

60

I think the burden of proof is now on CBS to prove these are real.

Here’s a link to the case based on the technical stuff (there are many other arguments based on historical accuracy, form, etc.):

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000851.php

BTW, Roy, I know you’re emotionally fired up from righteous indignation and about calling the President names, and anyone can make a typo, but it’s pretty funny that you misspell “incompetence” at the end of your tirade. One might even call it ironic…