 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:18 PM Like exactly what has he done right, bb??? Katrina??? Medicaid Perscription Tax Give_away to the dug companies??? No child left unrecruited??? Help me here... Just where is the good news??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 04:56 PM US position on Darfur( in spite of the lack of UN support) Afganistan IMO, the attack on Iraq, removal of Saddam ( in spite of the tactical erros I think were made) and the subsequant ending of the Libyan WMD program If you want to blame him for Katrina, then give him the credit for the Indonesian Typhoon relief. Stopping further terrorist attacks within the US. (yes, there have been a number stopped, even if you don't want to admit it). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:23 PM BB, you are a pompous ass. I do not hate George W. Bush. Nor do I belong to any kind of anti-Bush cult. And for you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you must belong to such more than amply displays your desperation to be taken seriously. And that goes for the frantic verbal tap-dancing that Teribus is doing as well. You guys are trying to resurrect an insignificant bug (Bush) who didn't have sense enough to avoid getting splattered on the windshield of the Judgment of History. During the first few times I saw him on television as he began his bid for the presidency, I had him spotted as a little man of minuscule talent and indifferent intellect who was aspiring to a job for which he had no skills. I was not all that happy with Gore, but when it came to intelligence, skill, and experience, he had Bush so far outclassed that it was verging on the silly! The fact that Gore won the popular vote, but was edged out by election hanky-panky in Florida and the decision of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court was bad enough, but what amazed me was that the popular vote margin was close enough to allow that to happen. What the hell were those people thinking!?? Not thinking at all, really. And then, he gets re-elected? Thomas Jefferson said that the preservation of the democracy depends on an informed electorate. And the United Stated seems to have an electorate that is more interesting in the latest doings of Paris Hilton's Chihuahua than it is in picking someone competent to run the country. Do I hate Bush? No. Any idiot with the filing fee and sufficent backing can run for president. You can't blame them for trying, and we have a few who are giving it a shot right now. But I would like to give about half of the American electorate a mighty dope-slap and see if I can get them to take politics a little more seriously than they take Britney Spears' belly button. I was on the verge of cataloging the list of stupid and ill-advised decisions that Bush and his cabal have made, but I don't have that kind of time to rehash what everyone, save those who have opted to remain blind, knows full well. In less than seven years, he's all but bankrupted the country (having started his presidency with the biggest surplus in decades) and for completely spurious reasons, has dig the country into a quagmire that more than rivals the Vietnam debacle and may take several future administrations to dig us out of. One seriously wonders about the future of the country. As some acute observer once said, "When small men cast long shadows, it means the sun is setting." And George W. Bush is a small man. Considering the loss of both integrity and prestige this country has suffered within recent years (believe me, the United States is no longer regarded by most of the world as "the shining city on the hill."), we can no longer claim to be the leader of the free world. We have exploited and oppressed too many other peoples to be able to sustain that claim. We are no longer and example of freedom and prosperity to the world, we are the playground bully, beating up on the other kids and stealing their lunch money (almost literally!). Bush has had a number of predecessors in bringing this about. But he is the most obvious and egregious of the bunch. I don't hate Bush. I wish him no ill. In fact, I am not enthusiastic about impeaching him or trying him for war crimes—although I'm sure strong cases can be made. I wish him a happy retirement from politics, to spend his days in Crawford, Texas, clearing brush, which he seems to enjoy, or dishing out the steaks at a good ol' Texas barbecue, which the late Molly Ivins has said he is very good at. "He's fun at a party," she went on to say. But, for God's sake, let's get somebody who is intelligent, competent, and has integrity and a sense of ethics in as president in 2008. We have done without such for far too long! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:31 PM "And for you to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you must belong to such more than amply displays your desperation to be taken seriously. " Yet you seem quite happy to agree with Bobert that those who disagree with you ARE in love with Bush or members of a Bush cult. You are the pompous ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Jan 08 - 06:33 PM "But, for God's sake, let's get somebody who is intelligent, competent, and has integrity and a sense of ethics in as president in 2008." This I can agree with. I hope that at least one party can have the balls to run such a person. But I doubt it ( for BOTH parties) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 22 Jan 08 - 07:45 PM "Yet you seem quite happy to agree with Bobert that those who disagree with you ARE in love with Bush or members of a Bush cult." Did I say that? No, nowhere that I can find. And: "You are the pompous ass." Still a bit short on creativity, I see. No, I don't think you "love" Bush, or belong to any kind of cult. But after the litany of ethical violations, lies, blunders, bad judgments, and general incompetence that Bush has displayed--for which the whole country will be paying for generations to come--I find it bit mind-boggling to read some of the attempts to excuse him or justify him that you guys keep trying to come up with. Sort of like trying to have a rational discussion on astronomy with Flat-Earthers. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 23 Jan 08 - 03:39 PM Hi there Don, Having a great time reading through the links you supplied. I tend to have a pretty low opinion in general of journalists. I think I've said here before that nine times out of ten they have written their story before they even leave the office, then go out and pick and bend what they hear to suit their preconception. And that Don is exactly what Miss Mapes did in 1999 - according to the links you supplied. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 08 - 06:25 PM So where do yoou get the information that you use to defend Bush, T-zer??? Tea leaves??? Nevermind... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM And you know that for a fact, Teribus? If so, how? Sorry. Doesn't wash. Casting aspersions on journalists in general is a pretty pallid way of trying to dismiss information you don't like. And it also demonstrates that the only evidence you will ever find acceptable is sommething that agrees with your preconceptions. I grow weary of this. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 23 Jan 08 - 11:06 PM You're incredible, Teribus! In all of that stuff, you fasten on Mary Mapes, the CBS reporter who let her enthusiasm get in the way of checking the details of the story. That was mentioned only in Eric Boehlert's write-up, and that was one of the side points he was making. However, you may find a slight clue as to what the rest of the story is about by simply reading the title Boehlert gave it: "Dan Rather is Right," subtitle, "The Story was True." Despite Mary Mapes' sloppy journalism and despite CBS's failure to properly authenticate the documents, the story was true. You obviously missed the point. Despite the attacks on Dan Rather and the rest of the noise, the information about Bush's Air National Guard service—or lack thereof—was accurate. That's a pretty thin straw you're grasping, and I'm afraid it won't keep you afloat. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:23 AM So let's see Don, according to the information that you supplied, Mapes went out operating on her own assumption that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. Interviewee after interviewee denied that that was the case, she then found two people who supported her assumption, neither of whom knew GWB in the ANG and obviously who had never served with him. She then contacted Rather and said that she had her story. What she had was presented to CBS and she was told that the material she had collected in no way supported her contention that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. Have I got that bit right so far Don? Don't worry about the rest I'll get round to it all presently. "Despite Mary Mapes' sloppy journalism and despite CBS's failure to properly authenticate the documents, the story was true." (Don Firth) Now taking the above into consideration - That statement of yours is what is incredible!! Mary Mapes sloppy journalism??? Mary Mapes downright lie more like, and the only reason that you give it any credibility is because that is what you want to believe. Mapes' approach was terribly flawed, if she were really investigating something she should have started out with a clean sheet and an open mind, she didn't and that skewed her perspective on everything she saw or heard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 24 Jan 08 - 11:43 AM OK Don, have you ever heard of a guy called Colonel Thomas A. Deall? He's Director of Public Affairs, Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. Way back in October 2000, then-Major Thomas A. Deall was a spokesman for the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, who stated in mid-to-late October that officials there (Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver) now believe that after looking at Bush's records, he met minimum drill requirements before his discharge. So what we have is an official statement by an ANG representative working at the Air Reserve Personnel Centre clearly stating that Lt.G.W.Bush met the minimum drill requirements for his service prior to his discharge from the Air National Guard. We know for a fact that Lt.G.W.Bush received an Honourable Discharge from the Air National Guard Anything else is irrelevant. Was Bush guilty of being AWOL from the Air National Guard? - Not according to the records reviewed by the Air National Guard Personnel Centre. All the rest is just empty, meaningless, Magpie Chatter. What you present is repetitious, highly subjective, biased opinion, crafted by individuals with alternative agendas and their own axes to grind. You have certainly presented nothing that could be taken as being evidence or fact to substantiate your case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM Influence. Powerful father. Saved the little twit from the necessity of being responsible for his own actions. But people do remember! Believe whatever you want to believe, Teribus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:19 PM You're buying the official story. Your faith is touching. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Bobert Date: 24 Jan 08 - 01:56 PM "Faith" is the cornerstone for "True Believers", Don... But you know that... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Jan 08 - 03:42 PM Interesting! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Jan 08 - 12:47 AM Interesting Don? Only to those who are solely interested in supposition. But let's take a look at who the likes of yourself and Bobert prefer to believe: Mary Mapes who kicked the whole thing off - That was in the run up to the Presidential Election in 2000 wasn't it Don? Mapes went out to prove her own assumption that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. Interviewee after interviewee denied that that was the case, she then found two people who supported her assumption, neither of whom knew GWB in the ANG and obviously who had never served with him. She then contacted Rather and said that she had her story. What she had was presented to CBS and she was told that the material she had collected in no way supported her contention that the "then-Governor" Bush and the sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment by personnel in the TexANG. This all happened in 1999 All goes quiet until guess what? - Got in one Don, the run up to the 2004 Presidential Election. Mary does it slightly cuter this time and pushes her story a lot closer to the actual election date. Several weeks prior to the 2004 US Presidential election, Mapes produced a segment for 60 Minutes Wednesday that aired criticism of President George W. Bush's military service, supported by documents purportedly from the files of Bush's commanding officer, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian. During the segment, Dan Rather asserted that the documents had been authenticated by document experts - But, after questions are raised about the documents' origin, CBS stated the documents had not been authenticated and that CBS could not confirm their authenticity. CBS also stated that they did not have any original documents, only faxed copies of the alleged documents. CBS ordered an independent internal investigation, the results of which concluded that Mapes and others involved had shown serious lapses in conduct and judgement. The panel in charge of investigation was composed of former Governor of Pennsylvania and United States Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh and retired president and chief executive officer and former executive editor of the Associated Press, Louis Boccardi. If there was any doubts about Mapes' political bias and lack of objectivity then they were all dispelled when Mapes was faulted for calling a senior official in the John Kerry campaign, prior to the airing of the piece by CBS, and offering to put her source in touch with thim with regards to countering the then raging Swift Boat ads attacking Kerry's service in Vietnam. The panel called Mapes' action a "clear conflict of interest that created the appearance of political bias." Mapes quite correctly was terminated by CBS on January 10, 2005. Experts are of the opinion that the documents are forgeries, Mapes on the other hand says that they are not (Not the first time that this "reporter" choses what to believe, or not believe, based on her political bias and unfounded assumptions). Mapes main claim to the documents not being forged is that they had changed when being photocopied, which is impossible as typeset is not changed by mere photocopying. The document Mapes claimed to have had was said to be typed in 1973 and as such would have been typed on a 1973 typewriter. The document was actually typed with Microsoft word and as such proved to be a forgery. Photocopying does not change the font or typeset of a document as she had claimed. Now let's have a look at Mapes' "Source" Lt-Col Bill Burkett, who claimed that in 1997, while outside the governor's office in Austin, he overheard a conversation about "wanting to bury George W. Bush's Vietnam service record." This has been refuted by the personnel involved and named as witnesses to the event by Burkett. Burkett had received publicity in 2000, after making and then retracting a claim that he had been transferred to Panama for refusing "to falsify personnel records of Governor Bush", and in February of 2004, when he claimed to have knowledge of "scrubbing" of Bush's TexANG records. According to the review panel, investigations by major news outlets at the time, including CBS, "Burketts story revealed inconsistencies which led to questions regarding his credibility and whether his claims could be proven." Burkett's claims about the origins of the documents have since changed several times. He admitted to lying to CBS about the origin of the memos when he said he got them from fellow guardsman George Conn, then claiming that he received the Killian documents from a woman calling herself "Lucy Ramirez." To date, she has not been identified. As stated above the documents, purported to have been typed in the early seventies, are widely reported to have almost certainly been produced from a computer using Microsoft Word on default settings. As to the content of the documents, it may be impossible to prove their validity one way or the other since Burkett now claims that he burned the originals after faxing copies of the documents to CBS. Which in itself is another indication that the documents are forgeries - if photocpying doesn't change the font or typeset of a document, then neither does faxing them - TRUE Don? The "Killian Documents" faxed to CBS by Burkett amount to four Memos, two of which are unsigned and are therefore unattributable, one orders Lt Bush to attend a Flying Medical and appears to be a routine letter, the fourth is a memo in which Killian clearly states that he is going to convene a Flying Evaluation Board - No such Board was ever convened, Burkett does not explain why and there is no record anywhere else of the Board ever having taken place, no notification of cancellation, no requests for the Boards findings to be sent anywhere, in short no paperwork at all related to it - only this memo produced conveniently in 2004 by Bill Burkett, the self confessed liar, to me all that indicates that the memo is a fake deliberately introduced to provide substance for the myth that Lt. Bush's records were destroyed in order to "sanitise" them. Unfortune, but I would have thought that the lying Lt-Col Burkett would have realised that military records do not exist in islolation, Personnel Records interface with all sorts of other files, but none of these traces and spurs exist. Records are kept and maintained at various locations all over the country, most certainly in places in which Bush would have no influence whatsoever. That is why I would tend to believe Col Deall, Don. Now let's take a look at what axe Bill Burkett had to grind: "Burkett has, in the past, raised his allegations about the Bush records as part of his personal struggle with the Guard over medical benefits. For instance, in a 1998 letter to Texas state Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, Burkett complained that he had not received adequate medical care when he became seriously ill after returning from a mission to Panama. He also said Guard officials had retaliated against him because he had conducted a management study critical of the Guard. © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company." Not one single person that Burkett mentions in his fairytale corroborates what he says, in fact they do exactly the opposite. And of course we can all believe implicitly in the existence of "Lucy Ramirez", the woman that cannot be found. Absolutely laughable Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM Well, gol danged, Don... Now it looks as if T-Bird has morphed Don Baker into Mary Mapes??? Either that or he didn't bother clickin' on the "Nation" article... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:35 AM "Huh??? Just say no to drugs, Homey..." I do Bobert. You should take your own advice. Then you would be living in the ***REAL*** world. In this world guilt must be proven not disproved. Popular opinion is not proof. North Americans believed tomatoes were poisonous but that did not make them poison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 08 - 10:45 AM Tomatoes have believed for many years, as wel, that North Americans are dangerous to their health, and most often this turns out to be the case. Tomatoes 1, North Americans, 0. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 08 - 03:07 PM If it supports Teribus' beliefs, it's evidence. If it doesn't support his beliefs, it's supposition. So, what's new? And once again, Homey, just because some judge doesn't rap a gavel and declare someone guilty of something does not mean that person isn't actually guilty. The principle is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Bush has never been tried (court martialed) , and that's due mostly to the fact that he was a senator's son and came from a wealthy family. That's also what got him into the Guard in the first place, instead of sending his sorry butt to Vietnam. There is this phenomenon known by most people as reality. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 03:46 PM Bush was also never brought up for charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission for pilferin' 700 grand from Harkin just months before reporting that Harkin was in the red... But he did it... This Enron here, if you will... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 25 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM "If it supports Teribus' beliefs, it's evidence. If it doesn't support his beliefs, it's supposition." (Don Firth) A question for you Don. Who has all the documents relating to GWB's service with the ANG? Now really thinking way out of the box here Don I would venture to guess that it is the ANG themselves. That I would think most people would find reasonable. When this "issue" first raised it head with the purpose of running a smear campaign against GWB's Presidential election campaign in 2000. The ANG carried out a full review of all documents relating to GWB and they found that he had fulfilled his commitment to the ANG and was granted an honourable discharge after serving five years and four months. I can see no reason whatsoever for them to lie. It is on the basis of that official statement that I believe that GWB fulfilled his commitment to the ANG. It is on that official statement coupled with the fact that having applied for early release from the ANG, the ANG granted GWB's early release and gave him an honourable discharge. I fully believe that the instant that application went in the first thing the ANG did was check his service records - that would be the natural and normal thing to do in processing anybody's request for discharge. And guess what Don the request was granted. I know that Bobert has never served in the military, I do not know whether you have any personal experience of it. But many here on mudcat have, and they can correct me if I am wrong in what I am about to say. If you are charged in the military and you are accused of having been "Absent Without Official Leave" - you are automatically "Guilty", there is no plea of "Not Guilty" to that charge, because the grounds for bringing that charge is that you were not there, you were missed, i.e. you were officially reported having been absent from your place of duty. If charged with having been AWOL, the only thing you can do is plead circumstances in mitigation, but the verdict of the Courts Martial will be that you are "Guilty as charged". Please correct me if both myself and the entire administrative staff of the ANG is wrong, but GWB, during his entire service career spanning five years and four months, was never accused or charged with ever having been AWOL, that is a fact. And that had absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with who he was, or whose son he was. The so-called-evidence that you repeatedly present CBS threw out in 1999. The source that an extremely biased reporter totally relied upon proved to be a serial liar and a fantasist. His biggest blunder being to state that he faxed the originals then burned them - the documents he faxed could not possibly have been typed in 1972 or 1973, therefore they were forgeries. Now if you were going to independently review the career files of an ANG pilot who served between 1968 and 1973, who would engage to do that. Now for my part Don, I would have gone to either a senior Air Force Officer or a senior ANG Officer who served around the same time. Tell us who the Boston Globe got to do the job Don? So, what's new? And once again, Homey, just because some judge doesn't rap a gavel and declare someone guilty of something does not mean that person isn't actually guilty. The principle is "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Bush has never been tried (court martialed) , and that's due mostly to the fact that he was a senator's son and came from a wealthy family. That's also what got him into the Guard in the first place, instead of sending his sorry butt to Vietnam. There is this phenomenon known by most people as reality. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM Gol danged, T-Bird has really gotten himself confused... Yesterday he turned Don Baker into Mary Mapes and now he's signing off as you, Don??? I tell ya' what... Keeping up with all the Bush mythology must be very taxin'... You need a vacation, T-zer... Yer comin' unwound... B;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 08 - 08:53 PM As Bobert duly notes, Teribus, you are Teribus, I am Don Firth. But this, of course, is not the only manifestation of your bewilderment. The facts are known. The timeline of Bush's ANG service, complete with gaps, can be found in documents already linked to. There are enough PDF files out there--official ANG rcords--to keep you reading for quite a while. That is, if you can bear seeing your fondly held beliefs crumble away. You keep trying to ignore the fact that it was family influence that allowed Bush to jump the line to get into the Guard in the first place, then gave him immunity from the consequences of his dereliction of duty. Not supposition. A matter of record. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:05 PM Well, Don, this is MST 101 (Military Science Training 101) for the T-Bird... He thinks that if he conceeess this one then the rest of thew accusuations you and I and others have made against Bush will come collapsing deon upom him and his hero like a house of cards... So T-Bird will fight to hold the front lines... This is beyond thruth... It now down to like the last of Custer's men... He has no other choice but to keep repeating the same and expecting different results... Too bad for T... He chose the wrong guy and the wrong side and now T is stuck with it... He has invested way too much in this now and he is ready to go down fighting, just as Custer's last man did... Sad, isn't it??? All T would have to do to stop the demons is just admit that he was wrong... But he can't... Like I said, "Sad, isn't it???" B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Jan 08 - 09:11 PM It is to weep! 'Tis truly pitiful to see him reduced to having to fire the same dud over and over again. Even poor Custer knew when to fall down. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 26 Jan 08 - 05:31 AM Apologies for that Don, I hit the submit button too early and forgot to cut the tail off. "The facts are known. The timeline of Bush's ANG service, complete with gaps, can be found in documents already linked to. There are enough PDF files out there--official ANG rcords--to keep you reading for quite a while. That is, if you can bear seeing your fondly held beliefs crumble away." (Don Firth) You mean something like this. It comes from the Independent Review Panel tasked with investigating the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment "For The record" Concerning President Bush's Texas Air National Guard Service that aired on September 8th 2004. The Review Panel issued their 224 page report and findings on January 5th, 2005. In Section IX of that Report on page 221 are their Conclusions, from which I quote the following: "How did it happen? The Panel believe it happened primarily because of "a rush to air" that overwhelmed the proper application of the CBS News Standards and the people who were supposed to prevent the problems described in this report. Those responsible for the segment believe firmly that it was true (and some still do). In particular, the producer, Mary Mapes, had fervant faith in what she was reporting and the correspondent, Dan Rather, had great confidence in Mapes work. Everyone involved wanted the segment to be right. But in journalism, no less than in other fields wanting is not enough. As the Panel goes back to the beginning, it is not difficult to identify a litany of missteps that doomed the effort. - A sometimes controversial source with a partisan point of view gave 60 minutes the documents. Only the most cursory effort - one unsuccessful attempt to contact the original source by telephone - was made to establish the chain of custody. - Efforts at authentication failed miserably. Hired document examiners whose views went against the "rush to air" were cast aside. The four original document examiners became two and ultimately one, who opined only on one signature in one document. Nevertheless, the segment contained an unsupported declaration of authenticity. - Competitive zeal - the desire to be first to break what was seen as a significant story - fed the "rush to air" to the point where holding the story to vet it more thoroughly became unthinkable because some other news organisation might surely break the story. - The person relied on as the so-called "Trump Card" to confirm the content of the Killian documents was not shown the documents before the segment aired. He was merely read some or all of the content of the documents over the telephone. The Panel find this unacceptable as a basis for provenance of a story that turned on the authenticity of pieces of paper. In the "rush to air", basic reporting suffered." End Quote "The facts are known. The timeline of Bush's ANG service, complete with gaps, can be found in documents already linked to." (Don Firth) Complete with gaps Don! How do you, or any of the sources you have produced know with any degree of certainty what gaps exist? Fact is that you do not know. You, and the sources you are so eager to push forward, may venture an opinion on what should exist and compare that to what exists in the public domain, but that Don is supposition it is not fact. Just because you think that a document should exist does not necessarily mean that in reality it does exist, and the fact that it cannot be found does not mean that this supposed document is missing or has been destroyed in some nefarious cover up operation. The 1960's, 1970's gaps in records - What presupposes you to believe that record keeping was any better then than it is now? It is much easier now but I am perfectly willing to bet that gaps in personnel records still occur, without there being any sinister explanation beyond that of oversight and human error. The ANG reviewed the official records relating to Lt. G.W.Bush in 2000 and stated clearly that that Officer had fulfilled his obligations of service to the Air National Guard - Now who would be better qualified, being in possession of all the records, than they to make that statement? But one thing is certain Don, there are no records of the Air National Guard ever instigating proceedings against Lt. G. W. Bush for being "Absent Without Official Leave" and the back-up to support that is the fact that: A - Lt. G.W.Bush was granted early discharge from the Air National Guard. B - The Lt. G.W.Bush was given an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard. Now you, like Mary Mapes, might not want to believe that, but as the Panel clearly stated, "wanting is not enough". For you to state that GWB was AWOL, as Bobert certainly did on two occasions on this thread, you have to prove it. To prove it you have to produce evidence to support your accusation. Take advice on exactly what does constitute evidence, because so far all that you have brought forward is supposition and subjective opinion from sources that are clearly biased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 26 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM Please, Mr. Custer, I don't wanta go.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM "wanting is enough" for Bobert. He does not have to prove anything. 1% of the population of Haiti holds all the wealth? 56,000 Americans will die Iraq if we don't leave? 650,000 Iraqis died in Iraq? The surge is a cruel hoax? Time for a stretch at a rehab center: We at Passages Addiction Cure Center have learned that there are only four causes of all dependency: 1. Chemical imbalance in the brain; 2. Unresolved events from the past; 3. Beliefs you hold that are inconsistent with what is true; 4. An inability to cope with current conditions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:33 AM "Bush was also never brought up for charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission for pilferin' 700 grand from Harkin just months before reporting that Harkin was in the red... But he did it..." (Bobert) Eh, no Bobert he didn't, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated GWB's departure from Harkin Energy and his sale of the stock he held in Harkin and found no case to answer. That is a matter of record. Just as: The Air Guard reviewed all the service records relating to Lt. G.W.Bush and found that he had fulfilled his service obligations to the Air National Guard and made a perfectly clear statement to that effect way back in October 2000. Another matter of record. The fact you neither you, or Don, like that very much doesn't really matter one way or another. Your insistance in attempting to portray events to fit your own prejudiced view and bias only reinforces the perception of you as a purveyor of lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myths. Oh, and Don, if as you say, poor old Custer knew when to fall down, good old John Rouse Merriott Chard knew when not to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:54 PM From the Daily KOS, Wed. Jan. 12, 2005. With all the crowing about CBS and 60 Minutes, you'd think they blew the story that Bush had been AWOL. The fact is, CBS got one piece of evidence wrong, from a while truckload of evidence. The Associated Press did the most work on the issue, filing a long list of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits to get the necessary documents. Salon summarized their findings: Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.Note: none of this information depends on the CBS memos, but Bush supporters have pounced on those and used questions about them to obscure the real issue -- that Bush was AWOL for large periods of time and failed to fulfill his duty. They are in the moral position of defending a deserter who not only shirked his duty, but whose actions forced someone else to go to Vietnam in his stead. This from a man who is forcing soldiers that HAVE fulfilled their duty to stay past their obligations to fight his unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq. They can pat themselves in the back, content in the knowledge that they gave a pampered shirker yet another free pass. Have a nice day, Teribus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:01 AM Thanks for the regurgitation of the SOS Don. Anyone reading it can go through the this simple exercise - count how many times "should of" is used, count how many times "supposed" is used. I did accuse you Don of introducing supposition instead of evidence. How do you, or any of the sources you have produced know with any degree of certainty what gaps exist? Fact is that you do not know. You, and the sources you are so eager to push forward, may venture an opinion on what should exist and compare that to what exists in the public domain, but that Don is supposition it is not fact. Just because you think that a document should exist does not necessarily mean that in reality it does exist, and the fact that it cannot be found does not mean that this supposed document is missing or has been destroyed in some nefarious cover up operation. The people who had all the records checked them and gave GWB a clean bill of health plus an honourable discharge - you and those like you might not like that - tough - but them's the breaks - learn to live with it. But please, stop trying to present supposition as fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:11 AM Where did the one screen cut and paste cops go to? Do they allow multi screen anti-Bush mania cut and pastes? Is there a double standard at work here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:18 PM I doubt very seriously that George W. Bush has actually done all of the things he has been accused of. However, he most certainly has done some of those things. There are people here who, if Bush were to knock on their doors and confess to them in person the list of things that it is well established that he has done, including those things listed on this thread, they still wouldn't believe it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:20 PM By the way, Homey, a quick scroll through this thread reveals that Teribus, beardedbruce, and YOU have several cut-and-paste posts that run considerably over one screen. So I gather your objection to this is not the length of the "anti-Bush" posts, but their viewpoint and content. It appears that you are arguing in favor of a double standard. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 03:33 PM Hmm. I seem to have been a bit sleepy when I first read Teribus' latest post this morning. I almost missed it. Teribus, you object to the number of times that the word "supposed" is used in the list of particulars above and you put the whole thing down as mere "supposition." But—all those supposeds list things that Bush was supposed to do—required by Air National Guard rules and regulations—which he did not do! Including showing up when he was supposed to. "Supposition?" I think not. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 27 Jan 08 - 05:49 PM "But—all those supposeds list things that Bush was supposed to do—required by Air National Guard rules and regulations—which he did not do! Including showing up when he was supposed to." (Don Firth) "But—all those supposeds list things that Bush was supposed to do" - According to who? Were they there? Were they part of what was going on within that unit at the time? I rather think not, and as such amount to just so much hot air. "required by Air National Guard rules and regulations" - Interpreted by who? The politically biased and partisan hacks retired from different services and committed wholeheartedly to John Kerry's election campaign and who at the time were desperately attempting to divert attention away from the Swift Boat for Truth campaign and were fully prepared to sign up for anything that would do that? They most definitely were not part of the ANG at the time. The one ANG member who did review things for them said that what was done was quite normal and accepted practice, he of course was discounted. "Including showing up when he was supposed to." - As stated previously the ANG Personnel Centre in Denver Colorado did carry out a check, in fact I would venture to guess that they carried out two checks, one in 1973 when Lt. G.W.Bush's request for discharge was processed and granted, the second in October 2000 to refute totally the allegations made by Mary Mapes. Now then Don, you appear to be big on the significance of documents and records that are missing as a means of proving your case and to back up your allegations. That being so I'll draw you're attention to some other documents that are missing to make the case presented by the ANG and myself. If Lt. G.W.Bush had indeed been guilty of being AWOL there should be , according to Air National Guard rules and regulations, specific charge sheets detailing the offences committed - No such documents exist. There should also be a record of a Court Martial and details relating to the sentence handed down by that Court Martial - No such documents exist. Now what does exist Don? That totally substantiates my case and completely sinks yours - hint - honourable discharge and grant of request for early discharge. By all means keep chattering on like a Magpie, it signifies nothing, but as I said previously whatever you do, do not present your supposition as fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 06:49 PM "'. . . required by Air National Guard rules and regulations' - Interpreted by who?" By the Air National Guard, of course! Teribus, you keep trying to equate the National Guard—which is a state militia—with the regular national military, i.e., U. S. Army, U. S. Air Force, etc. There are number of differences in regulations, practice, and status of members. National Guard members are civilians who sign up to take military training and engage in training drills and maneuvers during specific weekends per month, and the member is often required to attend a two-week period each year in addition to the assigned weekends. Joining the National Guard is, essentially, like signing a contract to serve over a specified period of time and meet specified obligations. High on that list of obligations is, of course, regular attendance. As I say, these are state organizations, not "national" (despite the name). The National Guard is essentially a state militia, and as such, is under the authority of the State governor. In times of national emergency, however, they can be called up to serve with the regular military. A state governor can call up the local National Guard in, say, times of "civil unrest," as happened a number of times during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and in Seattle a few years back to assist the Seattle Police Department when the WTO demonstrations got out of hand. More frequently they are called up for other kinds of emergencies, for example, following hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, to help maintain order (prevent looting, for example) and to lend whatever service—frequently, humanitarian service—they can. During the recent devastating wind-spread brush fires in Southern California, the National Guard filled in, assisting beleaguered fire-fighters. Many state governors are very unhappy with the Bush and his war in Iraq because he has called up the National Guard to supplement the national military (it's my understanding that most of the troops in Iraq are not regular Army, but National Guardsmen—and women), and depleted the National Guard forces when needed by the States themselves. And many of the National Guardsmen themselves find, after being re-upped repeatedly, that they have been essentially drafted into the regular army when that is not what they signed up for. Teribus, you keep alluding to your military service and your presumed knowledge thereof, and question me as to whether I have served in the military myself. No, I have not. Due to polio at the age of two, I was not physically able to serve in the military (although, for a period of time, my draft classification was 1-Y – draftable in times of national emergency). However, I have friends and relatives who have served in the military. Notably germane to the current discussion, my sister's husband flew with the Montana Air National Guard. He flew out of Malmstrom Air Force Base near Great Falls, Montana, where he and my sister were living at the time. He flew Northrup F-89 Scorpions. When he had served out his obligation to the Montana Air National Guard, he took his experience flying fighter-jets and applied to Northwest Airlines where he trained on multi-engine jets, then worked as a pilot for Northwest Airlines for many years. He retired a few years ago. Anything I want to know about Air National Guard regulations, all I need to do is pick up the telephone, and call John. He and my sister live just across Lake Washington from me. John and I have talked about this matter a number of times, so I know what the regulations call for. And there are documents detailing Bush's absences from required meetings and training drills, and most notably, the required annual physical exam, which got him grounded. These documents have been linked to repeatedly, but you apparently refuse to read or credit them or even acknowledge that they exist. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, Bush was the son of a very wealthy and influential family, and his father was a senator at the time. This was what got Bush into the Air National Guard in the first place, jumping a line of some 500 other applicants, and kept him from facing the draft and possibly being sent to Vietnam. It also kept him from having to face the consequences of his dereliction of duty and possible court-martial. This, and the fact that the National Guard doesn't not always operate the same way the regular military does. One officer who was acquainted with the problems with Bush commented on the flak they would have got from the senator if they decided to press charges, and said that they were just "glad to get rid of him." Now I presume that your next dodge is to point out that my brother-in-law was in the Montana Air National Guard and that Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, therefore anything my brother-in-law says does not apply to Bush. You apparently have your head in the sand. On in some other dark location. You simply do not know what you are talking about, and are trying to make excuses for Bush. God only knows why! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 27 Jan 08 - 07:08 PM Thanks Don, for that record of Bush's no-show military service record. Almost reads the same as his Presidental record. The biggest no-show President to date, except for those that died in office. More vacations than any past President to date & a war time President to boot. He's a real "give 'em your all" type of guy, a real on the job every day kind of guy. If his past record would've been public knowledge without the spin & hype & lies prior to his elections (take/hand overs) I doubt he would've fooled as many of the voting public as he did. His record really speaks for the real man/boy that he is. Just a typical rich frat drunk driving no show party boy with absoloutly no work ethic at all. We could've saved ourselves a war, a national bankruptcy, a department of the Homeland, an enegy crisis, an educational crisis, a health crisis, a voter accountability process, a world image crisis, a few constitutional amendments & rights. I'm not gonna argue his no shows, he & the NG can't produce any proof that he did show & I don't believe Bush is calling any of the facts into question. There's no need to discuss his no shows at his present job either. You either get up in the morning & go to work or you don't. He obiviously thinks his quality time on his ranch & being away from the job is more important than the matters of state & it shows. He will never be serious consideration for employment, this nation if ever asked should not give him a postive reference, no matter how lowly the job. He should've been terminated long ago. He's not fit to drive taxi or sweep floors. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:47 PM I'd just as soon see him spend more time down in Crawford, Texas wearing his cowboy hat and clearing brush. The more time he spends away from the Oval Office, the less time he spends screwing up the country and the world. His daddy kept buying him toys. Daddy bought him an oil company and it went broke. Then Daddy bought him a baseball team and one of the first things he did was trade Sammy Sosa. Then Daddy bought him the presidency, and he broke that, too! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 27 Jan 08 - 09:03 PM Yup, you all have it right... George W is a one-man wrecking crew... No matter waht is fixed, he has the ability to bust it... And for the record, yeah, T^-Bird is absolutley and embarressingly clueless as the the ins and outs of the ANG in the late 60's and earle 70's... If he only had a clue as to just how ignorant of the reality-in-the-real-world he was clinging to he would disapppear for another 4 years in shame... T-zer... You are as wrong as wrong can be... Bush didn't "fulfilll his obligation"... If that sounds better to you then fine... Hey, it's still considered AWOL over here but if "din't coplete his obligation" works for you, I'm sure that Don, Barry and I can let you have that little bit of face savin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 08:42 AM Bush didn't "fulfilll his obligation" Where is the proof of that? Any documents other that the forged one and an honorable discharge? You keep repeating over and over "can't produce any proof that he did" but you can't produce any proof that he did not. Your proof is nothing but dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 08 - 11:51 AM "'. . . required by Air National Guard rules and regulations' - Interpreted by who?" By the Air National Guard, of course! Really Don? Let's see who the Boston Globe got to review the documentation and comment on ANG Rules and Regulations: Retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter (of Veterans Against the Iraq War) Brigadier General David L. McGinnis (ret.) USA, Army National Guard, Virginia, who at the time was working for John Kerry's election campaign. Now one person who commented on what Lechliter had to say was retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief. He came out with the following: "Singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing." Now Don were all those hundreds of guys all sons of a very wealthy and influential families? "Teribus, you keep trying to equate the National Guard—which is a state militia—with the regular national military, i.e., U. S. Army, U. S. Air Force, etc." Not at all Don, after all the font of all knowledge and truth on this Forum "Bobert-the Great" took great pains to explain to me very early on how "loose" and how "flexible" the Guard was and is. "There are number of differences in regulations, practice, and status of members." According to the ANG itself, the Rules and Regulations that apply to the Air National Guard are uniform throughout every State of the Union. Exactly how they are interpreted and applied will in all probability be subject to quite marked differences. "Joining the National Guard is, essentially, like signing a contract to serve over a specified period of time and meet specified obligations. High on that list of obligations is, of course, regular attendance." Well according to a U.S. Code cited by the Texas ANG and used by all Guard Units across the country, Guard members are required to earn a minimum of 50 service points each year, beginning on the date of their enlistment. You "earned" 15 of those points just for being a member of the ANG, you earned another 15 points for attending the two-week long summer activity. According to my arithmetic Don that leaves 20 points that can be picked up during week-end UTA's (2 days at 2 points per day) or through week day service at 1 point per day. So if you attend 5 such week-ends per year and attend summer camp you meet the specified minimum obligatory requirement – True? So much for regular attendance, you meet the minimum target attending five months out of 12. "Teribus, you keep alluding to your military service and your presumed knowledge thereof, and question me as to whether I have served in the military myself. No, I have not." Useful to know – neither yourself, or Bobert has any experience of service in any of the armed forces, so what you are running on are preconceptions, which in Bobert's case are just downright bizarre, and hearsay, which of course is heavily dependent on what questions are asked and how intelligent, or informed, those questions are. "John and I have talked about this matter a number of times, so I know what the regulations call for." No Don, you know what your brother-in-law thinks the regulations call for. For my part I will take, and trust the interpretation of the only people who have viewed all the records and whose interpretation of what is required is deemed expert – ANG Centre for Personnel Records. "And there are documents detailing Bush's absences from required meetings and training drills, and most notably, the required annual physical exam, which got him grounded. These documents have been linked to repeatedly, but you apparently refuse to read or credit them or even acknowledge that they exist." What documents that detail absences? You are in error over what the required frequency at training drills actually was and have completely disregarded the fact that if you are in a non-flying billet there is no point whatsoever in sitting a flying medical. Now on the subject of refusing to acknowledge the existence of documents that are very much in evidence, why is it that you and Bobert refuse to accept that Lt G.W.Bush received an honourable discharge from the Air National Guard, and likewise accept that that would not have been granted had he ever been AWOL. "As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, Bush was the son of a very wealthy and influential family, and his father was a senator at the time. This was what got Bush into the Air National Guard in the first place, jumping a line of some 500 other applicants, and kept him from facing the draft and possibly being sent to Vietnam. It also kept him from having to face the consequences of his dereliction of duty and possible court-martial." All of that is your opinion, it is not fact. Mapes took off on her quest in 1999 operating exactly on that same assumption. When she came toddling back to CBS and tried to get them to air it they took one look at the material she had gathered and told her that it was a non-starter. Perhaps you can explain to us exactly how much influence Senator Bush of Texas would have had in Colorado Don. Because it was the Personnel Centre in Colorado who processed the application for early discharge and they granted it. It was that same Personnel Centre that in October 2000 after carrying out a complete review of all documents relating to Lt. G.W.Bush's service career issued a clear and unequivocal statement that he had fulfilled his obligations with regard to his service with the ANG. "One officer who was acquainted with the problems with Bush commented on the flak they would have got from the senator if they decided to press charges" Got a name for this officer Don? Is there anywhere I can read this opinion of his. Please explain to us exactly what "flak" the Senator could have given the Texas ANG? Very little I would imagine. But I would be interested to know. "Now I presume that your next dodge is to point out that my brother-in-law was in the Montana Air National Guard and that Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard, therefore anything my brother-in-law says does not apply to Bush." No Don that is not my "next dodge". My "next dodge" is to point out the obvious – It doesn't matter a damn what your brother-in-law says with regard to what should, or should not have applied to Bush – What does matter and what does stand is what the ANG said applied to Bush, and we all know exactly what that was don't we Don. "You simply do not know what you are talking about," I appear to have a damn sight better idea than you. By the bye before anybody goes on frothing at the mouth about how the supposedly absentee Lt. G.W.Bush should have been reported to the draft board and shuffled off to Vietnam. I suppose it is only fair to say that even had he been reported the one place he would never have been sent to would have been Vietnam, as by August 1972 the last US combat troops left Vietnam, leaving behind some 16,000 special advisors, none of whom were conscripts. U.S. Troop levels peaked in April 1969 at 543,400, by December 1969 that number had been reduced by 20%. By December 1970 numbers were down to 280,000. In April 1971 the last USMC Combat Unit left Vietnam and by December 1971 numbers were down to 156,800. By April 1972 the number was 69,000 and in May 1972 the U.S. Army Headquarters in Vietnam was decommissioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jan 08 - 02:39 PM "Singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing." "Now Don were all those hundreds of guys all sons of a very wealthy and influential families?" Just because there a many murders in prison doesn't mean it make the killing less of a crime. So what that others did the same, are they our President? He still gets a "failed in office" & a "no show" from the people & that's how he'll go down in history! He doesn;t know how to hold down a job & at the same time do a job well done! Does anyone here think that what he's done over the past 7 years deserves a passing grade? He's about as much a fuck up as there's ever been in the high office of this nation, bar none! Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 08 - 02:44 PM I find it totally pointless to continue arguing with idealogues who are so convinced that the sun shines out of their hero's nether orifice that even if that "hero" were to publicly admit that everything his critics have said about him is correct, they still wouldn't believe it. I have a political campaign to work for, so if you gentlemen will excuse me, I will devote my time and efforts to more productive ends. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Teribus Date: 28 Jan 08 - 04:34 PM Barry it illustrates the complete lack of objectivity in the so-called investigation: 1. Mary Mapes went hunting down her own dearly held belief that sons of politicians and athletes got preferential treatment. So convinced of this was she that she completely discounted the large numbers of people she interviewed who poured cold water on her theory. So desperate was she to prove herself right that she fastened on the only two who appeared to play ball, unfortunately neither knew GWB or served with him or at the same time as he did. 2. Boston Globe who ran the articles on GWB's ANG Service. Engaged two extremely partisan retired Army officers to review the service records that were in the public domain, ran with their interpretation and discounted the statement given by the ANG Personnel Centre who had all the records. 3. Mapes second kick at the ball in 2004, fired up by Bill Burkett a serial liar and fantasist with an axe to grind with the Texas ANG. Burkett told so many lies he forgot which one was current. Every single person he "named" in his ludicrous tale, repudiated and completely contradicted everything that Burkett had said. After the Segment on 60 Minutes Wednesday aired and it became apparent that the authenticity of "Killian" documents were seriously in doubt CBS investigated and found Burkett to be a less than credible witness - Mary Mapes was running true to form - I don't care if he's told a pack of lies and that the documents are fake, they prove my story. In one of the articles supplied by Don, the Robinson of the Boston Globe states his amazement at the lack of interest by other news outlets at the story - I don't find it surprising at all, they did look at it and examined the so called evidence and came to the firm and correct conclusion that there was no story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 28 Jan 08 - 06:12 PM I'm right behind you, Don... Think I'll just let the three blind mice have this thread, regardless of how wrong they are... Can't argue with sick minds and the alleigence they pay Bush is compulsively sick... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Jan 08 - 06:29 PM "Barry it illustrates the complete lack of objectivity in the so-called investigation" What I lack isn't objectivity, it's the cost for my kids college education, a good affordable heath care plan for my family even though I pay for 2 plans at the moment, a fair tax system that doesn't burden me while I shoulder more than what's asked for by some major corporations, the freedom from the churches interFEARence with the politics of this nations, the civil & human rights that I had before Bush came to DC, the right to live in a safe, healthy & clean enviorment, free access to clean water for all humans before it goes to the utilities, free or subsidized child care for those in need, an economy that doesn't threaten to go bankrupt at the 1st sign of China recalling thier loans on US, Sorry to cut this off, I don't have any more time, I have to get my swin in & then go to a session,,,,,,,,Later Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Homey Date: 28 Jan 08 - 09:20 PM Noun: idealogue 1. Someone who theorizes (especially in science or art) Sounds like the Bush haters club to me. Just because I call this propaganda about Bush propaganda, does not mean That I am pro Bush. I am anti propaganda. However the blowhards that keep repeating it over and over, without any of the proof they demand of others, must find some way to make it stick. Therefore they must claim that anyone who disagrees with them a supporter of the person they are attacking. Bush leaves a lot to be desired especially in the amnesty for illegal aliens department but these Taliban style attacks point up the emotional and mental immaturity of the attacker. For example, here is a burned out 60's style hippie that can't adapt to the modern world so he has a chemical dependency. Yet he tells others that they are not living in the real world. It is real entertaining to witness this desperate attempt to turn lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and myth into truth. If you repeat a lie enough, (gullible) people will believe it is true. So the three wise men have lapped it up like a bowl of warm cream. Bon Appétit |
