Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[DavidJames]

I guess there's been considerable discussion of poopy heads over the years.

of and by.

 

[DavidJames]

Ninja'd by Cleon! Thanks!

An apology for accusing other posters of lying would be very nice right now. But of course I suspect that there is somehow, something in these threads that doesn't quite meet Summaster's criteria, so he will double down on hia original accusation.

Perhaps we'll see some serious bayesian work proving the topic was not discussed to the appropriate level or detail, proving the media are nothing by liberal shills and waterboys.

 

[Ladewig]

Which thread?

This one?

Or this one?

Maybe this one?

There was also this one.

Perhaps this one is what you're looking for.

How about this one?


That's not even all of them. This forum was smothered in threads about those goddamn memos.

I found another

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27742
"Secretary: Memos are forgeries, but... "

.......................

The thread does not exist. Prove me wrong.

I have to ask. Why were you so certain that these threads did not exist?

 

[Cleon]

Ninja'd by Cleon! Thanks!

I remembered the myriad threads annoying the hell out of me at the time, and I think it may have been a motivating factor towards our current policy of merging duplicate (or duplicate-ish) threads.

Sweet smurfy Jebus, I've been here a long time...

 

[Crossbow]

You missed the part where he mentioned the interviews that were recently published?

'k.

You are wrong again.

So what if the Redford and Blanchett interviews were recently published? 'sunmaster14' is bitching about a movie which has not even been released yet.

 

[Cleon]

I found another

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27742
"Secretary: Memos are forgeries, but... "
.......................

You could probably find another dozen if you spend the time looking. Seriously, there were a lot of threads.

 

[Ladewig]

You could probably find another dozen if you spend the time looking. Seriously, there were a lot of threads.

Apparently there were also a lot of threads about Bush's National Guard service in February of that same year. I haven't looked at them to see what those were about.

 

[sunmaster14]

Which thread?

This one?

A total of 30 posts beginning six days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx, somebody who was clearly trying to rub people's faces in the fraud. Little substantive discussion

Or this one?

A total of 33 posts beginning nine days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.

Maybe this one?

A total of 70 posts beginning three years after the fraud, and the subject was Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS.

There was also this one.

A total of 28 posts beginning eight days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.

Perhaps this one is what you're looking for.

A total of 13 posts beginning four days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.

How about this one?

WTF? Who was Haj Amin al-Husseini?

 

[Giordano]

You could probably find another dozen if you spend the time looking. Seriously, there were a lot of threads.

Absolutely. I too found the multiplicity of threads a bit annoying at the time. I also had no way of determining the truth or the falsehood of the accusations, so it appeared to me to be a probably meaningless "He said, she said" theme. I look forward to any new facts, although a movie is probably neither the way to learn facts or justification to become outraged when a movie is not based on facts (haven't almost all of us already realized that?).

 

[sunmaster14]

I found another

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27742
"Secretary: Memos are forgeries, but... "

.......................


I have to ask. Why were you so certain that these threads did not exist?

Because I spent a lot of time looking for them. Incidentally, I had previously found all of the threads that so far have been linked here. They clearly were ancillary discussions and contained little in the way of substance.

 

[Giordano]

A total of 30 posts beginning six days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx, somebody who was clearly trying to rub people's faces in the fraud. Little substantive discussion



A total of 33 posts beginning nine days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.



A total of 70 posts beginning three years after the fraud, and the subject was Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS.



A total of 28 posts beginning eight days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.



A total of 13 posts beginning four days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.



WTF? Who was Haj Amin al-Husseini?

174 prior posts listed by Sunmaster, but not up to his standards. Sorry you all!

Is there a prize for me calling the response correctly? Smug satisfaction at least?

Better luck this time! Perhaps now that I am registered the quality of the posts may meet Sunmaster's criteria. Let's find out...

 

[TragicMonkey]

Is it too soon to mention that I have grave doubts about the alleged will of Howard Hughes?

 

[Cleon]

A total of 30 posts beginning six days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx, somebody who was clearly trying to rub people's faces in the fraud. Little substantive discussion



A total of 33 posts beginning nine days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.



A total of 70 posts beginning three years after the fraud, and the subject was Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS.



A total of 28 posts beginning eight days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.



A total of 13 posts beginning four days after the fraud was discovered. Thread starter was corplinx. Little substantive discussion.

Expected handwaves noted.

WTF? Who was Haj Amin al-Husseini?

Sorry, that was a bad copy-paste. I think this was the one I was aiming for, though I've lost track.

 

[DavidJames]

Posts not up to Sunmaster's standards. Sorry you all!

I want to see the math.

Let's get this thread rolling, cause I think we need to quickly get to Watergate, that was another little mess that was totally glossed over here.

 

[Giordano]

I want to see the math.

Let's get this thread rolling, cause I think we need to quickly get to Watergate, that was another little mess that was totally glossed over here.

My math now included on edit even before your request. I will believe Sunmaster's math because why should he lie?

Yeah, what about Watergate! Huh? Damn liberals always hiding their dirty laudr.. um- wrong topic. Okay, how about Clinton and Lewinsky? Huh? Damn liberals always...

 

[Giordano]

Expected handwaves noted.

Damn flies!

 

[sunmaster14]

What a strange point on which to focus discussion.

I had been a lurker for many year before 2011, so my sign up date only indicates that I posted no comments on any thread before this date, not that I didn't see them.

Yes, as many other posters here have indicated, there was such a discussion. Searches for the appropriate key words reveal many. You have acknowledged that indeed you can find such posts here. Yes, there may be some that aren't directly relevant, yet I am certain that there are many that are, and in fact you haven't indicated that none of the ones you found are relevant. Why is that? And what is the point at all? Do you really believe that this hasn't been discussed before and that we are all lying to you?

As to if posts have been lost after the switch- I am pretty certain that some post archives I sought were missing. Frankly I don't know. But the Bush/National Guard one appears to have been transferred- maybe I will look. But is this all to make the accusation that this was never discussed here by us "liberals?" Big deal if it wasn't, although it certainly was. If you wish to discuss the upcoming movie or the topic itself, then go ahead. But if I am going to go to the trouble to find the discussion here that you claim never occurred, then your apology that I and others are not liars would be a classy thing to post.

Sorry, I missed this post before. No, I am not calling anybody here a liar. I am quite certain that there was a vigorous discussion at the time, no doubt beginning the very night of the broadcast in question, i.e. Sep 8, 2004. I have reason to believe though that that discussion has been deleted from the forum. Perhaps the deletion was accidental. But it could have also been seen as convenient as well. I can imagine that a lot of Bush detractors were memo defenders, and therefore ended up with egg on their faces and would have been very happy to see the threads disappear.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know. I actually suspect that it will be quite a good movie. Cate Blanchett is a damn good actress, and Robert Redford actually looks and sounds like Dan Rather. We'll see I guess, but I bet it gets nominated for several academy awards.

Good actors cannot save a bad script. I'm positive it will be a bad movie.

But it might still pick up an award.

 

[Cleon]

I see that there isn't a thread on this...
It is certainly weird that this forum of skeptics haven't addressed this topic before, especially since it would seem to be perfect subject matter for the application of critical thinking skills.

The thread does not exist. Prove me wrong.

Sorry, I missed this post before. No, I am not calling anybody here a liar. I am quite certain that there was a vigorous discussion at the time, no doubt beginning the very night of the broadcast in question, i.e. Sep 8, 2004. I have reason to believe though that that discussion has been deleted from the forum. Perhaps the deletion was accidental. But it could have also been seen as convenient as well. I can imagine that a lot of Bush detractors were memo defenders, and therefore ended up with egg on their faces and would have been very happy to see the threads disappear.

Weird how you've gone from being dead certain there was no such thread and wondering why skeptics didn't discuss such an important issue, to being dead certain there was a thread that the mods deleted for nefarious purposes. (Of course, the mods left the various other threads on the subject because they're as incompetent as they are dastardly.)

There is someone here with egg on their face, but it's not the "Bush detractors."

 

[The Big Dog]

So what if the Redford and Blanchett interviews were recently published? 'sunmaster14' is bitching about a movie which has not even been released yet.

Uh, it seems that he is looking to discuss several aspects, including the recently published interview which took place just last week.

Any comments about that interview?