Skepticism and the memo controversy

Well, I just read through this thread and anything that I have to say has just about been said.

I think there are many things that suggest strongly that these documents are fraudulent but I agree with LW that by itelf the issue of the line centered text was close to definitive proof of a hoax.

If anybody has any doubts about it see this site:
http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

It appears now that the people speculation about Burekett were spot on.

I am one that believes it is likely that Bush received favortism to get into the national guard and then received more favortism to get out of the guard without fulfilling his commitment. I wonder if it is possible that I have come to those beliefs based at least partially due to false information (beyond these memos) that Burkett has been feeding news organizations.

Burkett is certainly beginning to look like not all that bright iand not all that honest at this point in time.

None of this matters much to me as far as who I will vote for. I am voting for the man most likely to beat Bush period, and if Bush was the most honored national guard pilot of his time I still wouldn't vote for him.
 
davefoc said:
None of this matters much to me as far as who I will vote for. I am voting for the man most likely to beat Bush period, and if Bush was the most honored national guard pilot of his time I still wouldn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

But we knew that already. The manufactured Guard flap is a double smokescreen. Not only is it not real...but people could hide behind it and feign patriotic indignation as they voted FOR the guy with all the purple hearts.

But again, that doesn't matter either because the obverse is true too. Even if Kerry were the most reviled coward from the Vietnam war you would still vote for him because he's NOT BUSH.

Well, vote for NOTBUSH all you want....but you can't clothe your choice in "patriotism" any longer. :rolleyes:

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Well, vote for NOTBUSH all you want....but you can't clothe your choice in "patriotism" any longer.
-z
Click to expand...

Reign that in, Riz. Dave has done absolutely nothing to bring that comment on. His comments were honest and up front -- he isn't hiding the ball or engaging in one-sided speculation to prop up a false claim. Instead, he simply stated his position.

There may well be those that would use this issue to decide the election for them, but nothing from Dave (that I have seen) indicates that he would be one of them.

I think you jumped on him too early and too hard.

N/A
 
Davefoc still has every right to hold political views of his choice...the fake memos shouldn't have any more clout to impugn, than they did before they were exposed as fakes.

Now if it turns out that Kerry is guilty of far worse than Bush's Guard peccadillo, I would expect the same consideration for those who announce that now they *cannot*, in good conscience, vote for him.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Reign that in, Riz. Dave has done absolutely nothing to bring that comment on. His comments were honest and up front -- he isn't hiding the ball or engaging in one-sided speculation to prop up a false claim. Instead, he simply stated his position.

There may well be those that would use this issue to decide the election for them, but nothing from Dave (that I have seen) indicates that he would be one of them.

I think you jumped on him too early and too hard.

N/A
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was a little harsh. Yours is one of those opinions I respect...if you think I was wrong then I'll accept that.

However it ticks me off to no end that so many people are angling to show their "patriotism" by voting for the "war hero" Kerry...when in reality, like Dave, they would vote for him if he was proved to be the most craven coward. It's just dishonest!

Oh for the days of Clinton...when a more forthright left proclaimed that draft dodging was no impediment to high office! At least that was an honest representation of their beliefs.

arghhhh!
Please forgive my abruptness Dave....
-z
 
rikzilla said:
Perhaps I was a little harsh. Yours is one of those opinions I respect...if you think I was wrong then I'll accept that.
Click to expand...

Always nice to hear. I think there are quite a few that are plying the game that you are talking about, but I don't think there was much of it on these threads, and I think you jumped the gun a little on dave's post.

And apologizing shows class, IMO.

N/A
 
Rik,
I took no offense, but maybe that was because I wasn't quite sharp enough to understand what you were saying.

I guess you were lumping me with folks that claim to be voting for Kerry because he was a courageous patriot and Bush was a scumbag draft dodger.

Actually, I think Kerry probably lied about some aspects of his war record and politicked to pull down some medals that others might not have gotten in similar circumstances. I also think a whole four months in a combat zone doesn't sound like all that much to brag about, but maybe when you've had a life of privilege just putting up with a little crap for a little while is considered noble if you're part of the nobility.

And, although, Kerry seems to have been quoted out of context I think his senate testimony was improvident and should have been recanted at least in part when some of it was shown to be based on false information.

And I don't blame Bush too much for using what schemes were available to him to avoid service in the Vietnam mess. Perhaps because I did the same thing, although, I didn't have any senators or representatives to pull strings for me, I was doing the best I could to pull strings for myself. I felt guilty about it for years but as time as gone on I just think it was a part of my life that happened.

I do think Bush probably used undue influence to keep from honoring his national guard duty commitments and I think he deserves some condemnation for that.

But overall as I implied above these issues are not primary considerations for me as to who I am going to vote for.

One thing that has troubled me a bit is what I would do if it turned out that Kerry had actually participated in an intentional mass killing of civilians or been guilty of rape as a soldier. I think if something like that showed up I wouldn't vote for anybody or maybe I'd vote for Badnaric (or whoever it is that Shanek keeps talking about).
 
Ok, this sounds odd to me:

NEW YORK (AP) - At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.
...
Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. ``She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you,'' Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records ``that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said.''
Click to expand...

CBS is contacting the Kerry campaign before the story runs and telling them to talk to their source -- the source they refused to reveal after the controversy because their journalism ethics required death at the stake before violating that confidence ?

Am I alone in asking W. T. H. ?!
 
No, but I hope you don't hold your breath waiting for a straightforward answer from CBS or the Kerry camp...
 
Ok, one last update before I go to bed.

From the CBS interview and a related NYT story, Burkett is now apparently saying that he told CBS that another officer, Former Guardsman George O. Conn.

Only problem: A Feb. 13 story in the Boston Globe noted that Coon denied Burkett's claims of knowing anything about Bush's records: "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None, zip, nada."

This is an example of an unimpeachble source.

And of course now Burkett says that he lied when he supposedly said that Conn was the source. He now says that he got them from an unnamed source, but not Conn.


Oh, yes -- this is the perfect guy to go to for a news story.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
CBS is contacting the Kerry campaign before the story runs and telling them to talk to their source -- the source they refused to reveal after the controversy because their journalism ethics required death at the stake before violating that confidence ?

Am I alone in asking W. T. H. ?!
Click to expand...
Can you supply a link?

This sounds like another dot. Here are the dots I see so far:
  • Above - CBS calls Kerry campaign to tell them to talk to Burkett;
  • "Fortunate Son" ad comes out less than a week after the hoax documents appear, using "60 Minutes" footage, with no protest from CBS;
  • Burkett contacts Max Cleland offering what he claims is material damaging to Bush. Cleland advises him to contact the Kerry campaign (Cleland is already the campaign's designated hysteric);
  • There are claims that the DNC got the hoax documents in early August and sent them to CBS. But CBS maintains they got it directly from Burkett. Let's see the original fax that CBS got from the Abilene Kinko's (since we now know CBS can't be trusted with photocopies). Does it show CBS's fax number as the recipient, or does it show the DNC's?
With CBS News's reputation for hard-hitting, thorough investigative reporting, they should do an investigation to see if there was any collusion between CBS News and the Kerry campaign.

After all, Dan Rather would want to be the first to break the story, wouldn't he?
 
BPSCG said:
[*]"Fortunate Son" ad comes out less than a week after the hoax documents appear, using "60 Minutes" footage, with no protest from CBS;
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the next day -- suggesting that the CBS documents were already in the possession of the DNC prior to the broadcast.
 
davefoc said:
Rik,
I took no offense, but maybe that was because I wasn't quite sharp enough to understand what you were saying.

I guess you were lumping me with folks that claim to be voting for Kerry because he was a courageous patriot and Bush was a scumbag draft dodger.

Actually, I think Kerry probably lied about some aspects of his war record and politicked to pull down some medals that others might not have gotten in similar circumstances. I also think a whole four months in a combat zone doesn't sound like all that much to brag about, but maybe when you've had a life of privilege just putting up with a little crap for a little while is considered noble if you're part of the nobility.

And, although, Kerry seems to have been quoted out of context I think his senate testimony was improvident and should have been recanted at least in part when some of it was shown to be based on false information.

And I don't blame Bush too much for using what schemes were available to him to avoid service in the Vietnam mess. Perhaps because I did the same thing, although, I didn't have any senators or representatives to pull strings for me, I was doing the best I could to pull strings for myself. I felt guilty about it for years but as time as gone on I just think it was a part of my life that happened.

I do think Bush probably used undue influence to keep from honoring his national guard duty commitments and I think he deserves some condemnation for that.

But overall as I implied above these issues are not primary considerations for me as to who I am going to vote for.

One thing that has troubled me a bit is what I would do if it turned out that Kerry had actually participated in an intentional mass killing of civilians or been guilty of rape as a soldier. I think if something like that showed up I wouldn't vote for anybody or maybe I'd vote for Badnaric (or whoever it is that Shanek keeps talking about).
Click to expand...

Fair enough...I guess I was just having one of those days yesterday. I can't bitch too much...I didn't like Bush or Gore in 2000 and voted Nader just to show the powers that be that I was dissatisfied.

Of course that was before 9/11. Since then I've been unable to forget the fact that the unluckiest people on that day went to work as usual...and ended up facing their last decision: attempt flight, or roast.

Sadly I think it's going to happen again....and it's made me a one issue voter. I just don't trust Kerry to keep fighting the terrorists. To me it doesn't matter what either candidate did 30 years ago. It's the next 4 years that matter to me. Bush may not have done everything right, but he had the guts to do something concrete about Al Qaeda. The dems had 8 whole years...and under them Al Qaeda bloomed like a hot-house rose.

We can't afford that. But then again, maybe if we've all listened to the propaganda of Michael Moore,...and the whinging from the EU,...and the waffling of JFK,...instead of remembering 9/11 (as we all promised to) and realizing that any one of us could spend our next tuesday deciding whether to fly or roast....well, maybe we deserve a Kerry presidency. :(

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Sadly I think it's going to happen again....and it's made me a one issue voter. I just don't trust Kerry to keep fighting the terrorists. To me it doesn't matter what either candidate did 30 years ago. It's the next 4 years that matter to me. Bush may not have done everything right, but he had the guts to do something concrete about Al Qaeda. The dems had 8 whole years...and under them Al Qaeda bloomed like a hot-house rose.

We can't afford that. But then again, maybe if we've all listened to the propaganda of Michael Moore,...and the whinging from the EU,...and the waffling of JFK,...instead of remembering 9/11 (as we all promised to) and realizing that any one of us could spend our next tuesday deciding whether to fly or roast....well, maybe we deserve a Kerry presidency. :(

-z
Click to expand...
Well said. To me, every other issue pales to insignificance compared to how we deal with people who not only want to kill us, but to destroy western civilization and rule with the brutal theology of the 11th century and the killing tools of the 21st.
 
rikzilla said:
Fair enough...I guess I was just having one of those days yesterday. I can't bitch too much...I didn't like Bush or Gore in 2000 and voted Nader just to show the powers that be that I was dissatisfied.

Of course that was before 9/11. Since then I've been unable to forget the fact that the unluckiest people on that day went to work as usual...and ended up facing their last decision: attempt flight, or roast.

Sadly I think it's going to happen again....and it's made me a one issue voter. I just don't trust Kerry to keep fighting the terrorists. To me it doesn't matter what either candidate did 30 years ago. It's the next 4 years that matter to me. Bush may not have done everything right, but he had the guts to do something concrete about Al Qaeda. The dems had 8 whole years...and under them Al Qaeda bloomed like a hot-house rose.

We can't afford that. But then again, maybe if we've all listened to the propaganda of Michael Moore,...and the whinging from the EU,...and the waffling of JFK,...instead of remembering 9/11 (as we all promised to) and realizing that any one of us could spend our next tuesday deciding whether to fly or roast....well, maybe we deserve a Kerry presidency. :(

-z
Click to expand...

Well said. I did not vote for Bush in '00, but strongly support him now. The last thing I want is for murderous jihadists to know there is an anti-war activist from the Democratic Party in the White House.
 
I agree with the several posts above that terrorists and the ability of the president to deal with them effectively is the main issue of this campaign.

I just disagree that Bush is the man to deal with this threat effectively.

1. I disagreed even before 9/11 with the Bush administration's belief in the star wars defense. Briefly I thought that simple terrorist actions were a more likely problem and that star wars defensive shield as envisioned in its more grandiose designs was financially impossible if not just plain physically impossible.

2. I think sitting around and reading to school children while terrorists are flying airplanes into buildings when you are the president of the US shows an incredible misunderstanding of what your job is as president.

3. I think the US support of a religiously based crusade to expand the state of Israel continues to be a major contributor to the distrust and hatred of the US in the arab world. I would gladly be willing to accept this increased risk to my personal safety as a result of the US subsidy of Israel if I thought we were on the side of right. I don't.

4. I think that the Bush administration has shown incredible imcompetence with it estimation of the threat of WMD in Iraq and how to deal with it. The war in Iraq has not reduced the terrorist thread in my mind. It has increased it.

5. I think the Bush administration has shown incredible incompetence with respect to the rebuilding and stabilizatin of Iraq. It seems to have consistently underestimated the problem, it has attempted to use it as a mechanism for rewarding business cronies, it has alienated potential allies, it failed to prevent prisoner of war atrocities by American soldiers and it has not dealt well at all with what was always the underlying problem of any Iraqi invasion, the threat of widespread civil war in Iraq.

6. Even years after 9/11 the Bush administration has been slow to shore up obvious security risks like our port of entries and our chemical factories.
 
davefoc said:
I agree with the several posts above that terrorists and the ability of the president to deal with them effectively is the main issue of this campaign.

I just disagree that Bush is the man to deal with this threat effectively.

1. I disagreed even before 9/11 with the Bush administration's belief in the star wars defense. Briefly I thought that simple terrorist actions were a more likely problem and that star wars defensive shield as envisioned in its more grandiose designs was financially impossible if not just plain physically impossible.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That's a good point...I tend to agree.

2. I think sitting around and reading to school children while terrorists are flying airplanes into buildings when you are the president of the US shows an incredible misunderstanding of what your job is as president.
Click to expand...

Not really. What you saw was a man blind-sided by the unthinkable. So he continued for 7 mins with what he'd been doing? So what? A normal human reaction to an unexpected horror is stunned denial....it usually lasts more than 7 mins. You could cut the guy a break here. He's human...so are we all.

3. I think the US support of a religiously based crusade to expand the state of Israel continues to be a major contributor to the distrust and hatred of the US in the arab world. I would gladly be willing to accept this increased risk to my personal safety as a result of the US subsidy of Israel if I thought we were on the side of right. I don't.
Click to expand...

Well now, that's a whole other kettle of fish. Tell me, will John Kerry cease American support of Israel? Do you really think that that would be a good thing?

4. I think that the Bush administration has shown incredible imcompetence with it estimation of the threat of WMD in Iraq and how to deal with it. The war in Iraq has not reduced the terrorist thread in my mind. It has increased it.
Click to expand...

I'm a skeptic...therefore I always defer to the evidence. Since there have been no further successful terror attacks against American interests worldwide since 9/11 I feel safer. I don't suppose there are fewer terrorists, or that they are somehow less inclined to attack us...I jut feel like maybe the terrorists have too much on their plates right now. As soon as their busy schedulles clear up I'm sure they'll be back blowing us up with a vengence. I'd like to keep their plates full...Bush will see to that.

5. I think the Bush administration has shown incredible incompetence with respect to the rebuilding and stabilizatin of Iraq. It seems to have consistently underestimated the problem, it has attempted to use it as a mechanism for rewarding business cronies, it has alienated potential allies, it failed to prevent prisoner of war atrocities by American soldiers and it has not dealt well at all with what was always the underlying problem of any Iraqi invasion, the threat of widespread civil war in Iraq.
Click to expand...

True...I have to agree. :(

6. Even years after 9/11 the Bush administration has been slow to shore up obvious security risks like our port of entries and our chemical factories.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who's now very high up in the Coast Guard's port security apparatus in Miami. From what he has told me I'd have to say you are wrong on that. (at least if Port of Miami is a good indicator and not an isolated example) Not sure on the chemical plants etc.... However, I don't see Kerry's promise to roll back the PATRIOT ACT as a positive move in homeland security. :rolleyes:

-z
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom