Wouldn't be ironic if Bush was prosecuted for election violations!

[Neserk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040820/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_vietnam

Kerry has filed suit.

Read the article.

Then tell me how ironic it would be if Bush is never prosecuted for his war crimes but is for violation of elections laws. Kind of like Mafia types who get busted for income tax invasion but not murder!

[skunk]

Bring it on! :D

[Leo Hubbard]

Just because you are a republican doesn't mean you can't contribute to 527's.
Using the logic Kerry used the moveon.org is a front for democrats. I wonder how much of Heinz's money ended up in their pocket via Tide or other methods?

[Neserk]

Hey! Start your own thread :mad:

[zimv20]

i hope this doesn't backfire. i think the public has a low tolerance for filing suits, and it's an easy target for the GOP-spin machine.

isn't the swift boat thing in the process of blowing over, anyway?

[Backtothemac]

Charge Bush for war crimes. Did I miss something?

[IJ Reilly]

This probably isn't such a wonderful idea. I think Kerry should make it personal, not legal.

[IJ Reilly]

Good grief. (I seem to be saying that a lot these days).

None of these statements make a lick of sense.

[mactastic]

:rolleyes: When ever you start losing an argument file suit.


I see. So would you say Bush was losing the argument in the spring?

Last March the Republican National Committee and President Bush’s campaign filed a similar complaint with the FEC accusing anti-Bush groups such as the Media Fund and America Coming Together of a conspiracy to violate federal election laws by coordinating with the Kerry campaign. :rolleyes:

[Bobcat37]

Ahem... mactastic, SOURCE?!?! (You violated MacRumors #1 Political rule, gasp! BANNATIONS!)

Haha, anyway if that is true, apparently nothing came from that? And I'll assume that nothing will come of this Kerry lawsuit.

Personally I think both Bush and Kerry are silly for filing these lawsuits. Sure if it was some amazingly blatant violation it might not be a bad idea, but this just seems too circumstantial.

OMG like Bush knows this rich Republican (imagine that!) and this same rich republican is giving money to a group of anti-Kerry people (imagine that!)! Yeah Bush is sooooo coordinating this :p

Just because there is a common middleman, that doesn't prove anything, and till Kerry brings some good proof, I will keep not caring!!!

[mactastic]

Whaaaaa! (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5772722/)

[Stelliform]

I see. So would you say Bush was losing the argument in the spring?

:rolleyes:

Sure he was. Last spring. ;) :D

[mactastic]

Sure he was. Last spring. ;) :D

Lol, well played.

Just a reminder that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones though...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Just because you are a republican doesn't mean you can't contribute to 527's.
Using the logic Kerry used the moveon.org is a front for democrats. I wonder how much of Heinz's money ended up in their pocket via Tide or other methods?

527's and any other funding of a candidate should not be allowed unless it is by the people themselves (and limited to $100 TOTAL to a candidate or a party).

IMO we need to get money out of politics, in particular Big Money. We need to send Bush;s Pioneers to the free range areas of Canada.

[Chip NoVaMac]

:rolleyes: When ever you start losing an argument file suit.


Why not prosecute Kerry for his war crimes? He admitted them in the 1970's.

I sure find it interesting that freedom of speech doesn't apply to this group. The Kerry campaign has been doing everything they can to stop these guys. Everything but release the official military records pertaining to the events that they contest.

Also if Bush told these guys to stop doing what they are doing, it would be in violation of the rules governing a 577's. (Since Bush would be collaborating with them, and they can't collaborate with a candidate.)

Edited for clarity... ;)

Do we not allow for posthumous lawsuits, if so Reagan should be held for war crimes.

[Bobcat37]

IMO we need to get money out of politics, in particular Big Money. We need to send Bush;s Pioneers to the free range areas of Canada.

IMO if we want to get big money out of politics, we should send George Soros to Cuba...

[macsrus]

Charge Bush for war crimes. Did I miss something?

All good liberals know that evil Republicans should all be jailed...
Whats funny to me is the Kerry campaign has had the same charges filed against them over 2 months ago...
I guess the media didnt think it was important to report it... with the same verve they did Kerry's accusation...

Besides... the whole war record argument is a joke anyway....
I mean who cares.... Kerry served in Nam so what.... Then he threw away the medals... so what...
Bush served in the guard... so what...

I dont think the whole I served here you served there is going to make any difference in the minds of voters anyway...
It sure ddint during the Clinton/Bush or Clinton/Dole campaigns

I mean giving Bush a hard time for the guard.... Look at Clinton

Give me a break...

By the way.... ROLL TIDE ROLL

[macsrus]

Do we not allow for posthumous lawsuits, if so Reagan should be held for war crimes.

So should Kennedy....

[Neserk]

I mean giving Bush a hard time for the guard.... Look at Clinton


Let's compare.

Clinton was a Rhode scholar which is how he got his deferment (if I recall correctly).

Bush got his rich daddy to get him into the national guard (only slightly fishy) and then he didn't even bother to do that. That is my issue.

I have no problem with draft dodgers. I have no problem with people who fled to Canada to avoid going to a war they didn't believe in. I have no problem with people who went to jail or found some way to get out of going to war.

What I do have a problem with is someone claiming to have served his country when he did not and then starting an illegal, immoral war.

Bush is a hypocrite. He did everything he could to get out of not only going to Vietnam and serving in the national guard but then he turns around and justifies a war based on his own lies. He is full of ************. Even if we don't try him for war crimes, history *will* judge him.

[Sayhey]

Looks like the Bush campaign is trying to cut its ties to the SBVT after their links are being exposed.

Bush Supporter Leaves Campaign Over Role in Ad
Sat Aug 21, 2004 09:47 PM ET
By Jeremy Pelofsky

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - A Vietnam veteran who worked with President Bush's campaign has left over his appearance in a commercial by a group challenging Democratic candidate John Kerry's war record, a campaign spokesman said on Saturday.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Ken Cordier was a Bush supporter during the 2000 election and served as a member of his a steering committee to help reach out to veterans during this election.

"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his involvement in the advertisement being run by (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)," Schmidt said. "Because of his involvement with this 527 (group), Col. Cordier will no longer participate" in the steering committee.

The disclosure of Cordier's involvement came one day after White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot denied the campaign coordinated with the group on the ads, which claim that Kerry lied about his Vietnam War service.

Reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6036302)

[macsrus]

I figured you would have glossed over Clinton...
Like his record wasnt a disgusting affair...


Bush got his rich daddy to get him into the national guard (only slightly fishy)

If I could have got in the guard intead of being drafted and serving in Nam you can bet I would have...


and then he didn't even bother to do that. That is my issue

I guess if you repeat this often enough... Then it will become true...
Give me a break

[macsrus]

Looks like the Bush campaign is trying to cut its ties to the SBVT after their links are being exposed.



Reuters.com (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6036302)

Is there any suprise here?
Of course the SBVT are Bush Supporters with ties to the Bush campaign

Just like The Moveon guys are tied to Kerry....

Dont be naive...

[Neserk]

I figured you would have glossed over Clinton...
Like his record wasnt a disgusting affair...


:confused: This isn't about Clinton. It is about Bush.



If I could have got in the guard intead of being drafted and serving in Nam you can bet I would have...


Did you read my whole post or just what you wanted to? I have no problem with anyone avoiding going to war.


I guess if you repeat this often enough... Then it will become true...
Give me a break

Denial...not just a river in Egypt. It is so obviously true that he didn't do his time in the National Guard that only those who have their head in the sand are in denial about it.

[Neserk]

Just like The Moveon guys are tied to Kerry....

Dont be naive...

The Moveon guys (as you put it) aren't spreading lies. SBVT are. People who haven't spoken in 35 years (Editor from a Chicago paper, if I recall correctly) are saying they are full of BS.

[Sayhey]

Is there any suprise here?
Of course the SBVT are Bush Supporters with ties to the Bush campaign

Just like The Moveon guys are tied to Kerry....

Dont be naive...

So you admit Kerry is right in calling SBVT a front group of the Bush campaign? I know it is obvious, but the Bush administration is denying it even as they have to explain dismissing senior members of their campaign for working with the group. Of course it doesn't stop there, but all of this is ILLEGAL. It is also a time honored tactic of Rove and Bush. I'm not being naive or cynical here. Not everybody resorts to these kind of slimy tactics - Bush does.

As to Kerry and MoveOn, all you have to do is provide the ties and I'll happily second your condemnation. In short, they are a liberal group opposed to Bush, but with no special tie with Kerry or obvious coordination with his campaign. They existed well before this election cycle and have their own agenda. Sometimes that coincides with Kerry's; sometimes it doesn't.

One thing you fail to mention is how MoveOn has put out the kind of lies about Bush the SBVT has done about Kerry. I'd like to see a comparison.

[mactastic]

Then why are there SVBT flyers in the Florida GOP HQ? :p

OOPS!

[Sayhey]

The Bush campaign is in no way behind the SBVT group. They don't need Bush to egg them on. They hate John Kerry. He got out of his tour early and he came back and testified to congress that all servicemen were committing war time atrocities. They have hated his guts since 1971. They do not want to see him become president. All 250+ of them. Bush did not invent or back them.

There are some of these vets who have held a grudge because of Kerry's anti-war activities (something not relevant to what his conduct was in Vietnam); most prominent of these is John O'Neill, a Republican activist and hatchet man during the Nixon administration. There are also many others who have testified to Kerry's conduct during the war and are only now reversing their statements and joining with the GOP in these attacks. However, you are completely wrong about the Bush Campaign having no ties or not being "behind the SVBT group." Read the post from the Reuters article and check out the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html) article from yesterday. If you still believe the Bushies aren't behind this campaign, then we will talk.

Oh, and just in case you missed it, also read these articles from the Chicago Tribune here (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821kerry,1,6814873.story?coll=chi-news-hed) and here. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-040821rood,1,1611037.story?coll=chi-news-hed) They are about the lies this group is telling, not the ties to the Bush campaign, but you might find them informative.

[zimv20]

the nytimes drew a nice picture of all the relationships here (http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif).

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif

[skunk]

Looks very cosy.

[Leo Hubbard]

Al Gore works for moveon.org. Al Gore once ran for President. Moveon.org must be a front for the DNC convention.

If I had NYTimes resources I bet would find allot of connections between them and Kerry's party.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I figured you would have glossed over Clinton...
Like his record wasnt a disgusting affair...

Was he perfect no, but the strength of the Nation during his eight years speaks very loud and clear. Also despite the dirty tricks of Republicans of trying to find every dirty grub under every rock to remove Clinton, the people voted loud and clear that Clinton was worth keeping.

The issue is that a President should be held accountable legally for their actions in office. Clinton was held for his personal actions, but Reagan was never held fro his, and GW has yet to be held for his possible illegal actions.

If I could have got in the guard intead of being drafted and serving in Nam you can bet I would have...
I guess if you repeat this often enough... Then it will become true...
Give me a break

That is sad. And why I think that there should be mandatory service for all able bodied citizens. Daddies money would be able to even move the draftee to a stateside Quarter Master position.

What angers many like myself was the GW continued to use his Dad's connections to avoid even honest service in the NG. And that is a character issue for me to consider when going to the polls.

And I guess if you keep repeating that the war in Iraq was just and right, i guess it too will be come true.

GW cared little about our troops when sending them over. They had little in the gear to keep them safe. The families of those in Iraq held bake sales and such to raise money for flak vests and armor for the HumVees. GW then held an event praising these families, and encouraging more of the same. All the while no-bid contracts are going to his Pioneers. This for many NG troops that he should have more compassion for. But I forgot compassion was just a word that he felt that might have helped him win the election in 2000 with a better margin than he did.

[Chip NoVaMac]

<Joking here>Looks like some of the swifties like to flip flop on a subject. I thought that was ok with the Kerry camp supporters. ;) :p</joking here>

Just because you have a six degrees to GW Bush flow chart doesn't make the Bush campaign responsible for the Swifties. The Kerry campaign accusations are simply a diversionary tactic. Talk about they can dish it out, but they cannot take it. (Kerry wants the book pulled also.) (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40062)

I think it has now entered the realm of free speech. What is Kerry so afraid of? What happened to someone making a claim (true or false), and you defending yourself verbally? What does Kerry not want America to read in that book?

GWB didn't try to stop Michael Moore. Is Kerry afraid that the book will be as successful as the movie? I seriously doubt it. I also thought that slander laws don't apply to public figures. (We debated that a month or two ago with the Moore movie.)

So yes, I see that some people who know Bush are funding the swifties. Does that make it a Bush conspiracy? No. (By the way, one of the swifties in the video worked as a volunteer for the Bush campaign. He quit the Bush campaign Saturday. CNN Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html)

Yeah, but Bush knows that if he comes out and condemns the ads, he will loose some votes. Why is that the ads that the Bush people have don't have Bush saying that he is supporting the ads? Is so that he can allow the 527's to do his smearing for him, while looking compassionate? Oops, sorry compassion were just a word for Bush.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Al Gore works for moveon.org. Al Gore once ran for President. Moveon.org must be a front for the DNC convention.

If I had NYTimes resources I bet would find allot of connections between them and Kerry's party.

Well, the Washington Times and Fox News does, and they have failed to come up with anything.

[mactastic]

I think it has now entered the realm of free speech. What is Kerry so afraid of? What happened to someone making a claim (true or false), and you defending yourself verbally? What does Kerry not want America to read in that book?

Where is the line between free speech and slander/libel? If MoveOn.org was running ads suggesting Dubya had a fondness for young boys, and trotted out numerous young men to support the claim even though nearly everyone else in the world could testify that Dubya likes the puritanical librarian type of women, would you still say that it was a free speech issue?

IOW, can you outright lie about someone and have it be called free speech?

[IJ Reilly]

IOW, can you outright lie about someone and have it be called free speech?

Pretty much, yes. Despicable speech is free speech nonetheless. (We've talked many times here about how difficult it is to prove slander or liable in the US.) The Kerry campaign should not challenge these people on a legal front -- that looks bad and probably won't produce results anyway. They need to expose O'Neill and his merry band as the bald-faced liars they are -- which shouldn't be difficult, because it's so bloody obvious.

Officer Recalls Boat Mission With Kerry
By William B. Rood
Chicago Tribune

August 22, 2004

There were three Swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago — three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of Swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions.

Many of us wanted to put it all behind us — the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service — even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-rood22aug22,1,6879016.story

[macsrus]

The Moveon guys (as you put it) aren't spreading lies. SBVT are. People who haven't spoken in 35 years (Editor from a Chicago paper, if I recall correctly) are saying they are full of BS.

Well first of all.... any official report out of the military is almost always a lie....
Including all fitness reports... and Action reports....
The military distorts the truth so much who can ever believe them....

Second Im sure the SBVTs are lying just as I sure Kerry's side is a lie too...
Ive seen to many official reports during my 12 years in the military both in and out of action to believe anyone..

Third I dont give a rats ass.... Doesnt make one bit of difference to me...

[Chip NoVaMac]

Well first of all.... any official report out of the military is almost always a lie....
Including all fitness reports... and Action reports....
The military distorts the truth so much who can ever believe them....

Second Im sure the SBVTs are lying just as I sure Kerry's side is a lie too...
Ive seen to many official reports during my 12 years in the military both in and out of action to believe anyone..

Third I dont give a rats ass.... Doesnt make one bit of difference to me...

Hopefully i am not crossing any rules here.

But what about what we are hearing that that GW had plans laid in 2000, well before 9/11, to attack Iraq. Does it also not show that GW had personal motives in attacking that the man that tried to kill his Daddy?

I am tired of the dirty politics that have been a part of the campaigns in the past. We need to get rid of the 527's. We need to have all ads by the campaigns with the actual voice of the candidate supporting the ad, like Kerry does. Why does not Bush do this, because he can always claim "underlings" to blame for misleading ads.

Since you have seen "seen to many official reports during my 12 years in the military both in and out of action to believe anyone", how can you support any candidate? In particular Bush, whose records are very much in question?

Having lived in the DC area, I have been "privileged" to know some of the truths of what goes on. Some of what goes on would scare the most conservative among us (or even the liberal).

So I also guess that the "Mission Completed" was also also a lie. That some of the reports of of our successes in Iraq are a lie also? Or maybe worse that that there were WMD in Iraq were a lie also. You can't have it both ways.

As Commander in Chief, GW should be held accountable for the lies that led to the deaths of Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens. In particular since he authorized the attack. Sure sounds like War Crimes to me.

[Neserk]

As Commander in Chief, GW should be held accountable for the lies that led to the deaths of Americans and innocent Iraqi citizens. In particular since he authorized the attack. Sure sounds like War Crimes to me.


My point exactly.

[IJ Reilly]

The only problem with your statement is the the SBVT are making statements that not only contradict the official record, but also the recollections of people who were actually there.

That being said, this is rapidly turning into a story that's less about who did what in Vietnam to one about who said what in the heat of a presidential campaign.

[Sayhey]

...Just because you have a six degrees to GW Bush flow chart doesn't make the Bush campaign responsible for the Swifties. The Kerry campaign accusations are simply a diversionary tactic....

...So yes, I see that some people who know Bush are funding the swifties. Does that make it a Bush conspiracy? No. (By the way, one of the swifties in the video worked as a volunteer for the Bush campaign. He quit the Bush campaign Saturday. CNN Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html)

Stelliform, you are missing the obvious. There is an established pattern by the Bush campaign. These are the same tactics used against McCain and Cleland. These are many of the same people who have organized and run this campaign. It is funded by two of Bush and Rove's closest Texas allies. The campaign is being promoted by the official GOP organization. There was an obvious overlap in personnel until yesterday. On and on it goes. Only the truly blind cannot see the ties to the Bush/Cheney campaign. Does that mean Kerry can prove it before a court of law? Who knows, but if Kerry had not filed suit the response would have been to just say that there are procedures to follow if one suspects such coordination with a front group. Those procedures are being followed and the media is exposing more and more of the ties and lies.

This story has just begun. Not the one SBVT wanted, but the one about the depths to which this administration will sink to get reelected. Expect this to be reinforced if an when indictments break in the Plame affair. All of this will be front and center for the debates. Not exactly what the Swifties or Rove had in mind.

Totally off topic, Leo, everyone has a "tell" in their writing style. Yours is the same as Slyhunter/Voltron. I had given you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed to be someone else. After reading your last post I can no longer do so. Of all the posters on these boards, I have only seen you and Sly use the word "allot" when you mean to use the words "a lot." Add that to the use of the same reactionary websites and the same refusal to ever admit a mistake and I'm now convinced you are the same person and have therefore put you on my ignore list.

[Leo Hubbard]

I am tired of the dirty politics that have been a part of the campaigns in the past. We need to get rid of the 527's. We need to have all ads by the campaigns with the actual voice of the candidate supporting the ad, like Kerry does. Why does not Bush do this, because he can always claim "underlings" to blame for misleading ads.


Excuse me? Most of the DNC ads aren't paid for by Kerry's team, nor do they have his voice. So how are you saying it is like Kerry does? And what do you mean why does Bush do this? WE have freedoms in this country to speak up what we think in the streets, our homes, on the internet, and even on the airwaves. Bush can't stop it unless he wants to stop free speech!!!!

[Neserk]

Bush can denounce the ads as lies. He knows they are as well as anyone. It would make the ads pointless.

[Chip NoVaMac]

This story has just begun. Not the one SBVT wanted, but the one about the depths to which this administration will sink to get reelected. Expect this to be reinforced if an when indictments break in the Plame affair. All of this will be front and center for the debates. Not exactly what the Swifties or Rove had in mind.


That is my concern. Given that the "popular" vote would have had Gore as President, and that given Bush's brother is the governor of the "battleground" state of Floridia, it does not take much to realize that there were major issues (far getter than those in the 1960 election).

Notice also that Bush has denied any debates so far, even when it was known that Kerry and Bush would face each other in November.

At least IMO Bush can not run on his actions of the past four years. And that he is afraid (on many levels, maybe his learning disability) that his words may come back to haunt him unless it is well controlled like his last press conference.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Excuse me? Most of the DNC ads aren't paid for by Kerry's team, nor do they have his voice. So how are you saying it is like Kerry does? And what do you mean why does Bush do this? WE have freedoms in this country to speak up what we think in the streets, our homes, on the internet, and even on the airwaves. Bush can't stop it unless he wants to stop free speech!!!!

Forgive me. but most if not all ads that I have herad from Kerry have had hgis voice at the end to support the claim of support. At the same point it is Bush's ads that simply have fine print like some sleazy car dealership to provide a disclaimer.

My point is that Kerry is clear in his ads that he is supporting the message. When I hear an ad for Kerry that does not have that I know that there is some "self serving" purpose.

By Bush not having his voice stating that he is behind the message, clouds the message. He is hiding behind the 527's.

And sorry, but Bush and Congress in general stripped us of our freedoms in the hatred after 9-11 and the passage of the USPA.

[macsrus]

Was he perfect no, but the strength of the Nation during his eight years speaks very loud and clear.

This is funny.... The economy is too cyclic to give any credit to a President or his Administration....
Look at the economy since 1976... Carter 4 Bad, Reagan 8 Good, Bush 2.25 bad(recovery had gone for 3 quarters before Clinton took office) , Clinton 7 Good
(The economy was already going down the tubes before Bush took office), Bush 3 Bad, and guess what... the economy is rebounding right now.... and will highly likely go on another 4 to 8 year run...

The bull market of 94 thru 2000 is what drove our economy
The Stock market burst of 2000 is what whiped out the economy.... (Plus the Trillion Dollar impact of Sept 11)
Lets also not forget... That all the Corporate scandals that came out during the First year and a half of the Bush Administration... were fostered by the Same stock market economy that made the Clinton years look good...


What angers many like myself was the GW continued to use his Dad's connections to avoid even honest service in the NG. And that is a character issue for me to consider when going to the polls.

If you keep repeating this maybe it will be come true....
Dont make out like you would have ever voted for a Republican anyway


And I guess if you keep repeating that the war in Iraq was just and right, i guess it too will be come true.
I never said I agreed with the Iraq war. I dont.
I do think it was the right war.... I just think it was the wrong time...
Clinton should have done it 10 years ago... Back when Saddam started violating the terms of the surrender...

[takao]

I never said I agreed with the Iraq war. I dont.
I do think it was the right war.... I just think it was the wrong time...
Clinton should have done it 10 years ago... Back when Saddam started violating the terms of the surrender...

of course it was right but not now and in this _way_
i would have said 1991

[skunk]

of course it was right but not now and in this _way_
i would have said 1991
Of course in 1991 they didn't have a postwar plan either. It ended with a shameful episode of mass murder on the highway out of Kuwait, and then just petered out. Some people never learn.

[Chip NoVaMac]

This is funny.... The economy is too cyclic to give any credit to a President or his Administration....
Look at the economy since 1976... Carter 4 Bad, Reagan 8 Good, Bush 2.25 bad(recovery had gone for 3 quarters before Clinton took office) , Clinton 7 Good
(The economy was already going down the tubes before Bush took office), Bush 3 Bad, and guess what... the economy is rebounding right now.... and will highly likely go on another 4 to 8 year run...

The bull market of 94 thru 2000 is what drove our economy
The Stock market burst of 2000 is what whiped out the economy.... (Plus the Trillion Dollar impact of Sept 11)
Lets also not forget... That all the Corporate scandals that came out during the First year and a half of the Bush Administration... were fostered by the Same stock market economy that made the Clinton years look good...



If you keep repeating this maybe it will be come true....
Dont make out like you would have ever voted for a Republican anyway


I never said I agreed with the Iraq war. I dont.
I do think it was the right war.... I just think it was the wrong time...
Clinton should have done it 10 years ago... Back when Saddam started violating the terms of the surrender...

As you said if you keep repeating it. it will be true. Just as you accuse some of us buy in to lies, so have you. Bush lied about compassion in 2000, and he will lie again to achieve he goals. Like he lied through out his political life.

[macsrus]

As you said if you keep repeating it. it will be true. Just as you accuse some of us buy in to lies, so have you. Bush lied about compassion in 2000, and he will lie again to achieve he goals. Like he lied through out his political life.

Since you have completly changed the subject of the debate....
And I dont have any idea how you got to this place....

Here is your rabbit with a pancake on it's head.

[Neserk]

Here is your rabbit with a pancake on it's head.

Once was too much. Twice is just annoying. COme up with something different.

[skunk]

Once was too much. Twice is just annoying. COme up with something different.
The first time, it was a pankake...

[Lyle]

By the way.... ROLL TIDE ROLLOK, I'll tolerate a lot, but now you've really crossed over the line.

P.S. I see Auburn in AP's pre-season college football top 25 poll (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/2003/ap/), but am having trouble finding Alabama. :D

[Leo Hubbard]

Just found a boat load of ties with Kerry and moveon.org.....

link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040401-124201-5352r.htm)
From your link before they get smart and edit it.

The East Bay for Kerry/MoveOn House party on December 7th combined the forces of two grass-roots organizations based in San Francisco East Bay Area. We had 200 guests eating, drinking, and watching the MoveOn Documentary “Uncovered” featuring Joseph Wilson and Rand Beers from the Kerry campaign.

When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: “Asses of Evil” with “Bush”, “Cheney”, “Rumsfeld” and “Ashcroft” surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary. Many were curious, others undecided, or belonging to other candidate camps.

Teresa Heinz was directly involved. :eek: Now That is a link.

There is one problem I have with this. If memmory serves a guy by the name of John Kerry owned this web page address. He offered it to Kerry first who refused to pay the asking price. So he put it up for auction and the bid went up to I think 7 million dollars, at least 3 times the price he offered it to Kerry for. I have heard nothing about this after that, so did Kerry actually win the bid and took possession of the site or did someone else? And is this from your link in the previous post the same site? http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000871.html#more


just read the other link to the Washington Times :eek:
I heard Kerry only said he was going to file a complaint with the sec and hasn't followed through on it yet. Bush really did :D




He said the accusations were "a transparent and ineffectual attempt by the Bush campaign and the Republican Party to silence their critics and to change the subject of these elections away from the failed policies of this administration."

hmmm isn't that what Kerry is trying to do to the swift boat vets? Silence their side of the story, silence their critics, change the subjects away from his record in the senate to his time in vietnam? Considering he used his vietnam experience as a defense to his senate votes it is only right we hear all sides of that story. Including a full disclosure of his military and medical records. Oh don't forget cross reference with his own diary.

[mactastic]

But did anyone have to swear a loyalty oath to get in? :D

[Chip NoVaMac]

Bob Dole (remember the guy with Erectile Disfunction. ;)) is getting into the fray...

Dole Questions Kerry's Veitnam Wounds (http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=11B2683D-3353-477B-A4BD-CC56F493CB0C)

As many of you know I am no fan GW. Yet his comments today were a reason to at least pause and recognize that the in the end GW realizes that the 527's can make or break the election for both sides. However late the comments may have been.

I mean this in a positive way, given GW's history of denial, i am happy with his comments today.

[pseudobrit]

Bob Dole (remember the guy with Erectile Disfunction. ;)) is getting into the fray...

Bob Dole is wrong. Kerry bled like a stuck pig on at least one occasion, and still has shrapnel in his leg.

Dole owes Kerry an apology.

Apology to the 'Nam vets? How about Dole apologising? He was part of the government that sent those boys in there for no damn reason.

[blackfox]

As many of you know I am no fan GW. Yet his comments today were a reason to at least pause and recognize that the in the end GW realizes that the 527's can make or break the election for both sides. However late the comments may have been.

I mean this in a positive way, given GW's history of denial, i am happy with his comments today.
The cynic in me just sees his announcement as the epitome of machaivellian(sp?) "politikin'.." whereas most of the damage is done, the "info" is out there, and Kerry has to take up valuable time and resources to deal w/ it...Now as it comes back to Bush and any potential tie-ins w/ his Campaign, he can just wash his hands of it and condemn the lot. Makes GW seem "above" and detached from the issue, while Kerry is mired in it, regardless of the reality of the matter...bloody brilliant strategy, if such was the case....

[Neserk]

The cynic in me just sees his announcement as the epitome of machaivellian(sp?) "politikin'.." whereas most of the damage is done, the "info" is out there, and Kerry has to take up valuable time and resources to deal w/ it...Now as it comes back to Bush and any potential tie-ins w/ his Campaign, he can just wash his hands of it and condemn the lot. Makes GW seem "above" and detached from the issue,

Exactly. All Bush said was that he wanted the advertisements that weren't directly part of the campaigns to be pulled. That includes the Moveon ads that are against him.

From what I saw he never condemned the SBVT ads as lies.


He is a politians through and through he completely lacks character.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The cynic in me just sees his announcement as the epitome of machaivellian(sp?) "politikin'.." whereas most of the damage is done, the "info" is out there, and Kerry has to take up valuable time and resources to deal w/ it...Now as it comes back to Bush and any potential tie-ins w/ his Campaign, he can just wash his hands of it and condemn the lot. Makes GW seem "above" and detached from the issue, while Kerry is mired in it, regardless of the reality of the matter...bloody brilliant strategy, if such was the case....

Unless i am wrong about your previous posts, this is a great admission of GW.

The press of today does not change how I feel in the end of GW. It does give me some false hope that he might be willing to make the campaign about the the issues. The cynic in me feels that GW's announcement today had more to to do that the American public could be more swayed by the 527's than anything else.

I will go back to one of my original comments in this thread or another.

Kerry asked for debates early on. That went unanswered from GW.

[IJ Reilly]

From what I saw he never condemned the SBVT ads as lies.

He didn't say anything of substance at all. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret his remarks as a condemnation of the SBVT ads.

[Neserk]

He didn't say anything of substance at all. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret his remarks as a condemnation of the SBVT ads.


I couldn't find a quote anywhere althought the "liberal" media claims he condemned the ads. :rolleyes:

Anyone have a link that shows precisely what he said?

[Leo Hubbard]

As many of you know I am no fan GW. Yet his comments today were a reason to at least pause and recognize that the in the end GW realizes that the 527's can make or break the election for both sides. However late the comments may have been.

I mean this in a positive way, given GW's history of denial, i am happy with his comments today.
Here is where I disagree with Bush. What is wrong with free speech. Nobody has the right to stifle free speech. Now, if it is slanderous speech then sue them and prove it.

BTW Republican side spent somewhat like 3 million dollars on 527 advertisement. Democrat side spent over 70 million. Someone needs to get some perspective here.

[Leo Hubbard]

Bob Dole is wrong. Kerry bled like a stuck pig on at least one occasion, and still has shrapnel in his leg.


Shrapnel or rice?

[Leo Hubbard]

He didn't say anything of substance at all. I'm not sure how anyone could interpret his remarks as a condemnation of the SBVT ads.
Why should he condemn what probably is the truth. If he condemned them and later it is proven in a court of law that they have been speaking the truth that would deffinitely be bad pr.

[mactastic]

Why should he condemn what probably is the truth. If he condemned them and later it is proven in a court of law that they have been speaking the truth that would deffinitely be bad pr.

Funny that one of these swifties appeared in a video praising Kerry's courage not 10 years ago. Funny that one of these swifties was awarded a medal he never complained about getting in the same engagement Kerry was wounded in. Funny how one of these swifties had to resign from the Bush/Cheney campaign.

But, if such is your belief, why should Kerry condemn anything MoveOn.org puts out? If he condemned it and it was later proven true in a court of law that GWB was AWOL and high on coke that would definetly be bad PR. Right? :p

[Leo Hubbard]

Funny that one of these swifties appeared in a video praising Kerry's courage not 10 years ago. Funny that one of these swifties was awarded a medal he never complained about getting in the same engagement Kerry was wounded in. Funny how one of these swifties had to resign from the Bush/Cheney campaign.

But, if such is your belief, why should Kerry condemn anything MoveOn.org puts out? If he condemned it and it was later proven true in a court of law that GWB was AWOL and high on coke that would definetly be bad PR. Right? :p
Funny how that first guy you mentioned, Elliot, admitted both then and now his facts was third hand. Both his statements now condemning Kerry and also his praises back then were based on information told to him by others as such neither testimony in that one case matters.

The other guy you mentioned stated that he never wrote the award and gotten it months later. He like myself wouldn't dispute the award. I know in my case, after discussing it with peers, I would simply throw the thing in a box and not worry about it. You don't go around disputing awards, you shut up and take them. Only reason it matters now is because Kerry is using his Vietnam record to try and get elected. If he just stuck to the issues his awards and reasons for getting those awards would be completly immaterial, just like Bush's NG record.

When people talked about Kerry's senate record it was him who stated that they couldn't impune his patriotism because he served in vietnam. Problem is nobody was impuning his patriotism, they were questioning his votes in the Senate. He screwed up, by making vietnam an issue.

[IJ Reilly]

Bush has not specifically condemned the SBVT ads, but evidently he strayed far enough from the script that his press secretary was forced to "clarify" his remarks to make certain that they would not be seen that way.

Bush Urges Muting of Ads

The president calls for independent groups to end spots, but does not specifically denounce one accusing Kerry of lying about war record.

By Edwin Chen and Mark Z. Barabak
Times Staff Writers

August 24, 2004

CRAWFORD, Texas — President Bush on Monday criticized the broadcast of a political advertisement that accused Sen. John F. Kerry of lying about his military record in Vietnam, as he called for independent groups to stop "all the stuff" aimed at influencing the November election.

But Bush did not address the charges that have turned the presidential campaign into a series of daily skirmishes over Kerry's military service and his subsequent protests against the Vietnam War. And after Bush's comments, a White House spokesman said the president had not intended to specifically denounce the anti-Kerry ad.

Allies of the Democratic candidate said Bush's remarks — coming more than a week after the ad stopped running — were too little and too late.

The president was asked about the ad, sponsored by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as he met with reporters at his ranch near Crawford. "I think we ought to be debating who best to be leading this country in the war against terror," he said.

Pressed on the subject, Bush called for an end to ads paid for by independent organizations, such as the Swift boat group, and said "all of them" should stop running. "That means that ad, every other ad," he said.

His comments marked the first time he or his aides had referred more than generically to the Swift boat commercial.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said later that despite the president's mention of the Swift boat ad, he had not meant to spotlight it.

...

Asked if he felt the attacks were unpatriotic and un-American during wartime, Bush said, "Yes," but added, "We ought to be looking forward, not backward."

Asked why he would not denounce the charges that his supporters leveled against Kerry, Bush replied, "I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV of the 527s," referring to the tax code section that regulates the independent political committees that have spent millions on ads in this year's campaign. The bulk of the spending has been by pro-Democratic groups, but none of the ads have gained as much attention as the Swift boat commercials.

"I don't think we ought to have 527s," Bush said, discouraging his fellow Republicans from contributing to such organizations. "I think they're bad for the system."

The president's comment marked a small shift. During an Aug. 12 interview with CNN's Larry King, Bush passed up several opportunities to condemn the Swift boat spot.

...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-swiftboat24aug24,1,319882.story

[mactastic]

Funny how that first guy you mentioned, Elliot, admitted both then and now his facts was third hand. Both his statements now condemning Kerry and also his praises back then were based on information told to him by others as such neither testimony in that one case matters.

The other guy you mentioned stated that he never wrote the award and gotten it months later. He like myself wouldn't dispute the award. I know in my case, after discussing it with peers, I would simply throw the thing in a box and not worry about it. You don't go around disputing awards, you shut up and take them. Only reason it matters now is because Kerry is using his Vietnam record to try and get elected. If he just stuck to the issues his awards and reasons for getting those awards would be completly immaterial, just like Bush's NG record.

When people talked about Kerry's senate record it was him who stated that they couldn't impune his patriotism because he served in vietnam. Problem is nobody was impuning his patriotism, they were questioning his votes in the Senate. He screwed up, by making vietnam an issue.


So you would rather believe third-hand knowledge than the words of those who were there? Talk about low standards! If only you believed every piece of third hand Bush bashing as easily!

If you really believe we should stick to the issues, prove it. I dare you to stay away from Kerry's war record and start talking about the issues. If it's not that important to you, MOVEONPLEASE!

[Leo Hubbard]

So you would rather believe third-hand knowledge than the words of those who were there? Talk about low standards! If only you believed every piece of third hand Bush bashing as easily!

If you really believe we should stick to the issues, prove it. I dare you to stay away from Kerry's war record and start talking about the issues. If it's not that important to you, MOVEONPLEASE!
No I don't believe Elliot. I do believe those other swift vote vets "who were there" though. Like those 4 swift boat captains who said Kerry ran like a rabbit when swift boat #3 hit a mine and there was no incoming fire. There was panic fire on their side into the brush but they weren't shooting at any real targets. I do believe those other swift vote vets who were there and saw Kerry fire a grenade into a food hooch and get his rear full of shrapnel and rice. One of the wounds he received a purple heart for.

As far as what I speak on that is controlled more or less by the topics presented, so dare all you want.

[Leo Hubbard]

So you would rather believe third-hand knowledge than the words of those who were there? Talk about low standards! If only you believed every piece of third hand Bush bashing as easily!


William Schacte Jr. says he was on the boat that night and there was no enemy fire; he says Kerry was injured by a grenade Kerry himself launched.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,686045,00.html

[katchow]

William Schacte Jr. says he was on the boat that night and there was no enemy fire; he says Kerry was injured by a grenade Kerry himself launched.


well if he says it, it must be true.

BTW, i've got a bridge to sell if anyone is interested...

[mactastic]

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,686045,00.html

And the reporter from Chicago says Kerry's telling the truth. I guess that's proof positive using your criteria. No disputing what some guy who comes out of the woodwork says, is there?

[Leo Hubbard]

And the reporter from Chicago says Kerry's telling the truth. I guess that's proof positive using your criteria. No disputing what some guy who comes out of the woodwork says, is there?
how about 64 guys who were members of Kerry's unit. Read the book Unfit for command if you wish to see what they have to say.

[mactastic]

how about 64 guys who were members of Kerry's unit. Read the book Unfit for command if you wish to see what they have to say.
How about the rest of the guys?

[Leo Hubbard]

How about the rest of the guys?
You mean the 4 or 5 who were there and are on kerry's side?
Or do you mean the 7 or 8 some of whom weren't there who are on Kerry's side?
Or perhaps the over 250, most of whom weren't there, who are against Kerry?

[mactastic]

You mean the 4 or 5 who were there and are on kerry's side?
Or do you mean the 7 or 8 some of whom weren't there who are on Kerry's side?
Or perhaps the over 250, most of whom weren't there, who are against Kerry?

Let's try people who were there, shall we?

[Leo Hubbard]

Let's try people who were there, shall we?
That would be the 64 people who the book "unfit for Command" has written about, who stated their first hand knowledge from when they actually in Kerry's unit. I wasn't including all the other contributors to the book who weren't there when I made that original statement.

[blackfox]

Look, I probably should've just refrained from even reading this thread, but I did read it and am frustrated by it...

I mean, who really cares about the nuances of Kerry's service on a river all those years ago...there is certainly more important current things going on that should be discussed for christ's sake...

I mean Bush didn't even serve at all (outside of NG w/ questionable record) and Cheney didn't serve at all as he "had other priorities at the time." Seems ironic to me...

To those who say, "well sure GW didn't actively serve, but he isn't basing his campaign on his Veteran attributes (as Kerry is)..." you have a point to a degree, but to those who feel Kerry is being disingenious about his service to appeal to voters, I would remind them that GW is running on his strength as a "war president" and on his record on the "WOT" which if anyone stopped to look, are both pretty ****ty records...whose disingenious now?

I think this is all pathetic...sorry for the rant.

[Leo Hubbard]

Look, I probably should've just refrained from even reading this thread, but I did read it and am frustrated by it...

I mean, who really cares about the nuances of Kerry's service on a river all those years ago...there is certainly more important current things going on that should be discussed for christ's sake...

I mean Bush didn't even serve at all (outside of NG w/ questionable record) and Cheney didn't serve at all as he "had other priorities at the time." Seems ironic to me...

To those who say, "well sure GW didn't actively serve, but he isn't basing his campaign on his Veteran attributes (as Kerry is)..." you have a point to a degree, but to those who feel Kerry is being disingenious about his service to appeal to voters, I would remind them that GW is running on his strength as a "war president" and on his record on the "WOT" which if anyone stopped to look, are both pretty ****ty records...whose disingenious now?

I think this is all pathetic...sorry for the rant.
Bush isn't running on his NG record. Kerry is running on his vietnam record. That and that alone makes his record an issue.

[blackfox]

Bush isn't running on his NG record. Kerry is running on his vietnam record. That and that alone makes his record an issue.
Did you even read my final paragraph? WTF...

[mactastic]

Did you even read my final paragraph? WTF...

I guess the only thing he's got is the accusation that Kerry is a coward. But then Bush never could pass the drug test or be bothered to show up for NG duty...

[Neserk]

Did you even read my final paragraph? WTF...

*I* did.

just in case he didn't:


To those who say, "well sure GW didn't actively serve, but he isn't basing his campaign on his Veteran attributes (as Kerry is)..." you have a point to a degree, but to those who feel Kerry is being disingenious about his service to appeal to voters, I would remind them that GW is running on his strength as a "war president" and on his record on the "WOT" which if anyone stopped to look, are both pretty ****ty records...whose disingenious now?

[HeWhoSpitsFire]

Just R v D rhetoric, kinda reminds me of a bumper sticker:

"Bi-Partisan, I'll hug your elephant if you kiss my a$$"