xboxscene.org forums

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: "60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake  (Read 502 times)

BenJeremy

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2004, 01:21:00 PM »

Wow.

There was far more information in this CBS NEWS ITEM that supported the idea those memos were forgeries, than their steadfast and asinine stand that they are authentic.

Marcel Matley has backed away from CBS' claims that he authenticated the documents, and CBS has nothing more than to say "Look it can be done, gosh darn it!"

Even the trotted out "Ones vs. Els" is just mroe proof it was done on a word processor (Els prevent the "th" from getting superscripted in modern word processors).

...and still, even with $40,000 of reward money available, nobody has yet produced a typewriter of ANY TYPE that can reproduce those documents.

Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2004, 03:29:00 PM »

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 14 2004, 09:24 PM)
Wow.

There was far more information in this CBS NEWS ITEM that supported the idea those memos were forgeries, than their steadfast and asinine stand that they are authentic.

Marcel Matley has backed away from CBS' claims that he authenticated the documents, and CBS has nothing more than to say "Look it can be done, gosh darn it!"

Even the trotted out "Ones vs. Els" is just mroe proof it was done on a word processor (Els prevent the "th" from getting superscripted in modern word processors).

...and still, even with $40,000 of reward money available, nobody has yet produced a typewriter of ANY TYPE that can reproduce those documents.

I couldn't imagine what kind of news magazine that CBS make and I don't want to know.  Time magazine is fine.

As for the typewriter, IBM makes a Selectric Composer typewriter, Selectric II.  It was introduced in 1971 which allows you to type superscripts.   This also allows you to type in different kind of fonts too.

user posted image

Marcel Matley says that only Killian's signature is authentic when matched with Killian's other documents during that time.  But he didn't say anything about the authenication of the documents itself.

That said aside, I don't think you and I know if the document is authentic at that time.  The only person who knows is if we can get the information from the horse's mouth, Bush himself.
Logged

BenJeremy

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2004, 03:45:00 PM »

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 14 2004, 06:32 PM)
I couldn't imagine what kind of news magazine that CBS make and I don't want to know.  Time magazine is fine.

As for the typewriter, IBM makes a Selectric Composer typewriter, Selectric II.  It was introduced in 1971 which allows you to type superscripts.   This also allows you to type in different kind of fonts too.

user posted image

Marcel Matley says that only Killian's signature is authentic when matched with Killian's other documents during that time.  But he didn't say anything about the authenication of the documents itself.

That said aside, I don't think you and I know if the document is authentic at that time.  The only person who knows is if we can get the information from the horse's mouth, Bush himself.

Wow, that Selectric II "Composer" and a current edition of M$ Word will make those memos every time.

Nobody has recreated those memos with ANY TYPEWRITER EVER PRODUCED.


However, one guy made an exact replica by simply opening up his M$ Word, using the default "Times New Roman" font, default page layout (8.5"x11"), margins, font size, etc... and typing it in.

Really, the factual errors are amazingly obvious, and come on.... "P.O. Box 34567"?!??!?

I suppose when the next memos come out using the phone number 867-5309, you'll believe those, too?

Let's see, everybody but CBS news, and a handful of Bush-hating web sites have descredited those memos thoroughly. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, NBC, L Times, and any other liberal slanted media organization in this country you care to pick - all of them have slammed the memos as forgeries.

I'm sorry, but if you can't objectively examine the evidence and admit they are forgeries, you are either:

1) Blinded utterly by your hatred for Bush, and thus incapable of rendering a competent decision regarding the election, or any opinion worthy of the bandwidth it occupies.

or:

2) Extremely dishonest, to the point of treasonous activity. Complicent in a knowing act of fraud, and also unworthy of any consideration here at all, except to act as a shining example of a Kerry Supporter, and what we can expect if he ever got elected.
Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2004, 04:16:00 PM »

QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 14 2004, 11:48 PM)
Wow, that Selectric II "Composer" and a current edition of M$ Word will make those memos every time.

Nobody has recreated those memos with ANY TYPEWRITER EVER PRODUCED.


However, one guy made an exact replica by simply opening up his M$ Word, using the default "Times New Roman" font, default page layout (8.5"x11"), margins, font size, etc... and typing it in.

Really, the factual errors are amazingly obvious, and come on.... "P.O. Box 34567"?!??!?

I suppose when the next memos come out using the phone number 867-5309, you'll believe those, too?

Let's see, everybody but CBS news, and a handful of Bush-hating web sites have descredited those memos thoroughly. The Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, NBC, L Times, and any other liberal slanted media organization in this country you care to pick - all of them have slammed the memos as forgeries.

I'm sorry, but if you can't objectively examine the evidence and admit they are forgeries, you are either:

1) Blinded utterly by your hatred for Bush, and thus incapable of rendering a competent decision regarding the election, or any opinion worthy of the bandwidth it occupies.

or:

2) Extremely dishonest, to the point of treasonous activity. Complicent in a knowing act of fraud, and also unworthy of any consideration here at all, except to act as a shining example of a Kerry Supporter, and what we can expect if he ever got elected.

Hey, you don't have to insult me because I brought up an argument.  Don't be like the other 2 empty-minded jerks in this thread who brought no proof so they insult me instead.  I didn't make any insults to you and I appreciate the same respect.  If you have those proof of the things you said and you have a link, show it.

I am sure that someone who knows how to use a word processor can type that letter in this day and age using M$.  The only thing that I am saying it is possible for someone to type up this type of document at that time.  Since the media itself doesn't have an in-depth article about 'word processing', I can show an article here:

http://www.stanford....s/wdprhist.html

It is someone's term paper on 'A Brief History of Word Processing' thru 1986.  If you read this article.  By the 1960's it is possible for someone to have a professionally typed letter like what was written at that time.
Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2004, 10:04:00 PM »

What do you know, they might be fake after all.

Yeah yeah, I guess I was wrong about the things I said.

http://shapeofdays.t...bm_selectr.html

Sorry, about that BenJeremy.  My bad.
Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2004, 12:37:00 AM »

biggrin.gif  Here

user posted image

And there's another memo as well.

user posted image
Logged

nemt

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1633
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2004, 07:53:00 AM »

I don't think the Texas Air National Guard would be using top of the line typewriters, even if the CBS documents were actually written on one.

As of today, no one has been able to recreate the documents using any typewriter ever built.
Logged

The unProfessional

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 679
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2004, 09:31:00 AM »

smile.gif
Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2004, 12:53:00 PM »

Unfortunately, Bush did not reveal his records to the public while he 'served' in the Alabama National Guard during  5/72-7/73.  So it leaves a lot of room for scrutiny and even forgeries.

The Texans for Truth offer a $50,000 reward for 'proof' of his military records at that time so I wouldn't be surprised another document would show up next week.

http://www.texansfor...com/reward.html
Logged

BenJeremy

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2004, 01:30:00 PM »

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 15 2004, 03:56 PM)
Unfortunately, Bush did not reveal his records to the public while he 'served' in the Alabama National Guard during  5/72-7/73.  So it leaves a lot of room for scrutiny.

On the other hand, the Texans for Truth actually have a $50,000 reward for the genuine documents:)

http://www.texansfor...com/reward.html

What, exactly is there to "scrutinize"?

QUOTE

scru·ti·ny  (skrtn-)
n. pl. scru·ti·nies
A close, careful examination or study. 


Kind of requires one to have something to look at, doesn't it? putting aside the forgeries and a few widely discredited "witnesses" with axes tto grind, or a flaming liberal streak, there has been nobody of value to come forward with any untoward tales of Bush's activities.

...and of course, payroll records have turned up (Where's my money, Texas Liberal loonies???)

Dispelling myths - an interesting read, but you'll read every sentence grating your teeth, muttering, lies, because you want to believe the worst of Bush. You'll believe the crap shovelled out by people like Kitty Kelley, merely because you want to believe it so bad, you are willing to ignore the truth.


To be honest, I don't believe the worst lies told about Kerry.... that he committed war atrocities. Sadly, however, those lies were told to us by John F. Kerry. To me, that's what matters, even today....

What's funny is that none of the Bush Bashers have an unkind thing to say about Clinton's unabashed draft dodging, but paint Bush as a dodger, though there are several interesting facts one should understand about his service. Read the following; read it with an open mind, if you dare.

QUOTE

Norman Turner Lt. Col. USAF Retired
2-tour Vietnam fighter pilot DeFuniak Springs, FL

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) open public letter to Washington Times
8/24/2004 - A Navy Vet

Letters to the Editor

'Bush and I were lieutenants'

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.

It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty  rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.

The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into non-flying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.

Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.

Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.

As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:

First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly - the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially.

Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.

Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt.  Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen - then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.

In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard Herndon, Va.


Anybody that claims National Guard service is a dodge is incredibly dishonest. In the midst of a Cold War, Bush's unit might have had the call to defend our nation against Soviet bombers. Vietnam was not the only enemy of the United States in 1972. Likewise, the Guard/Reserve units often found themselves on the front lines... and still do. Kerry himself was a NAVAL RESERVIST. One could say (and many have said) Kerry served light duty in 'nam aboard the USS Gridley, which would never have seen action, and volunteered for the Swift Boats before they were actually put into action, with the assumption he never would have seen any action (Big "Doh!" on that one if true, eh?).

So if "scrutiny" is your watchword, it cuts both ways.

I think both men served honorably. I may question Kerry's Purple Hearts (reminds me of an episode of MASH where Major Burns gets a medal for catching an eggshell fragment during an artillery attack), but he used the system to its fullest - no shame in that.

The question then becomes what those men did AFTER the service that might have endangered others lives or lengthened the war. If all Bush did was get drunk and party, he did nothing to cause harm to POWs in Vietnam. Kerry, on the other hand, gave testimony that was outright lies, and those lies were used as propoganda to support America's enemies and used to coerce and torture POWs by Vietnamese.  This is not disputed, at all... ignoring all else, this is something no veteran should forgive.

Logged

The unProfessional

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 679
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2004, 03:02:00 PM »

How can one open him/herself up for FORGERIES?  That doesn't make any sense.
Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2004, 04:04:00 PM »

You know that by now I am anti-bush.  However, I feel that the Truth is paramount above all else, even if seems to hurt Kerry's creditability.  

Unfortunately, most of the political stuff we watch out there are full of half truth's.  After watching things like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Arnie's speech and said to myself 'wow, sounds very conviencing.'  I realized later that some of the stuff they said is not true.  So, some of the stuff they have said is worthy of bringing to discussion and others best not to talk about it.

But in this race for the presidency, it seems that both the Democrats and Republicans see who can smear the other candidate better.  I don't believe in that and sometimes you have to question, 'why do they do an underhanded thing like that?'  Instead talking about the issues that we care about which matters us, we have to talk about things like 'This Bush document is fake' or 'Those Swiftboat Veteran for lies...'

Believe it or not, not all things in moveon.org are BS.  It talks about a vigil of 1,000 deaths in Iraq, and how partisan Foxnews is.  I don't think there's any lies about that.  There are other things in moveon.org's film on Bush's reason on War in Iraq.  Like I said, that film has some things that can be debated about and some best to not talk about.

It seems to me that you, BenJeremy, think people liberals voting for Kerry will swallow all the 'Lies' the democrats can give you (AKA. far left Liberals.)  I don't know, some people probably do and others don't.  But it does not give you or any other pro-bush people the right to 'label' liberals like me as loonies, idiots, etc...  If you have read thru this thread you know what I mean.  Although sometimes anti-bush people wouldn't abide by these rules and sometimes I am guilty of it too.  But I usually try to be fair to the other person and have an honest debate and not put someone else down just to make themselves look good.  That is what Bush and Kerry is doing to each other, but I think (at least I hope) that we are better than that.

As for your letter in the bottom of concerning of George Bush's service, I think most anti-bush people probably won't read it because of it but I will read it anyway.  But I will ignore all the anti-kerry stuff and read about Bush.  Well, I don't have any questions about what he did in Texas and he said why he 'deserted' in Alabama.  I mean why Bush himself has tell us and leave this guy to do it?  By Bush himself not telling us, I feel that he has something to hide and the news Media will hound him for it.  I mean that the Kerry Campagain had to dodge questions about his Vietnam service until he was forced to reveal the truth.

What I am saying below is left open for debate, and might or might not be true.  As for Kerry speaking against the war after his Tour Duty.  If I understand it, Kerry was pissed off about the war because one of his friend died.  That is the reason why he spoke out.  He was speaking out why are we fighting the war in Vietnam.  Although his more controversal speech about what US soldiers did to the vietnamese people was more about a few apples like what happened in Abu Grabib.  I don't think Kerry said anything bad about most of the Soldiers who have served honorably, although most of the veterans thinks otherwise.  Like I said, don't flame me, but to leave for open debate.
Logged

The unProfessional

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 679
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2004, 05:08:00 PM »

QUOTE

Believe it or not, not all things in moveon.org are BS. It talks about a vigil of 1,000 deaths in Iraq, and how partisan Foxnews is


Exactly... even if you do find truths on moveon.org, they're entirely one-sided.  For that reason, it's a lousy source.  If you find foxnews to be a bad source of news, you should feel the same way about moveon.org.  By slandering foxnews for being partisan, moveon.org is hypocritical.  Notice they say nothing about CNN, NY times, Wash. Post, etc.  Is that not also partisan?
Logged

BenJeremy

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5645
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2004, 06:31:00 PM »

QUOTE

John Kerry enlisted in the Navy and signed an Officer Candidate Agreement on February 18, 1966.

This agreement called for the Candidate to:

-- Par 3 to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty.

-- Par 4 agrees that on completion of active duty, he will remain for Service in the Ready Reserve for a period which when added to his active duty will total 5 years. Upon completion of 5 years of satisfactory service on active duty and in the Ready Reserve he will be eligible to transfer to the Standby Reserve for the remaining portion of his service obligation.

--Par 5 the candidate understands that the provisions of law require satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, unless relieved of such participation by competent authority or as provided by law. Such participation may be satisfied annually by not less 48 drills and not more than 17days active duty for training.

Lt. John Forbes Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve on 3 January 1970. He wasn't transferred to inactive standby status until 1 July 1972, then Honorably Discharged on 16 February 1978.

Where was Lt. Kerry during the18 months from 1970 to 1972?

Did he attend the required drills and active duty that he agreed to? Was he AWOL or did he violate his agreed commitment on accepting a commission as an officer in the service of the United States.

We do know that he made an unauthorized trip to Paris in June of 1970 to meet with Madam Win Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG) -- the political wing of the Vietcong -- and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the peace talks-- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953."



Dan Rather has cemented himself into history as a major tool, with his latest stunt.... this whole "answer the charges" crap, without a single scrap of legitimate evidence to support it, is worse than poor journalism, and I hope the American public realizes the contempt the Democrats have for their intelligence as a result of this.
Logged

pug_ster

  • Archived User
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 804
"60 Minutes" Documents On Bush Might Be Fake
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2004, 06:37:00 PM »

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 16 2004, 01:11 AM)
Quick note...



Exactly... even if you do find truths on moveon.org, they're entirely one-sided.  For that reason, it's a lousy source.  If you find foxnews to be a bad source of news, you should feel the same way about moveon.org.  By slandering foxnews for being partisan, moveon.org is hypocritical.  Notice they say nothing about CNN, NY times, Wash. Post, etc.  Is that not also partisan?

Exactly, some repugs think that everything in moveon.org are BS.  The thing that differentiates you and I are our partisan views otherwise we won't have anything to discuss.  There's a difference between cnn and moveon.org.  CNN and Foxnews delivers news truthfully too but in a partisan way, though I can't say the same for some of their commentaries.  Whereas some of the stuff in moveon.org start getting in the BS level.

Just that in this day and age in the political news that you want to hear, you have to start filtering out the BS from the partisan truth.  It is especially true about the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates talking about each other.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5