Draginol Draginol

Latest on the battle of the Bush memos

▼

Latest on the battle of the Bush memos

CBS duped?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12550_Steyn-_CBS_Falls_for_Fake_Memo
from JoeUser Forums

At this points, anyone even remotely interested in this story who is on-line has seen the compelling evidence that the memos CBS used to prove that Bush was getting special treatment in the National Guard were in fact forged.

Here's an animated GIF from LGF that shows the CBS received memo vs. a 2004 Windows XP MS Word document with all the default settings.  The evidence is pretty conclusive. You can't even get this close using a different word processor let alone using a type writer (regardless of what imagined abilities of some magical type writer from 1973, it still wouldn't look this exact).

The question is, how long will CBS stick to its guns when it's obvious the documents are a hoax?

politics
26,511 views 88 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
I try avoid bigots when I can.


I'd steer clear of mirrors, then, you sanctimonious sack o' shit. And I love it when an Anonymous User says something "for the record."

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
First of all, did I even mention John Kerry? No. Don't assume that just because I have an obvious distaste for George W. Bush, that I then must automatically love Mr. Kerry. Unfortunately,what happens in this country, is people that see themselves as Republicans, feel compelled to support their Rep. nominee, regardless of whether or not they truly like him. The same is true for Democratic folks. This is not all inclusive, of course, yet it is widespread. So just because John Kerry is the Dem. nominee, and yes I will probably vote for him, I will do so because the other choice (G.W.B.) is a complete moron, an embarrassment to this country, and clearly not a "leader". Furthermore, sticking to the mentioned topics is prefered, instead of trying to shift focus by launching personal attacks on say, John Kerry. I do not need to justify or argue the case for Kerry, and by you making a comparison between Bush and he, once again reinforces what I was saying in the first place. Thank you.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I really hate to break it to you "kingbee" But you and a lot of other people have missed a VERY important fact. "If " and I stress IF he did not complete his military service he WOULD NOT have gotten a honorable discharge from the US NAVY! No way, "no" how! I don't care how important his daddy was/is, there's no way around that"

Bullshit! I know somebody who was discharged (honorably) from the U.S. Military because they had a skin disorder that could not be treated, and which shaving only caused a more severe condition, to a point where he was then honorably discharged. Exceptions can always be made... especially for families with as much pull and influence as the Bush family. I am not saying it was done for Bush, I am just saying that you shouldn't be so sure of yourself, and jump to conclusions.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, let me apologize for going overboard there just a tad. Not very PC. True, but not very PC. I'll try to do better, use asterisks or something.

Bullshit! I know somebody who was discharged (honorably) from the U.S. Military because they had a skin disorder that could not be treated, and which shaving only caused a more severe condition, to a point where he was then honorably discharged.


HUH? This is somehow pertinent? Without going through a specific and documented proceeding (in the case of your friend, a fitness-for-duty evaluation), I'm not aware anyone can be honorably discharged without having satisfactorily discharged his duty.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's possible that Bush pulled some strings, but until some actual proof is provided, the claim is no more valid than any other wacky accusation thrown at any of the candidates.
Reply #56 from PolMach Forums Top
Good bye, I will not be here again. I try avoid bigots when I can.


Thank Allah, Thank Buddha, and Thank God, with your supposedly insightful rhetoric gone, the JU community will be a better place for it.

For the record I am neither Republican nor Democrat, or even a Independent, I am a human being and as such I will decide what I want to do or who I want to vote for, such as the rest of the JU Community.
Reply #57 from PolMach Forums Top
Still the fake memos taint whatever image the DNC was trying to portray of George Bush, and will only lead to it not being accepted for the Fifth time, because not everything that happened thirty years ago is relevant to the present day.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
people that see themselves as Republicans, feel compelled to support their Rep. nominee, regardless of whether or not they truly like him.


This is a false & facetious statement, not to mention insulting. There are any number of issues on which Mr. Bush and I hold differing views. Some of my views are closer to John Soros than Mr. Bush. I'm willing to bet most Republicans have one or more disagreements with Mr. Bush. I've simply determined that on the issues that matter most to me, I'm more in agreement with Mr. Bush than I am with Mr. Kerry, and I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Kerry has no core principles upon which he might base his decisions, giving me no idea what he might do as President. I can't predict with certainty what Mr. Bush will do, unforeseen events being by definition "unforeseen," but at least I have some basis for guessing. Not so with Mr. Kerry.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

"in other words youre claiming infantrymen who patrolled free fire zones or were provided with weapons considered inappropriate for use in promixity to civilian populations--which would mean just about such veterans--shouldnt be be left alone with children. since you brought it up, ill let you warn the public."

I didn't bring it up, Kerry did, when he returned from zealously commiting such and only then began protesting it to further his political career. Yes, I would certainly have a problem with anyone of such opportunistic morality caring for children.

If you want to believe that the average Vietnam veteran did the things that Kerry did, fine, but I have known many that didn't. He admits it, did it without protest, and now seeks to use it as a sign of superior character.

No, thanks, I'll take a draft dodger over a sociopathic opportunist anyday.

Reply #60 from PolMach Forums Top
If the second quote is true "landen81" CBS has done "more" damage to John Kerry than to GW Bush! And the swift boat vets have "yet" to be proven as liars.GW is no more evil than Sen. Kerry. And "please" don't call my commander-in-chief a "coward"!


Liar-and-thief is the proper term unless you're referring to Gore. The vets for Bush have been proven liars through records that have been released and, not to mention, they don't just hand out purple hearts. Anyways, I prefer an intellectual who wants what is right for this country than a puppet w/out a brain who benefited financially and in the polls from the 9/11 attack and views it as an achievement rather than a travesty. He then alienates the rest of the world by attacking an innocent country for oil thus creating more anti-American terrorists. You know all of this yet you hold this Bush up as such a great president. I just don’t get it! Explain to me why such a failure obtains all of this praise. Any Bush supporter, please explain this to me!
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
The PCMAG article misses the point.

In theory, the document could have been created with a state of the art typewriter in the 1970s using special settings. On the other hand, it has been duplicated nearly effortlessly by multiple people using default MS Word settings.
Reply #62 from PolMach Forums Top
He then alienates the rest of the world by attacking an innocent country for oil thus creating more anti-American terrorists.


If Saddam is innocent than Hitler must have been a Saint, and Pol Pot the second coming of Christ, and Stalin was God on Earth.
Reply #63 from PolMach Forums Top

If Saddam is innocent than Hitler must have been a Saint, and Pol Pot the second coming of Christ, and Stalin was God on Earth.


You'll have to explain why Saddam is so bad. I've listened to right-wing radio personality Michael Savage discuss that Saddam should be placed back in control of Iraq because he was able to supress and kill off these Muslim extremist terrorists.
Reply #64 from PolMach Forums Top
Savage may have a good point with that, but Saddam would also kill off Kurds, and others who he just did not like.
Reply #65 from PolMach Forums Top
Savage may have a good point with that, but Saddam would also kill off Kurds, and others who he just did not like.


As an American I feel that the lives of our troops are more important than those Kurds and others that Saddam has killed off. To add to that, Bush has spent so much of our tax dollars and social security to attack this country for WMDs that weren't there when he should have been focusing on Osama. But since the Bin Laden's are friends of the family, I guess it's okay to forget about the 3,000+ who died on 9/11 and focus on the guy who shot his daddy. Everything W has done has been for personal gain. Screw the rest of America, He's here for himself and his rich friends.
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #60 By: landen81 - 9/12/2004 8:11:58 PM
If the second quote is true "landen81" CBS has done "more" damage to John Kerry than to GW Bush! And the swift boat vets have "yet" to be proven as liars.GW is no more evil than Sen. Kerry. And "please" don't call my commander-in-chief a "coward"!


Liar-and-thief is the proper term unless you're referring to Gore. The vets for Bush have been proven liars through records that have been released and, not to mention, they don't just hand out purple hearts. Anyways, I prefer an intellectual who wants what is right for this country than a puppet w/out a brain who benefited financially and in the polls from the 9/11 attack and views it as an achievement rather than a travesty. He then alienates the rest of the world by attacking an innocent country for oil thus creating more anti-American terrorists. You know all of this yet you hold this Bush up as such a great president. I just don’t get it! Explain to me why such a failure obtains all of this praise. Any Bush supporter, please explain this to me!


You know like it or NOT he's still YOUR commander in chief also! At least until Nov that is! If he signs a law and you don't obey it you'll go to "jail"
I'm getting "REAL' tired of you left-wing liberal democrats whining about GW. He DID NOT steal your election from Gore! Gore himself blew it with his gun control BS. And just what records are you reffering to on the Swift boat vets? Can you provide a link? And as shown in another thread we DID NOT go to war for oil! And one last thing before I go. SHOW me PROOF that he personally benefited financially from 9/11. And please don't use stuff from the DNC's site. If not then your just another left-wing liberal democratic blow-hard!
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
You'll have to explain why Saddam is so bad.

We're talking about 400,000 or so people. They are still excavating mass graves in Iraq. Almost a half million people. People look at Ted Bundy as a monster. You have to ask how someone like that was "so bad"? Cretin...

What people fail to realize is that there were people during WW2 that were saying the same thing. How Europe wasn't worth the lives of American troops, and even once we found out that Hitler had killed 11 million or so Jews and other minorities, there were STILL holdouts that claimed that it was none of our business. The worst of them tried to perpetuate the rumor that there was no holocaust and hold out the claim to this day.

I personally find the opinion disgusting, and think that the opinions of such sick folks are meaningless, since they aren't human enough to take part in Democracy. Thenk God so few people listen to their idiocy.

Reply #68 from PolMach Forums Top
You know like it or NOT he's still YOUR commander in chief also! At least until Nov that is! If he signs a law and you don't obey it you'll go to "jail" I'm getting "REAL' tired of you left-wing liberal democrats whining about GW. He DID NOT steal your election from Gore! Gore himself blew it with his gun control BS. And just what records are you reffering to on the Swift boat vets? Can you provide a link? And as shown in another thread we DID NOT go to war for oil! And one last thing before I go. SHOW me PROOF that he personally benefited financially from 9/11. And please don't use stuff from the DNC's site. If not then your just another left-wing liberal democratic blow-hard!


I am simply a left-leaning Centrist who knows better. Also I don't get your whole "If he signs a law and you don't obey it you'll go to "jail"" sentance. Are you saying that I'm an evil-doer simply because I'm expressing my right to freedom of speech? As for Gore, after the election, they had 2 recounts in Florida and it was coming closer and closer to Gore winning but Bush has his daddy's friends in the Supreme court block the third request for recount. A few newspapers had looked into it later on and found that Gore in fact won Florida.

Swift Boat Vets Links
Link - WASHINGTON POST
Link - USA TODAY
Link - Document

As for the Bush family and the Bin Laden family benefitting financially from 9/11. They are both investors in the Carlyle Group which is one of the nation's largest defense contractors. Now, 9/11 gave Bush the power to wage war on whoever without question and he did. The Bush administration spread lies and repeated them over and over again to get the country to believe that Iraq had WMDs and were in cohoots with Bin Laden. Link

P.S. I was a registered Republican in 2000. I voted for McCain (another vet smeared by the Swift Boat Vets) in the primaries. Bush's actions have changed my stance in last 4 years.
Reply #69 from PolMach Forums Top
We're talking about 400,000 or so people. They are still excavating mass graves in Iraq. Almost a half million people. People look at Ted Bundy as a monster. You have to ask how someone like that was "so bad"? Cretin...
What people fail to realize is that there were people during WW2 that were saying the same thing. How Europe wasn't worth the lives of American troops, and even once we found out that Hitler had killed 11 million or so Jews and other minorities, there were STILL holdouts that claimed that it was none of our business. The worst of them tried to perpetuate the rumor that there was no holocaust and hold out the claim to this day.
I personally find the opinion disgusting, and think that the opinions of such sick folks are meaningless, since they aren't human enough to take part in Democracy. Thenk God so few people listen to their idiocy.


Cretin!? it was a simple question. Thank you for clearing that up but please hold the name calling. I never said I wasn't glad that Saddam was removed from power. I am glad. However it was at a huge loss for us. If only we had gotten the rest of the world to help us remove Saddam without much loss of life. I'm just saying we could have done a better job than all out war and death of our troops and their civilians.
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am simply a left-leaning Centrist who knows better. Also I don't get your whole "If he signs a law and you don't obey it you'll go to "jail"" sentance. Are you saying that I'm an evil-doer simply because I'm expressing my right to freedom of speech? As for Gore, after the election, they had 2 recounts in Florida and it was coming closer and closer to Gore winning but Bush has his daddy's friends in the Supreme court block the third request for recount. A few newspapers had looked into it later on and found that Gore in fact won Florida.

Swift Boat Vets Links
Link - WASHINGTON POST
Link - USA TODAY
Link - Document

As for the Bush family and the Bin Laden family benefitting financially from 9/11. They are both investors in the Carlyle Group which is one of the nation's largest defense contractors. Now, 9/11 gave Bush the power to wage war on whoever without question and he did. The Bush administration spread lies and repeated them over and over again to get the country to believe that Iraq had WMDs and were in cohoots with Bin Laden.

No matter what you SAY or DO he is STILL your President, like it or not! I really don't care if you do or not. There was 3 counts in FL and Gore LOST ALL 3 of them! He was only ever close on the "first" recount! Bush's lead grew larger with the rest. Now as to your links.
I believe I said no democratic propaganda!
1.) The Washington Post is one of the "most" democrat papers going (strike 1)
2.) You had better go back and "reread" the USA today article. The gist of the article says "nothing about the SBV lying (strike 2)
3.) Your "document" has "already" been contested and found wanting by the person who "supposedly" wrote it. (strike 3, Your OUT!!!)




2000 Election Chronology
Tuesday, Nov. 7—Election Day. Pundits have predicted a tight race between Texas governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, but few expect one of the closest elections in U.S. history. By early evening, it's clear the election hinges on Florida.
Wednesday, Nov. 8—Gore calls Bush at approximately 3 A.M. to concede, but retracts the concession shortly after, because Bush's razor-slim lead prompts an automatic recount. He leads Gore by about 1,210 votes out of nearly 6 million cast in Florida. Meanwhile Gore leads in both the national popular count and the electoral college.
An unusual amount of votes for third-party candidates in Palm Beach County leads to disputes over the county's “butterfly ballots.” A number of ballots in other counties are disqualified because the chad—the small piece of paper punched out of punch-card ballots—did not fully detach from the ballot.
Thursday, Nov. 9—Gore's camp requests a hand recount of the approximately 1.8 million ballots cast in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia counties, Democratic strongholds.
Friday, Nov. 10—Florida's automatic recount is completed. The Associated Press reports that Bush has retained his lead but only by 327 votes.
Saturday, Nov. 11—The Bush team, led by former secretary of state James Baker, files suit in federal court to block Gore's request for a hand recount.
Monday, Nov. 13—Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris announces she will not extend the Nov. 14 deadline for the submission of all state results, excluding absentee ballots from overseas.
A federal judge in Miami rejects Bush's efforts to halt manual recounts. Bush appeals the decision.
Tuesday, Nov. 14—Harris postpones certification of the state's votes until Nov. 15, so Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties have time to prepare an explanation of why they should hand count their ballots.
Wednesday, Nov. 15—Harris decides that no county offered adequate evidence to justify further hand recounts.
Florida Supreme Court denies a request from Harris to stop the hand recounts. Certification is again postponed.
Thursday, Nov. 16—Bush's lawyers present written arguments to the U.S. federal appeals court in Atlanta to end the manual recounts. Gore's team files a counter motion.
Friday, Nov. 17—The Florida Supreme Court blocks Harris from certifying election until it rules on the Democrats' motion to include hand recounts.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denies the Republicans' motion to stop manual recounts on constitutional grounds.
Saturday, Nov. 18—With a tally of absentee ballots, uncertified count has Bush ahead of Gore by 930 votes.
Tuesday, Nov. 21—Florida Supreme Court rules that results of hand counts of ballots in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Broward counties must be included in the vote tally if the counts are completed by Nov. 26.
Sunday, Nov. 26—Harris certifies Bush as the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, with a 537-vote lead over Gore. Gore pledges to challenge certification in court. The tally does not include results from Palm Beach County, which finished its hand recount hours after the deadline.
Monday, Nov. 27—Gore contests the Florida results in a circuit court in Tallahassee.
Wednesday, Nov. 29—Leon County Circuit Court judge N. Sanders Sauls orders that all ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties be sent to Tallahassee for a hearing on whether the hand count, which was incomplete at the time of the court-ordered Nov. 26 deadline, should be included in the final vote tally.
Thursday, Nov. 30—Florida lawmakers, voting along party lines, recommend holding a special session to name the state's 25 electors if the election dispute is not resolved by Dec. 12, six days before the electoral college meets.
Friday, Dec. 1—The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the Florida Supreme Court acted properly when it forced the Florida secretary of state to accept manual recounts submitted after the legal deadline.
The Florida Supreme Court denies Gore's appeal to immediately begin recounting ballots and rejects motion filed by some Palm Beach County citizens who questioned the integrity of the “butterfly ballot.”
Gore requests a count of approximately 14,000 “undervotes” from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties.
Monday, Dec. 4—Judge Sauls rejects Gore’s contest of the election results, saying the vice president failed to prove that hand recounts would have altered the results. Gore appeals to the Florida Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court asks Florida Supreme Court to explain why it ordered Harris to accept results submitted after the Nov. 14 deadline mandated by state law, thus returning the case to Tallahassee.
Thursday, Dec. 7—Gore's legal team appeals Sauls's ruling. Bush's lawyers argue that the decision should stand.
Friday, Dec. 8—The Florida Supreme Court, ruling on Gore's appeal, orders manual recounts in counties with large numbers of undervotes. Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and seeks injunction to stop recounts.
In two separate lawsuits, Leon County Circuit Court judges refuse to throw out absentee ballots from Seminole and Martin counties that had been disputed by Gore.
Saturday, Dec. 9—The U.S. Supreme Court votes 5–4 to halt the hand recounts and sets a hearing for Dec. 11.
Florida Supreme Court hears appeal on whether absentee ballots in Martin and Seminole counties should be counted.
Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.”
Wednesday, Dec. 13—In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out.
In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.
Monday, Dec. 18—Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.
Wednesday, Jan. 5—Congress meets to tally electoral college results.
Saturday, Jan. 20—George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
And BTW no your not an evil person for speaking your mind. No matter how "wrong" or misguided it is! I mean after all this is America ain't it???
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey "bakerstreet" lets boil it down a bit further shall we" Who would you rather have a beer with in or out of a bar? Personally I'd pick GW "anyday".


Ahhh yes, and that's what really matters in a president isn't it? Good to see you are evaluating the subject objectively.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
ive been advocating that for several years.


What a surprise...
Reply #74 from PolMach Forums Top
Landen81

I voted for McCain (another vet smeared by the Swift Boat Vets) in the primaries.


WOW, That's news.... McCain was smeared by the SBV? If your referring to the attack that was done on McCain in 2000, then open your mind man. The Kerry Camp only released 30 seconds of that debate. Why? Because the next five minutes destroys Kerry's claims. Bill O'Riely read the transcript for the rest of the debate, (that's interesting because the debate film was missing from the news vault of the company, Yet Kerry had it?), for the next 5 minutes Bush and McCain talked about the North Carolina guy who had made the commercial in question (who has no connection to the SBV). This same guy also attacked Bush Sr. records too. By the end of the conversation both McCain and Bush was in agreement that this man had nothing to do with the Campaign. That is the reason McCain had Kerry pull his attack ad. It is interesting how people can edit film to meet their agenda.

A few newspapers had looked into it later on and found that Gore in fact won Florida.


How many times does this have to be put to sleep????? ARRGH..... Out of the nine counts done by the newspaper organizations (CNN, US today and others) only one time did Gore Win. That one time was only because the most liberal method was used. (i.e. All discarded votes counted to gore (Bush discards not counted), people who voted twice, non-punched for Gore also. etc...) Even the last method used to count only the democratic areas (the one shot down by the Supreme Court as illegal) showed Bush actually widening the lead.

Have you been so dooped to still believe that deprival? You say you were an independent. Then think like one and stop just chanting the Democratic party line and look at the blatant lies or half information coming from the Kerry Camp. Every day I wake up and see a new one. The only way Kerry wins a debates is that he strait out lies in the middle of it. Stunning his opponent, forcing the opponent to waste his time correcting Kerry.
Ten to one says he does the tactic again. One news program I ssen two weeks ago had two of his past opponents stating just that.

I’m an Independent and I don’t like Bush, but I’ve seen so much sleaze coming from Kerry starting with his baby killer testimony (sworn by in Congress) to saying Bush has personally attacked his war record (when has he said that?) and about 30 years of being the poster child for worst things people hate about politicians.

I’ve become an ABK Anybody But Kerry.

PS. Get new links man, because the ones you had nothing to do with the subject.

Thats My Two Cents
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #72 By: Abe Cubbage - 9/13/2004 2:12:56 AM
Hey "bakerstreet" lets boil it down a bit further shall we" Who would you rather have a beer with in or out of a bar? Personally I'd pick GW "anyday".


Ahhh yes, and that's what really matters in a president isn't it? Good to see you are evaluating the subject objectively.


No, that's not what REALLY matters! But to vote for someone as president you should at least "like" the person, right? That's how I determine if I like the person.It's not used for purposes of weather or not he'll get my vote.