| Author |
Message |
    
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:31 am: |     |
I have finally cracked the Strawberry code involving "boring"
He posts "boring" in lieu of admitting he may have been wrong on a topic. So take heart everyone, Straws "boring"'s are actually a veiled admission of error. Which, in the long run, is better than nothingq
Alls Well That Ends Well. Playing through March 7. info at http://www.hometown.aol.com/theatr1010/ |
Grateful Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1943
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
boring
Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind.
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 242
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
Nohero...The link you posted takes you to wrong article. Here is the entire article and the link.. Your post is just another attempt to provide a sound bite and not the entire story.
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=8528
Bush’s War Stories Simply Don’t Fly
by Joe Conason
George W. Bush lied about his military service record. The lie can be found in his own 1999 campaign autobiography (as written by Karen Hughes), where he dramatically describes his experience as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
On page 34 of A Charge to Keep, Mr. Bush claims that, after learning to fly the F-102 fighter jet, he was turned down for Vietnam duty because "had not logged enough flight hours" to qualify for a combat assignment. Before going on to recall the "challenging moments" that involved close formation drills at night during poor weather, he adds: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years."
In light of what journalists and other researchers have learned since the publication of Mr. Bush’s book, his account is unmistakably fraudulent.
The issue is again relevant because Michael Moore, the author and filmmaker who supports Wesley Clark’s Presidential campaign, recently impugned the President as a "deserter." During the final Democratic Presidential debate in New Hampshire, moderator Peter Jennings called Mr. Moore’s statement "a reckless charge not supported by the facts," and demanded that General Clark repudiate his celebrity backer.
As the ABC newsman may (or, more likely, may not) know, the facts about the President’s National Guard stint are complex, disputed and, in many respects, unflattering. To call him a "deserter" was wrong and inflammatory, even if Mr. Moore was joking, as he now insists. Although Mr. Bush may well have been absent without leave, he was never prosecuted for that offense, let alone desertion, and he eventually received an honorable discharge. But to suggest that the Bush record is beyond criticism, as Mr. Jennings did, is both misleading and biased. That bias reflects an enduring double standard on this topic that has protected Mr. Bush ever since he first declared his Presidential candidacy.
The facts, established by Boston Globe reporter Walter Robinson in 2000, explode the lyrical flights of fancy penned by Ms. Hughes.
George W. Bush graduated from Yale in June 1968. After his father’s influential friends contacted Texas Air National Guard officials, they awarded young George a safe berth in Houston’s famed "champagne unit," where sons of the Texas elite avoided Vietnam. His very special treatment included instant admission to flight training and an extraordinary commission as a second lieutenant. According to his former superiors, Mr. Bush performed admirably as a pilot while patrolling the coastal waters of the United States.
But in May 1972, only 22 months after he completed pilot training, he stopped flying. In August 1972, he failed to show up for his annual physical examination and was automatically grounded. According to The Times of London, a conservative newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, Mr. Bush’s campaign spokesman said he knew that he would be suspended if he missed that physical.
He never flew a military aircraft again (or not until his flight-suit photo op last spring, when he briefly took the controls of an S-3B Viking jet before landing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln). Instead, he left his Guard unit in Houston and went to Alabama to work in a Republican Senate campaign. He claims to have continued to serve in an Alabama Guard unit, but there is no evidence to support that assertion, and much contradictory evidence. The commanding officer of the Alabama Guard Unit told the Boston Globe that Mr. Bush never showed up for duty there. Nor is there any evidence that he sought duty in Vietnam.
In fact, there is considerable evidence that Mr. Bush skipped all duty for a full year, until April 1973. At that point, his two superior officers in Houston noted in writing in an official document: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report." They erroneously believed that he had been completing his duty in Alabama. Yet he somehow received an honorable discharge eight months before he completed his six-year commitment so that he could begin attending Harvard Business School.
As the Globe noted, the "champagne unit" and others like it back then displayed "a tendency to excuse shirking by those with political connections."
So Mr. Bush’s claim that he "continued flying with my unit for the next several years" is an unabashed falsehood. Yet the spotty coverage of his military record in the mainstream press—aside from the Globe investigation and similar efforts in the Dallas Morning News and the Los Angeles Times—elided that lie. Compare his soft treatment with the media scourging of Bill Clinton, who was held accountable during the 1992 campaign for every word he uttered about his draft record.
What the Jennings episode validates is not Mr. Bush’s strange military career, but the Bush method of press management. Treat journalists like vassals, with nicknames, cheek-pinching and—whenever they forget their place momentarily—sneering disdain. It works brilliantly.
------------------------------------------------
I would think that you would have to read the book to determine at what point in time President Bush made the statement, "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years."
You can't tell from this context. The bottom line is that this is not an issue; he was not AWOL as the DNC leadership has stated.
Perhaps the full disclosure should have been handled differently.
President Bush served, he may have not served in the same capacity as Kerry, but he did serve. My Dad was in the National Guard; do I think he is a coward? No not at all.
Do I think that men and women that have been protecting our coastline for year are cowards?
Do I think the men and women that are flying air patrol in our airspace right now are cowards?
NO I DON”T.
The DNC Leadership is just too weak to admit that they want to say that President Bush was a coward and his father and powerful friends got him out of going to war. So instead of saying it themselves they have these lower tier members calling into radio shows and TV shows.
They are running a legit war hero in Kerry; a big shift from Clinton but the way to capitalize it is not by insulting and disrespecting the President. It is by allowing Kerry to show leadership and to gain the respect of the armed forces and the American public.
But instead the DNC say he was AWOL and then they don’t even have the good manners to say they were wrong.
The day the DNC made this statement is the day I know that they were in trouble.
They started to sling the mud first.
The DNC has many issues to go head to head with Bush, many people are upset with his direction but to attack on this issue and leave so many real issues on the table shows me that the DNC and Kerry are not ready to lead our nation. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 367
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
Be aware of this fact. Get to know this truth. Over 90% of the people who bring you your news every morning in The New York Times, USA Today and your local newspaper will vote for John Kerry in this year's presidential election. Most of these people will be using that "Democrats good; Bush bad" template for their coverage.
Former ABC news correspondent Peter Collins pretty well sums things up. There is a working template that the mainstream Washington and DC press corps is using to formulate its coverage of both the war on terror and the presidential campaign. That template is summed up in four words: “Democrats good. Bush bad."
If there is a news story out there that can make George Bush look bad, the media is going to pursue that story to the end. If there's a story that makes Democrats look good, the media will go for it.
The National Guard story had the potential (though unfulfilled) to make Bush look bad ... so the press rode it for all it was worth. The al-Zaqawi memo had the potential of making Bush look good. It was ignored.
The al-Zaqawi memo? What's that?
Oh, didn’t you folks know that about one week ago U.S. intelligence operatives uncovered a memo from a leading terrorist bemoaning the level of American success in Iraq?
The memo was from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the world's most wanted Islamic terrorists today. Al-Zarqawi was exhorting Al Qaeda to promote a Sunni - Shiite civil war in Iraq, the only way he sees to turn around the American success in Iraq.
"American success in Iraq!"
We're winning! That's news, isn't it? A leading Islamic terrorist says that the United States is "suffocating" the jihad in the Middle East! Isn't that just what we went over there to do? Don't you think that's news?
Apparently it's not.
|
Grateful Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Nohero really comes off looking quite silly.
Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2881
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Gee, Sylad, you started it with your question, and the article shows that President Bush is the source of his own problems on the National Guard issue.
By the way, I checked and the link I posted went to the exact same article. But thanks for the false accusation.
Now, all I need is for Straw to threaten to kick me in the teeth and tell me to leave town.
Let the rest of us know when you boys get your next set of talking points from the RNC! |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 368
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
Let's not leave this discussion without addressing John Kerry's little bimbo eruption last week. This is a story that was largely ignored by the mainstream political press. Why?
Well, turn the clock back to 1992 to a rumor of an affair George H.W. Bush, who was running for reelection. The media jumped on that story like white on rice. A CNN reporter even confronted Bush with the allegation as he was hosting the Israeli Prime Minister in his office.
The media grilled George H.W. Bush over claims of infidelity in 1992. Now, in contrast they won’t run the story about a Kerry affair even if someone produced photographs. So, you have to ask yourself whether or not the media has a different standard for Republicans and Democrats. Duh!
Let's just take one example here. Joe Conason wrote a story in Salon last week about the alleged Kerry affair. Conason wrote "But the kind of proof usually required by national news organizations isn't what Drudge needs in order to put innuendo into circulation."
So I take it that Joe Conason pursues a high standard before he puts innuendo into circulation? Right? Wrong!
Back to the 1992 rumors about Bush 38. Back then Conason wrote a magazine article entitled "1,000 Reasons Not to Vote for George Bush." Reason number one was "He cheats on his wife."
You get the picture here, don't you? Can you all say Double Standard!
|
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 369
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
The Real Story About This Election?
The Media Treatment! |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 370
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:56 am: | |
I wonder who Al Qaeda wants for POTUS? |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 371
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Anybody But Bush! |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 372
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
If Kerry is so great, why did it take so long for him to emerge from the pack?
I propose ballots include ABB, and Kerry finishes a distant third in this race. |
Grateful Straw
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1945
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:03 pm: | |
POOR NOHERO,
LOST IN A SEA OF MEN..
Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Cowboy, the New Jersey primary, for example, is in June. What is so "late" about emerging from the pack in January? That's what primaries are for. Time was, the candidate wasn't decided until well into the convention!
Or did they just feed that into the chip... |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 243
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
Nohero...I tried your link again and got an article that was published today, the article about Bush was published on 2/2. I guess there must be a problem with my version of IE.
I was not accusing you, I was informing you. My only accusation is in regards to posting sound bites and not the entire article.
My point is that you can't tell from the article when he made the statement about flying with his unit.
Regardless, I am not providing talking point from the RNC, what I post is my view based on my research of the issues.
Any time you want to debate and or inform people about the issues and agenda of the men that are running for President I am ready. But if you want to sling mud I am sure that the DNC can use your help. |
Cowboy
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 380
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
For tom:
Based on the evidentiary standards created by the Democrats over the Bush military records story, I hereby proclaim that Kerry is an adulterer. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4693
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
What evidence with Bush? He withheld the records for years. If he had come clean earlier there never would have been a controversy worth mentioning. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 537
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
the Cowboy writes:
quote:Back to the 1992 rumors about Bush 38. Back then Conason wrote a magazine article entitled "1,000 Reasons Not to Vote for George Bush." Reason number one was "He cheats on his wife."
Back then, I read Spy every month (I'll bet Cowboy has never read even one issue), and I remember the issue well. Don't remember Joe Conason writing that list, however. Turns out the reason I don't remember it, is because he didn't write the list, the editors of Spy did.
Conason wrote an investigative piece in that issue on the GHWB infidelity rumors and concluded with this paragraph:
"Certainly it's past time for American politics to grow up and reach a point where stories about our leaders' sex lives are treated as the titillating, perhaps largely irrelevant trivia they usually are. But that maturity will never be achieved as long as the public is permitted to see the messy human truth only about Democrats, while Republicans are displayed inside a bubble of happy, wholesome illusion."
Doesn't seem hypocritical with regard to his criticisms of the Kerry rumors. In fact, seems pretty consistent if you ask me.
Commentary here: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/medialog/index.asp
Cowboy, if you're getting your news from Drudge, you might want to regard it with some healthy skepticism.
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 515
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 9:44 pm: | |
Dr W O'B scores big with a correction! |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 538
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
I've said it before, I am no fan of John Kerry and his stand on the Iraq war. That's a legitimate issue to pursue.
But the smears against him as a veteran are really starting to anger me. Tonight Laura Ingraham had a guest who was relaying third hand reports that Admiral Zumwalt had said Kerry killed too many civilians in Vietnam.
I thought only hippies accused Vietnam vets of baby killing. Now it's the alleged patriots on the right who'll stoop to it, if that's what it takes to re-elect George Bush.
shameful stuff. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 942
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
The media in the US today only report that the alleged Kerry/intern/bimbo's father "had harshly criticized" the Senator before reversing his stance entirely. The UK's Sun stands by their story and puts some more meat on the bones of this amazing turnaround. See below:
Kerry ... denies fling
U-Turn in Kerry sex row
From BRIAN FLYNN
in New York
THE father of the woman said to have had an affair with US Presidential hopeful John Kerry has made a dramatic U-turn.
Terry Polier pledged to vote for the super-rich Democrat after daughter Alex, 27, publicly insisted she had not had a fling with him.
Yet just four days ago, Terry branded Kerry, 60, a “sleazeball” and said he and wife Donna would NEVER support him.
He said: “I know my wife will not be voting for Mr Kerry, let’s put it that way.
“Two years ago he was all for gay marriage, now he’s against it. Not that I care one way or the other, it’s just there have been so many things where I have seen him reverse. Whatever audience he is talking to, he will tell them what they want to hear.” |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1996
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
wow, that just REEKS of objective journalistic integrity, doesn't it?
Isn't the Sun a Murdoch paper?
And why are you calling her a bimbo? Seems really uncalled for. Didn't your parents teach you any manners? |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 730
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
Cowboy got it from Drudge, I thought I saw it over the past few days.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095656
"Conason defends himself and finally lets his readers know he did some "sheet sniffing and keyhole peeping" himself back in 1992. He also now admits that he lent his name to a cover charge of adultery against the first President Bush that was not quite supported by his reporting. He blames his editors, Kurt Andersen and Susan Morrison, and "Spy style:"
If I have any qualms about the Bush story, they're the same ones that I felt at the time. The headline -- "He cheats on his wife" -- oversold what we were publishing, as I told Andersen and Morrison. They disagreed. And the Spy style tended to preface allegations with the word "alleged" less diligently than other publications. "
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 945
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
A quote is a quote, tom, regardless who reports it. Unless it's a misquote, or entirely made up.
Best not think about it if I were you. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2891
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 1:06 pm: | |
I know some folks just can't let go of the Kerry paramour story, and are trying to find some way to keep it going. But, guys, that horse has passed on, it is no more, has ceased to be, expired and gone to meet his maker, kicked the bucket, shuffled off his mortal coil, and is otherwise dead. So, you can stop beating it now.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 946
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 1:14 pm: | |
In other words "close, but no Lewinsky." You may be right. The big media is hanging on that denial and breezing over the previous quotes by the woman's family to give it a pass. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4706
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 1:36 pm: | |
Uhm, the quotes are in the Sun, which makes the National Inquirer in this country look like responsible journalism. 
Next on the agenda, although from shall we say a different pov, is Bush and Condi, perfect together, which has about as much credibility. LOL |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 947
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
The National Inquirer isn't always on target, but they did break stories that other media wouldn't touch that were true. Gennifer Flowers and Rush Limbaugh (at least the charge he abused painkillers was verified) were both broken by the Inquirer, and the Inquirer was cited as a source by the NY Times. Skepticism is healthy, but denial isn't.
Feel free to include the shams perpetrated by the NY Times, NBC and/or CNN next time you post about the respectable media. If you have trouble with that, call Richard Jewel. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2002
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 4:20 pm: | |
A quote is a quote and I can quote Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, and yes indeed they'll all be quotes and, apparently, very very impressive indeed.
That is, as long as they say what the Chip wants me to! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 954
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
Or if you don't get the quote from the candidate you support that you really want, do a retake.
From today's Boston Globe:
"Kerry's remarks lasted three minutes, yet it left TV reporters without a soundbite until one CBS News producer asked the Massachusetts senator to try again."
Perhaps this CBS producer interned under Bob Hewitt of 60 Minutes, who coached Bill Clinton to look more contrite when he denied...sorry....lied about the Gennifer Flowers affair.
Kerry's quote was about the economy, but it could just as easily been about his rationale for voting for the war so the president would go to the UN.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
Turns out now even the original "sleazeball" quote was fabricated.
Love these Republican operatives. It's the same kind of integrity they bring to the federal budget. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 541
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
does Hillary's "vast, right-wing conspiracy" seem all that far-fetched today? when crap goes from Ed Gillespie's fax machine to Rush and all his mini-mes, and then gets broadcast throughout the land, isn't that a conspiracy, by definition? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 958
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
It might be a conspiracy, if it were true.
The Sun is standing by the "sleazeball' quote as well as the longer quotes Mr. Polier made. If The Sun had only run a tape of it all -- like Gennifer Flowers did -- to fend off charges of 'crap.' |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page