| Author | Message | ||
     themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 931 Registered: 12-2001 |
First off, ok, I was taken in, and even tried to defend the authenticity of these memos, without knowing squat about typeface, etc. Oops. But there are still a lot of questions to be answered here. Mostly: Who forged the memos? Based on what? And to what end? Lets assume everyone is aquainted with the most current "facts", including that Burkett supplied the memos to CBS, which he says he got from "Lucy Ramirez" who contacted him after seeing him on TV. What are your best, non-flame guesses? See drudge for plenty of links to updates. If Lucy R is real, and not Burkett's invention, and assuming she is a anti-Bush activist, why would she totally fake these particular documents, given that they were not all that damning? They seem to be written by a semi-insider, so if she based them on some other documents, seeing that the gig is up, why doesn't she come forth and throw as much dirt as she can on Bush now, like defend the documents, or say she retyped them from memory after the originals were stolen or something? (Can she be sued for libel or something if she totally fabricated them?) Or, was this a real democratic party black bag dirty trick operation that was just inept? Why did they choose Burkett as a conduit when he is seen as partisan and unstable? Couldn't they, after creating documents, have found a more credible messenger? There is a lot of weirdness here. I think Burkett himself seems like a pretty likely candidate here as the forger, given that he has an axe to grind, some familiarity with TANG procedures and personnel, and he is the last solid link in the chain. But the late and not too assertive protests of the White House are interesting, too. I am still waiting for the other shoe to fall. | ||
| JMF Citizen Username: Jmf Post Number: 8 Registered: 9-2004 |
Docs are pretty obviously fakes, but the info in them is probably true. Note Laura Bush quote.. the docs "probably are forgeries" Shouldn't they DEFINITELY be forgeries if what is in them is not true? | ||
| bobk Citizen Username: Bobk Post Number: 6163 Registered: 5-2001 |
At this late date I don't know if Bush's record in the Guard is all that important. He admits he was undirected, a heavy drinker and probably a drug abuser during that period in time. However, there are some interesting points. 1. Bush has been limiting his comments to, "I received an honorable discharge". He and I don't believe his staff have actually said the allegations aren't true. 2. I don't know any military organization where a First Lieutenant can refuse to take a physical and not be punished, without an awful lot of clout from above. 3. Given that everyone of "a certain age" has at least one old portable typewriter from college sitting in the attic, I can't see why such obvious fakes were done, or how CBS and Rather were taken in by them. Don's these people watch CSI? 4. From what I have read missed Guard meetings had to be made up in the year the meeting was missed. Bush made up his time in the next year. In other words, I think the whole thing stinks. Was Rove involved? This isn't all that far fetched given the Bush family campaign tactics. | ||
| Guy Citizen Username: Vandalay Post Number: 131 Registered: 8-2004  |
The other shoe could be the fact that CBS put Burkett in touch with the Kerry campaign and that the DNC " Fortunate Son" commercial using Rather came out right after 60 minutes story aired. | ||
| Heybub Citizen Username: Heybub Post Number: 343 Registered: 2-2004  |
This is starting to make the plumbers look adept. | ||
| bobk Citizen Username: Bobk Post Number: 6164 Registered: 5-2001 |
If the DNC did the deed, I pity them. It would have been in their interest to do a good forgery. The RNC on the other hand.....  For the record I am not normally a conspiracy theorist. | ||
| Guy Citizen Username: Vandalay Post Number: 132 Registered: 8-2004 |
No, I don't think the DNC did the deed, but there may have been some after the fact coordination. | ||
| Ronald Allan Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 41 Registered: 9-2004  |
It's threads like these that have me convinced I'd best best off voting for Bush. | ||
| Guy Citizen Username: Vandalay Post Number: 133 Registered: 8-2004 |
Welcome to the fold, Ron. | ||
| Ronald Allan Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 43 Registered: 9-2004 |
I mean this is insane. JMF says the docs are fake but the information is probably true. What the? The docs are fake, no such information exists to support the docs but this poster says that's not important. Another poster says Bush was probably drunk and on drugs while in the Guard. Holy cow, he never said that. No one in the guard said that. Like I said, if someone is on the fence as I am all you have to do is read this nonsense. It should get you thinking Bush. Has for me. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 838 Registered: 1-2003  |
This might really move you off the fence. Its Bush's speech to the UN this morning. Its Fantastic. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/21/123401.shtml | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 932 Registered: 12-2001 |
But- Who did the forging and why? Even if the a DNC type decided "let's forge and plant documents that will destroy Bush" does it make sense that they produced these lukewarm documents? And distributed them in this way? And why didn't Bush say "it is untrue that I refused to take a physical." Those two fact lead me to believe that there is something else out there that we will be hearing about. The press will catch up with Ramirez after a while (I guess). Maybe Burkett forged them based on originals to protect himself from admitting possession of the originals, which would be considered stolen documents or something. Or maybe Karle Rove, who has a track record for tricks, had someone give near miss documents to Burkett knowing it would poison the fountain for good even if other documents that Rove feared might exist were to surface later (although that is a little far fetched). | ||
| dwllc Citizen Username: Dwllc Post Number: 29 Registered: 8-2001 |
M janay Great Read/link | ||
| JMF Citizen Username: Jmf Post Number: 9 Registered: 9-2004 |
Ron, I believe the docs are fake. I also would take a guess that they have some truth to them. He has never come out to say they aren't true. I really don't care either way, I am not voting based on what happened 30 years ago, and I won't make my decision based on what a couple of people say on a message board. | ||
| Ronald Allan Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 44 Registered: 9-2004 |
Well put it this way. If I'm looking for the opinions of others, I certainly value what I'm hearing from Janay & Guy. OTOH, The liberal base on this board has failed to bring anything intelligent to the table. If this board is a true cross section of the American public one can conclude it's the Republicans who are paying attention to the important issues. | ||
| JMF Citizen Username: Jmf Post Number: 10 Registered: 9-2004 |
"The liberal base on this board has failed to bring anything intelligent to the table." That is only because I am new to this board. ;) (jk to all the other liberals.. I haven't seen enough to know who is who on here yet) Seriously, can I ask you what what your factors are in choosing who to vote for? What are the issues that are the most important to you? | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2574 Registered: 12-2001  |
Regardless of the truth, this National Guard business and Vietnam service business has worked to Bush's advantage. I fault the Kerry campaign for making too big a deal of what happened thirty years ago. I had a similar feeling about Bob Dole when he made a big deal about his service in WW II while running for president in 1996. Military service thirty years ago tells us very little about what we can expect from Kerry and Bush over the next four years. | ||
| Ronald Allan Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 45 Registered: 9-2004 |
the war on terror. I want a President who will take it to the enemy, keeping the attackers off our streets. I don't want to be afraid to leave my house. | ||
| singlemalt Citizen Username: Singlemalt Post Number: 503 Registered: 12-2001 |
Joe Lockhart was on the Today show this morning telling Matt Lauer that he is tired of talking about what happened 30 years ago! What a hypocrite! Seeing how the Kerry campaign had at least two high level conversations with Bartlette BEFORE the story aired I bet they don’t want to talk about it anymore. Kerry and team have done nothing but talk about his own Vietnam service and make false accusations against Bush for his Guard service. All the while, Bush has praised Kerry for his honorable service and spoken to each of their political records, the economy and the war on terror. Now that the boomerang has come back and literally socked them in the nose they want to move on and forget about the issues they have created. NO WAY! The "fortunate son" video that was released by the DNC the day after Rather aired his 60 minutes story was an amazingly well produced video (apparently created within 12 hours). Now we are told to believe that Max Cleland and Lockhart spoke with the source of the memos before the piece aired but they didn't speak about Bush's guard service or the fact that the person on the phone had the goods on finally making the accusations stick against Bush. These are 2 of the most powerful Kerry campaign workers and they expect us to believe that this nobody from Texas is worth taking campaign advice from? We also watched Terry McCauliffe hold a press conference and call Bush a flat out “Liar” based on the C-BS story. If you think the Democrats are coming clean on this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya. I've said it many times, the Kerry campaign is the biggest joke in modern political history. Political Science courses in all universities will use the failures of this campaign as an example of how to blow an election. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 934 Registered: 12-2001 |
Ok. Tried to have a discussion, instead got a mole. |
