Memogate gets uglier for Kerry

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by TritonRider, Sep 20, 2004.

  1. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Howard Kveck wrote:
    >
    > I think CBS choked hard on this one. They didn't do enough
    > investigating prior to running the story, and they certainly didn't
    > respond properly once it looked like there were problems with the docs.


    Yeah. I think that anyone who misleads the American public by passing off
    shady info without sufficient vetting, and then doesn't respond properly
    based on them, should be forced to resign--or voted out of office,
    whichever is appropriate.
     


  2. TritonRider

    TritonRider Guest

    >From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email protected]

    >When you bring this up this way it suggests biases are clouding your
    >judgement as it relates to the memos. It's fine not to like Kerry but
    >that shouldn't affect your opinion of whether or not he was behind the
    >fake memos. That should be based on what we know about them.
    >
    >JT
    >


    This is one case that I will admit to being biased, and have in several
    conversations with people here.
    Bill C
     
  3. TritonRider

    TritonRider Guest

    >From: Howard Kveck [email protected]

    > But I do find it pretty amusing that some are
    >raising so much of a stink about getting the source out on this when they
    >seem completely unconcerned with finding out who was the source on the
    >Plame leak/punishment move on Joseph Wilson. Get to the bottom of a felony?
    >Bah! Goddamn Novak even made comments that CBS needed to reveal their
    >source - what irony is that?
    >
    >--
    > tanx,
    > Howard
    >


    Couldn't agree more, but I've been screaming for years about the fact that the
    quickest way to make Top Secret stuff public is to allow a Congresscritter
    access. It seems to end up in the newspapers the next day and nobody ever gets
    hammered for it.
    Bill C
     
  4. Ken Papai

    Ken Papai Guest

    "John Forrest Tomlinson" <@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:55:29 GMT, "Ken Papai" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > >
    > >Why do you often lambaste people for cycling related, but off-RBR topic

    then
    > >go ahead and add fuel/NOISE to the fire John? B I Z A R R E.

    >
    > I don't know. I never start off-topic discussions. If you want to
    > stop any offtopic discussions, please stop them when they start.


    Sometimes even I take a vacation bro!

    -Ken
     
  5. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "remove the polite word to reply" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    > true political genius to have a sneaky, coddled draft dodger get the
    > upper hand in a scandal involving someone who actually risked his life
    > fighting. The medium is the message.


    Draft dodger? Bush became a fighter pilot, one of the most dangerous jobs in
    any service. He volunteered for Vietnam but there wee precious few fightre
    slots available there and they were only going to the most experienced
    pilots.

    Kerry attempted to get a deferral to spend a couple of years in France and
    when that was denied he joined what he thought was the safest service - the
    Naval Reserve.

    As someone pointed out, what happened 30 years ago doesn't mean jack today.
    However, both men did the same thing as most of the rest of those who
    worried about the draft. To say that somehow Bush's two years of flying full
    time put him in less danger than Kerry's four months in combat is a little
    stupid to say the least.

    > Hope your kids all like paying off the war on Iraq, @ 200 billion $US,
    > is that about $800 for every man, woman and child in the US? Before
    > interest. Unless of course you're rich. Then you don't have to pay-
    > You collect; likes Bush's brother Neil, to the tune of 27 million or
    > so from the S&L scandal.


    And yet Associated Press tells us that Kerry's plan will increase taxes
    dramatically and yet he intends to spend $8.50 for every additional $1 of
    tax brought in. Since you seem to have trouble with numbers - that means
    that Kerry intends to run BIGER deficits.

    > I have to get used to the fact that things never, ever change, nor do
    > the lies of the privileged.


    George H.W. Bush was a representative and had about as much pull as the
    mayor of a small town.

    I was in the service with a couple of guys who were millionaires. One of
    them owned one of the biggest cattle ranches in Montana and the other was
    the heir to millions. One man was a Tech Sargeant in Fire Control and the
    other one was an Airman Second Class.

    While I was on Guam there were two of the three Congressional Medal of Honor
    winners who had gained their medals on Guam. One was a Tech Sargeant and the
    other a Master Sargeant.

    You got that? Privilege doesn't mean a whole lot in the service regardless
    of what chumps think.
     
  6. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Woogoogle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] (TritonRider) wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > >

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20
    > > -cbs-documents_x.htm
    > > Bill C

    >
    > In between Bush failing his physical and not reporting for duty, that
    > sure does look ugly for Kerry.


    Well, to get it straight - Bush MISSED his physical as about 1/3rd of all
    ANG pilots do at one time or another. Maybe you haven't heard the term
    Citizen Soldier in reference to the Guard. What it means is that everyone
    works a regular job or goes to school and goes to ANG meetings on weekends
    or during what you and I would call a vacation but they call "Serving my
    country."

    The F-102 was becoming obsolete and they didn't want to retrain Bush in a
    newer fighter because he was at the end of his hitch. Hell, he was doing
    them a favor to sit in the office instead of insisting on taking flying time
    away from pilots with more time left.

    I wonder why people who were never in the service and wouldn't raise one
    finger to fight for their own families let alone their own country all seem
    to have something to say about Bush's service?
     
  7. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Tom Arsenault" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] (Woogoogle) wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > [email protected] (TritonRider) wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > >

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-20
    > > > -cbs-documents_x.htm
    > > > Bill C

    > >
    > > In between Bush failing his physical and not reporting for duty, that
    > > sure does look ugly for Kerry.

    >
    > Kerry doesn't look bad, none of his people brought this up, Dan
    > Rather looks like a chump now and CBS news. Don't know how you can
    > bring Kerry into this, as far as we know, Kerry's side has nothing
    > to do with this.


    Dan Rather and Mary Mapes tried to coordinate a Bush kill with the
    Democratic Party. The Dems were too stupid to understand what was happening
    and that's probably a good thing because had they allowed themselves to be
    dragged into this it would have been a slaughter.
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > It's completely unknown who was behind memogate (beyond CBS). The
    > links between Republican donors and Swift Boats vets are clear.


    Good, then perhaps you can explain these links to me because I can't see
    them.

    > Also, the information in the faked memos is generally similar to
    > information that is known to be true (I'm not saying that makes faking
    > things right). Whereas the stories of the Swiftboat people contradict
    > other documentary evidence.


    Known BY WHOM? Geez, the ONLY one that said that these memos were "like
    something I would type" was Killian's secretary (Knox) who in the past
    stated that she didn't remember Bush but that there were a lot of rich kids
    in the Guard at that time. After the Florida election in which she said Bush
    was "selected, not elected" she suddenly remembered all sorts of things
    about him. Right.

    EVERYONE else from that time contradicts her statements. Killian's son and
    wife stated that he NEVER kept memos to himself because he was a very
    private person. 60 Minutes reportedly was working on this story SINCE BEFORE
    THE LAST ELECTION. If "information known to be true" was in those memos then
    why didn't they have any other person but someone who has given at least two
    entirely different testimonies? As for "cleansing" the military files -
    balderdash. There are copies of that stuff in three or four archives and it
    is under the control of the separate directors of those archives. There's no
    way that could happen. The records simply never made it to the archive to
    begin with or never existed. Remember that for the most part paperwork was
    made out by grunts who were just as likely to never do it if they could get
    away with it.

    > If the memos were from the Kerry camp (or Democratic leaders) that is
    > heinous. But there is no evidence about that.


    It is very hard to tell. Burkett hardly seems like one to forge anything
    except the memos used Army jargon instead of Air Force jargon whih Killian
    used. Burkett was ARMY National Guard. And I somehow doubt that Burkett
    could have come up with that insane explanation that he copied the memos and
    then burned the original copies and the envelope they came in . That is just
    too 007 for anyone to invent out of the air. If Burkett is telling the truth
    it's probably the Kerry Campaign behind it since very few people would have
    an idea of what Killian's signature would look like ro how to put together a
    memo that sounded at least likely.
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > I think CBS choked hard on this one. They didn't do enough

    investigating
    > prior to running the story, and they certainly didn't respond properly

    once
    > it looked like there were problems with the docs. It'd be nice to get the
    > down-low on the source.


    Do you REALLY believe that Howard? Two of the four 'experts' they showed
    them to said that they were likely fakes. One of the other's was a mail
    order signature analyst and the fourth was only shown the signature.

    Killian's CO was called up and told that they had some documents written by
    Killian that said this and that - The CO said,
    "Well if that's what they said then that's probably what he thought." This
    was depicted by SeeBS as him having vetted the documents.

    The deeper you get into the SeeBS event the worse it sounds. I really can't
    understand how the news department could have sunk to the level where Ran
    Dather could railroad this through. There can't be a single individual left
    in the SeeBS news department - they must all be Dan-Zombies.
     
  10. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "remove the polite word to reply" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]
    > > true political genius to have a sneaky, coddled draft dodger get the
    > > upper hand in a scandal involving someone who actually risked his life
    > > fighting. The medium is the message.

    >
    > Draft dodger? Bush became a fighter pilot, one of the most dangerous jobs in
    > any service. He volunteered for Vietnam but there wee precious few fightre
    > slots available there and they were only going to the most experienced
    > pilots.


    "Volunteered for Vietnam"???? Right, but poor ol' George just couldn't
    get a break and go do his patriotic duty, since some unknown person had
    gotten ahold of his application and checked off the box next to "NO
    OVERSEAS DUTY". Dang. There's no evidence in his official records that
    indicate he attempted to get to 'Nam.

    By the way, you've mentioned that he got put on desk duty because the
    ANG had retired his plane, the F102. Unfortunately, that didn't happen for
    another four years after he had skipped off into the sunset:

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/
    "A total of 1,000 F-102A interceptors and two-seat trainers were built
    for the US Air Force, and many were later transferred to Air National Guard
    units. The last of these aircraft were not withdrawn from service until
    1976."

    > Kerry attempted to get a deferral to spend a couple of years in France and
    > when that was denied he joined what he thought was the safest service - the
    > Naval Reserve.


    You know what he was thinking, do you? Wow. Funny that you'll criticize
    Kerry for trying to get a deferral. From what I've read, he had doubts
    about the Vietnam war from the outset, but decided to serve anyway. Can you
    say the same for:

    Cheney: no military service ever, five deferrals
    Rumsfeld: avoided Korea; no combat
    Rove: no military service ever
    Rush Limbaugh: no military service
    Tom DeLay: avoided Vietnam; "So many minority youths had volunteered ...
    that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself "
    Trent Lott: no military service ever
    Ashcroft: seven deferrals

    You keep saying that people who haven't served shouldn't be allowed to
    criticize Bush's "service", yet some of the most vociferous critics of
    Kerry seem to fall into the same camp (except they were all *for* the war
    in Vietnam). Isn't DeLay's excuse for not serving great?

    > As someone pointed out, what happened 30 years ago doesn't mean jack today.
    > However, both men did the same thing as most of the rest of those who
    > worried about the draft. To say that somehow Bush's two years of flying full
    > time put him in less danger than Kerry's four months in combat is a little
    > stupid to say the least.


    Earlier, Tom, you said he had served "a full year" - now it's two? Odd
    that the Bush camp has only made one reference to being in the Air Force.
    That's in the Karen Hughes penned biography "A Charge to Keep", in which
    they stated that his time in flight training was considered time in the
    USAF. (Of course, they also quote Geo. as saying, "I continued to fly with
    my unit for the next several years." 22 months is stretching the definition
    of "several years" a bit, isn't it?

    You know what would solve the whole issue, Tom? President Bush should
    sit down with the media and answer questions about his service directly by
    himself.

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  11. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:YOURhoward->
    > You know what would solve the whole issue, Tom? President Bush should
    > sit down with the media and answer questions about his service directly by
    > himself.


    Hmm, all of Bush's records are available to anyone that wishes to file a
    Freedom of Information Act request.

    Can you say the same of Kerry who has released 6 pages of "at least a
    hundred"?


    Tell you what big boy, explain why you seem to know things about Bush that
    SeeBS has been trying to prove for 5 years and failed?

    Could it be that you are at least as willing as Dan Rather to accept any lie
    to forward your political agenda?
     
  12. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:YOURhoward->
    > You know what would solve the whole issue, Tom? President Bush should
    > sit down with the media and answer questions about his service directly by
    > himself.


    Hmm, all of Bush's records are available to anyone that wishes to file a
    Freedom of Information Act request.

    Can you say the same of Kerry who has released 6 pages of "at least a
    hundred"?


    Tell you what big boy, explain why you seem to know things about Bush that
    SeeBS has been trying to prove for 5 years and failed?

    Could it be that you are at least as willing as Dan Rather to accept any lie
    to forward your political agenda?
     
  13. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:YOURhoward->
    > > You know what would solve the whole issue, Tom? President Bush should
    > > sit down with the media and answer questions about his service directly by
    > > himself.

    >
    > Hmm, all of Bush's records are available to anyone that wishes to file a
    > Freedom of Information Act request.


    Well, it doesn't seem to be that easy. A guy named Marty Heldt had FOI
    requests on those records back in the late '90s and only got a set in 2000.
    But he said there were many pages that should have been there that were
    missing. The AP recently got some from a FOI request, but they have also
    said the same thing about missing pages.

    Interestingly, from M Heldt:
    ------------------------
    There is a lone computer generated document which lists 35 points for
    Bush in ¹73. [Document 16] Unlike the other records I obtained, this
    document has no information as to who filed it, a date filed or for which
    unit it was filed.

    These points are marked down as three days in May, three days in June
    and 29 days in July. But they are not broken down as in other listings of
    points. And, they are not enough points to make up for both the missing
    year and the last year of Bush's active service.
    -------------------------

    http://www.onlinejournal.com/bush/090300_Heldt/090300_heldt.html

    > Can you say the same of Kerry who has released 6 pages of "at least a
    > hundred"?


    http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html#jkerry

    > Tell you what big boy, explain why you seem to know things about Bush that
    > SeeBS has been trying to prove for 5 years and failed?
    >
    > Could it be that you are at least as willing as Dan Rather to accept any lie
    > to forward your political agenda?


    Now, I'm sure you realize that we could keep beating this GWB/TNG
    business until hell freezes over - IF we wanted to. The reality is that
    there's a lot of conflicting info and opinions. We've both checked out the
    info that's available (and I've been following this since the late '90s, at
    least) and decided that the preponderance of evidence points one way or the
    other. And that's why I think it'd be good for Bush to actually answer
    questions on this himself. There's no doubting that he was pretty gung-ho
    when he started in the TNG, but for some reason, the wheels seem to have
    fallen off at year four - why?

    By the way, Tom, this is a *discussion* to me; it isn't personal at all.
    It isn't something that I'm trying to "win". Know what I mean?

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
  14. Clovis Lark

    Clovis Lark Guest

    Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:YOURhoward->
    >> You know what would solve the whole issue, Tom? President Bush should
    >> sit down with the media and answer questions about his service directly by
    >> himself.


    > Hmm, all of Bush's records are available to anyone that wishes to file a
    > Freedom of Information Act request.


    > Can you say the same of Kerry who has released 6 pages of "at least a
    > hundred"?



    > Tell you what big boy, explain why you seem to know things about Bush that
    > SeeBS has been trying to prove for 5 years and failed?


    > Could it be that you are at least as willing as Dan Rather to accept any lie
    > to forward your political agenda?


    Could we at least discuss relevancies to this campaign? Here, something
    to discuss:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm
     
  15. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

  16. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Tom Kunich wrote:
    > > "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > > Tell you what big boy, explain why you seem to know things about Bush
    > > that SeeBS has been trying to prove for 5 years and failed?

    >
    > Perhaps because he read the Air Force Times?
    > http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-357916.php


    Well, gee Robert, with documentation like that it's a wonder that McMichael
    isn't writing for the New York Times. I wonder why you'd think that an
    opinion piece that reports what other people are saying is worthy of
    considering as a reference. Moreso since the SeeBS forgeries blew up in
    their face.
     
  17. Howard Kveck

    Howard Kveck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Clovis Lark <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:YOURhoward->
    > >> You know what would solve the whole issue, Tom? President Bush should
    > >> sit down with the media and answer questions about his service directly by
    > >> himself.

    >
    > > Hmm, all of Bush's records are available to anyone that wishes to file a
    > > Freedom of Information Act request.

    >
    > > Can you say the same of Kerry who has released 6 pages of "at least a
    > > hundred"?

    >
    >
    > > Tell you what big boy, explain why you seem to know things about Bush that
    > > SeeBS has been trying to prove for 5 years and failed?

    >
    > > Could it be that you are at least as willing as Dan Rather to accept any lie
    > > to forward your political agenda?

    >
    > Could we at least discuss relevancies to this campaign? Here, something
    > to discuss:
    >
    > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm
    >


    ³Whatever you¹re seeing, it¹s not as bad as it appears,² Foley told the
    crowd. ³You just need to accept that on faith.² 

    Uh huh...

    --
    tanx,
    Howard

    A billion + 2 followups...

    remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
     
Loading...