so Bush isn't a liar?

ttp://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}Hmm, so Bush isn't a liar?This whole thing tends to make me think of Kerry being corrupted. Please prove me wrong.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-21-2004 12:11 AM

---

-porcelain

em.. you are the one making the claim - how about you prove it?

No, Bush is still a liar. The forged documents are tangental; we can prove that Bush didn't meet his service obligations from the genuine documents that the White House provided.The memo would have been the icing on the cake, if they had been genuine. But a cake without icing is still a cake.

Wait a minute. Apart from the "What the heck does this have to do with Kerry" issue, are you trying to claim that Bush *isn't* the son of a wealthy prominant family whose friends got him into the Air National Guard and whose officers didn't force him to meet ANG requirements?Even the documents are only part of this tangential sub-story (that Killian felt pressured to give Bush a good review). Both Killian's commanding officer and his secretary have both stated that he felt the way about Bush represented in the documents - whether or not the documents themselves prove to be authentic.In fact, what does this even have to do with Bush being a liar or not? Bush tends to use vague generalities and offtopic statements when discussing his service, such as mentioning the fact he was honorably discharged when asked if he met certain specific requirements. You know, the same sort of thing he did when asked about cocaine use in his youth.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Yes, he still lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq (specifically nuclear weapons), as well as being deceptive regarding its connection to terrorism and the terrorist group Al-Qaida.He has also been squirrely about his time in the national guard. I'm not sure if it makes him a liar on that issue, but he's said some rather questionable things. Before proving you wrong, might I ask how someone else providing possibly fake documents has anything to do with Kerry?And if THAT has the ability to stain Kerry, how are you feeling good about Bush when the swiftboatveteransfor"truth" have been shown to be false, and more connected to Bush's campaign that Kerry is to the above?Looks like you're playing favorites.But anyhow, Other than some guy contacting Kerry's campaign and essentially being rejected, Kerry has not been implicated directly in this at all.What this has done is give CBS and Dan Rather a black eye. Perhaps you can say it makes some Kerry supporters seem corrupt?In any case, the documents have not been proven to be forgeries. They are simply not authenticated with some valid reasons to believe they could be forgeries.Ironically the best evidence for their NOT being real comes from the same person validating the reality of what is contained in them. And that person did acknowledge Killian kept "save his ass" files, raising the possibility they COULD (not I am not saying ARE) actual files.So its interesting that you are trusting a person enough to free Bush lying, yet not when that same person pretty much says Bush was in fact lying?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Huh? How did that link of yours have anything to do with Kerry?

---

The Laminator
B ULLS HITFor goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

#1... as others have stated... kerry is not cbs.#2... bush still went to war on a lie. bush still said he'd "restore integrity" to the white house. bush said he'd improve the economy. bush said he'd improve education. bush said he knew without a doubt that there were some kind of fabulous weapons in iraq. now i have a professor who worked on a government project to translate documents captured after gulf storm. i've seen documentation of concentration camps, of what happened in cities that were destroyed... speaking of chemical weapons by the symptoms of victims... institutionalized rape to control the populace. but bush hasn't produced any of these chemical weapons and for all we know saddam really did have them dismantled as he said (that would mean he was cooperating with the un and we should have stayed at home). but did we? and now whose sons are dying? as terrible as saddam was, it's not our job to control the world. we can't go taking over countries because we don't like the government... especially on unsubstantiable claims.

I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq. And Blair of the UK, for that matter.If you are against the war from beginning to end, you should vote for Nader.I think the Swift boat business is fairly irrelevant to Kerry. I have no issue with Kerry's Vietnam service. It's his 30-year record of dovish votes and attitudes I take issue with.I think Bush met his ANG obligations, and I really don't care that he was the son of a congressman and may have got preferential treatment to get in the ANG. So was Gore, who got preferential treatment to get into a journalism detachment. There were other military assignments than Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Being sent to Germany or Korea or stateside or serving in the Navy was still an assignment.

quote:

---

I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...

---

There is quite a bit of evidence that Bush, Cheney, and others were planning to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and used that terrible event as some kind of justification.Rice and Powel both characterized Saddam and Iraq as contained and powerless just before 9/11, but when Bush wanted to invade, suddenly there were WMD all over the place.They repeatedly made clever connections between terrorists, 9/11, and Iraq in order to connect them in people's mind.This was so effective that a majority of people believed that the hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi.How do you think the public got that idea?So, there was definitely some lying in the selling of the war, for sure. There was also quite a lot of ignoring of contradictory evidence because it wasn't what they wanted to see or know. They ignored Blix and the weapons inspectors who told them that there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq and listened to Chalabi and others because it was what they wanted to hear.This might not make them utter liars, but it does make them grossly incompetant.

quote:

---

but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq. And Blair of the UK, for that matter.

---

Unfortunately, it would have been political death for anyone to vote against Saint George at that point, with irrational patriotism and gullibility being at an all time high amongst the populace.Besides, Kerry and Edwards didn't vote for Bush to bollocks things up so badly....and Blair is very likely to be out after elections due to his support of Bush. That would be ignoring the political realities of the job of a Senator.

quote:

---

I don't think Bush was lying. At most he acted hastily based on erroneous intelligence assessments...but then, so did Kerry/Edwards, who both voted to authorize use of force against Iraq. And Blair of the UK, for that matter.

---

No, he lied. Even Colin Powell initially refused to present "this bullshit" to the UN. This whole exercise was a deliberate and purposeful lie - and one which was continued as shown when Ruimsfeld et al were still asserting links between AQ and Iraq despite no existing evidence. Which they knew.And Blair undoubtedly lied, and cannot even be given the charitable benefit of stupidy that might be offered to Bush.

Unless you expect to see a lib-dem landslide in the general election I think this is wishful thinking.This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-21-2004 09:15 AM

why should i vote nader just because i'm against the war in iraq? nader is an idiot. and so are you apparently.

Really?That's too bad.

I suppose the problem is the lack of separation between the election of a prime minister and the election of a local representative for parliament.Many people who dislike Tony Blair may well still vote labour in preference to the conservatives. Indeed the conservatives have faired little better in terms of the doubts surrounding the intelligence for, and prosecution of, the Iraq war. Having given their wholehearted support to the enterprise and nothing but the most shallow opportunistic critique it seems clear that the Tories would have done little if anything differently.Sadly the lib-dems, the only major party to consistently criticise the government's actions in regard to Iraq, are highly unlikely to get enough votes to take over government, the best they can hope for really is to split the vote enough to produce a hung parliament and force Labour into a coalition.I feel sure that if people could retain a labour government without Tony Blair being prime minister the Labour party could romp the next election. Of course I could be deluding myself.TTFN,WK

Here is an interesting comment from Libertystory.net: Dubya comes from one of Americas most powerful families. They are not innocent, yet they are not evil incarnate. They seek power.
John Kerry is also from a background of wealth, and while is political ideologies are different, he also seeks power.
Porcelain, draw your own conclusions.