Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 4:04 AM
22 online now:
Dr Adequate, Tangle (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Is the media hurting the war?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 145 (422214)
09-16-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Tal
09-16-2007 5:38 AM


You're still wrong
There is no 553 for President Bush.
There are no 4187s for President Bush.
There is no 458 for President Bush.
There has never been an entry into NCIC of President Bush.

Why would any of these documents exist? Who would commit suicide by submitting them? Why would Bush be dropped from the rolls when he was the son of the President of the United States?

Why would he be treated like a common soldier?

Otherwise, you've lost as you have produced zero evidence of anything having to do with a DFR packet.

I've never asserted that Bush had a DFR packet. No one would commit suicide by filing one against the son of a war hero, Senator, and President. Who on Earth would DFR the son of the President?

Nonetheless, it's abundantly obvious that Bush did not meet his service obligations. When he left the TANG on July 30, 1973, he signed the following statement:

quote:
"I have been counseled this date regarding my plans to leave my present Reserve of [sic] assignment due to moving from this area. I undestand that: a. If I disassociate from my current Ready Reserve Assignment, it is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve Forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months under the provisions of AFM 35-3, chapter 14."

He then moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard.

What's your evidence, Tal, that Bush was assigned to any Reserve Forces unit in Mass.? At the time that he requested discharge in Sept. of 1973, he had served for five years and four months in the Air National Guard. This is established by every record, including his payroll records and retirement credit records.

His commitment, however, was six years.

Now, you tell me, which is the longer period of time? Five years and four months, or six years? I presume even an intelligence officer can do that kind of math, right?

Your only "evidence" is some forged documents.

That's not true. The evidence is his payroll records, his retirement records, and all the unclaimed cash prizes for anyone who can substantiate that Bush met his service obligations:

quote:
Several organizations and individuals offered cash rewards to those who could offer proof that Bush had fulfilled certain military obligations.

On October 14, 2000, the Birmingham (Alabama) News reported that a group of Alabama veterans offered $1,000 to "anyone with proof that Texas Gov. George W. Bush actually served in the Alabama National Guard." It went unclaimed.[43]

On February 23, 2004, cartoonist Garry Trudeau, creator of Doonesbury, personally offered a highly-publicized $10,000 reward (in the form of a donation in the winner's name to the USO, which entertains U.S. troops) to anyone who had "personally witnessed" Bush reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between May and November 1972.[44] As of yet, the reward has not been paid.

On February 27, 2004, Trudeau announced that despite over 1,300 responses, his offer had unearthed no new evidence to show that Bush actually turned up for duty in the time period in question. A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee dismissed the reward as a "silly stunt." Trudeau agreed, saying, "She's right, but as a simple investigative cartoonist, I don't have a very big tool kit."[45]

In September 2004, the 527 group "Texans for Truth", offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that Bush fulfilled his service requirements by either "first-hand, eye-witness testimony," or authentic "documentary evidence."[46] As of 2007, the reward has still not yet been paid.


You're a partisan hack, Tal. Your evidence is irrelevant. Bush failed to meet his service obligation by 8 months and, like he has for most of his life, was insulated from the consequences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 09-16-2007 5:38 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 09-17-2007 1:57 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 137 of 145 (422320)
09-16-2007 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by molbiogirl
09-15-2007 10:09 PM


Re: PR Flack
All ten items are from a WH press release.

All ten items are substantiated fact too. Are you postulating that the White House made them up?

5 cases involve detention.
3 cases involve conviction.

Okay.....? Why are you mentioning this?

those that have no public record, I'm assuming you're taking it on faith that Dubya et. al. are telling the truth.

Yes, since the collusion factor would have to be enormous otherwise. It would be real easy to debunk these if they were in fact inventions of "Dubya," the evil slime monster from the bogs of despair.

I'd also like to point out that, of those that involve detentions, 4/5 were in other countries.

Yeah, nations that participate in the Echelon program against people destroying the Great Satan and its allies. You say that as if it detracts from the argument.

Gosh, if I didn't know any better I'd swear that you're rooting for the visiting team. Tsk, tsk... Shame on you. ;)

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by molbiogirl, posted 09-15-2007 10:09 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by molbiogirl, posted 09-16-2007 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Tal, posted 09-17-2007 1:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 144 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2007 4:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 138 of 145 (422386)
09-16-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2007 8:47 PM


All ten items are substantiated fact too.

I would love to see your evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2007 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 139 of 145 (422412)
09-17-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2007 8:47 PM


Re: PR Flack
I would love to see your evidence.

NJ, there's no hope. Might as well nail jello to the wall.


If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2007 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 140 of 145 (422417)
09-17-2007 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by crashfrog
09-16-2007 12:53 PM


Re: Dreamland
You're a partisan hack, Tal.

Yep, I'm a Conservative to the core no doubt. However, if this false accusation were made against John Kerry, I would still defend him just as vigorously on this issue because it isn't true. People can read your post, read my post, and decide for themselves.

Who on Earth would DFR the son of the President?

W Bush was discharged and transferred to the Inactive Reserves 16Oct73. His dad wasn't elected Vice President until 81. But don't let chronological facts get in the way of your theory. :)

His commitment, however, was six years.

Inactive Reserve time counts. For instance: When I first joined the Army in 96 I signed a 3 year contract to serve in the Infantry. In the Army, you sign on to serve 8 years, nomatter what your active duty contract says. When you finish your active duty obligation you are discharged and placed into the Inactive Reserve component. In my case, I could be called back to Active Duty at anytime in the next 5 years. I went back to Active Duty 3 years later. My time in service was then 6 years, even though 3 had been spent off active duty. So for pay purposes I was paid for having 6 years time in service instead of 3. The down side to that is I have to serve 23 years to retire, or 20 years Active Federal Service.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif

Bush was no more AWOL than I was when I was in the IRR.

Tal. Your evidence is irrelevant.

My evidence will hold up in a court of law. Your evidence will not.

Edited by Tal, : No reason given.

Edited by Tal, : Added some lines.


If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2007 12:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-17-2007 3:08 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 141 of 145 (422430)
09-17-2007 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tal
09-17-2007 1:57 AM


Off-topic, but I gotta ask it
All this discussion of GWB's military record may be interesting, but it's not really on topic. The topic is the media relationship to the current war.

That said, I've just skimmed a bit of the old New Book: Kerry "Unfit for Command" topic, which from 8/12/04 to 9/9/04 went a whopping 612 messages.

Now, Tal started here at on 12/29/04, after the above cited was completed.

Tal writes:

Yep, I'm a Conservative to the core no doubt. However, if this false accusation were made against John Kerry, I would still defend him just as vigorously on this issue because it isn't true. People can read your post, read my post, and decide for themselves.

Tal, what is your opinion on the "Swift Boaters For Truth" attacks on John Kerry?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tal, posted 09-17-2007 1:57 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 142 of 145 (422435)
09-17-2007 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
09-15-2007 6:02 PM


Re: What does the Patriot Act do
nemesis_juggernaut responds to me:

quote:
Over 200 suspects have been thwarted since its inception.

Oh really? Says who? You've got quite a few problems here: One, you need to show that the new laws actually had anything to do with it. Two, you need to show that they were of any consequence. Three, you need to show that they actually exist. We've already got evidence that the incidents the administration has been pumping up didn't really happen.

quote:
Other notable notables include, but are not limited to

Excuse, but haven't you been paying attention? Tal tried that list and it's already been shot down. Those plots were of no consequence, were not in the US, didn't involve the use of the new legislation, or don't even exist. When that list came out, the very agencies that were supposed to have carried them out had no idea that they had done so.

The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, apparently lied to Congress about the role of the the Americans. When asked by Joe Lieberman if the revamped FISA law helped in the German action, McConnell said, “Yes, sir, it did.”

But there's a little problem with that statement: It wasn't true. The assistance the Americans provided was done BEFORE the FISA process was screwed around with. Instead, it was carried out with all that pesky oversight the Bush Administration claims stands in the way of another terrorist attack.

Once again, we're left wondering just what all this destruction of our Constitutional rights has accomplished. Our old system seems to have been working just fine. What's the problem with oversight?

quote:
I dare say that the Patriot Act, with the employment of the Echelon program and human intelligence, is proving its worth. Unless of course you're cool with more 9/11 style attacks.

Hah! You think I am going to fall for the strawman arguments of fear put forward by this administration? That if we don't do something, the next attack could be in the form of a mushroom cloud? Nice, try, but please.

If you seriously think these laws have done anything, why is it that terrorist activity has INCREASED over the past six years? If anything, these new laws have made it more difficult to investigate terrorism because by such huge dragnets of spying result in overwhelming numbers of leads that are nothing more than wild goose chases.

quote:
quote:
As if that were the only thing it did. "Most notably"? Please.

This is the theme, yes.


(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? You really have drunk the Kool-Aid©, haven't you?

quote:
quote:
Oh, and by the way...the supposed "information sharing" that the Patriot Act was suppsed to usher in hasn't happened. Remember, while the Department of Homeland Security was recommended by Congress BEFORE the attacks as well as after by the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration never wanted to implement it. They flip-flopped on it and then did precisely what the Bush Administration does: Put cronies in charge rather than anybody with any actual competence and drive.

Source?


(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? Do you seriously not know? The White House is the source. Every single major media outlet covered it.

Q But if we're talking about consolidating all of these agencies, why not create a Department of Homeland Security, as many lawmakers have suggested? And rather than take Customs, Border, whatever, and put it all under DOJ, why not bring it all under the auspices, under one umbrella of Homeland Security?

MR. FLEISCHER: The reason for that, John, is if you take a look at how the federal government is set up across the myriad of agencies, there are more than a dozen agencies, many of which have components that deal with homeland security in one form or another. I'm not aware of a single proposal on Capitol Hill that would take every single one of those agencies out from their current missions and put them under Homeland Security.

So even if you took half of them out and put them under a Cabinet level Office of Homeland Security, the White House would still need, in the President's estimation, an advisor on how to coordinate all that myriad of activities the federal government is involved in. So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is, creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything. The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies, wherever they are.

White House Spokesman, Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02. You seriously don't know this?

quote:
It already proving its worth. You live in San Diego. You and I know that it is the largest West Coast military town in the nation. Unless you're cool with Miramar MCAS, the Coronado bridge, San Onofre power plant, Camp Pendleton MCB, 32nd Street Naval station, North Island naval air station, Lindbergh Field, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Gaslamp District etc, etc blowing up, by all means, oppose it.

(*chuckle*)

There's the attempt to scare me again. You really don't have any evidence, do you? Here's a hint: None of those places are any more secure now than they were before. Have you not been paying attention? The national security estimate for the US was just released and once again, we fail at pretty much every level.

The 2005 investigation into how the nation had fared gave failing grades across the board and said that no actual sharing of information has occurred among the various intelligence agencies. The best grade was an A-, and only one, for work against terrorist financing.

So all of these laws were passed but the only thing we've managed to do with them is to have federal agents infiltrating the Quakers (and every single major media outlet has covered this story, so you have no excuse for not knowing it or being able to look it up. I am not here to do your homework for you.)

All we have to show for it is a list, presented to Congress, detailing the myriad violations of the law carried out by the FBI to spy on Americans (again, you have no reason not to know this as it was covered by every media outlet. Do your own homework.)

quote:
So, on the flip side of the coin, what are some of the instances where civil liberties have been broken as a result of the PA?

Spying on Americans without a warrant, violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Sneak-and-peek searches, violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Collection of private records without a warrant, violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Incarceration without counsel, violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Secret evidence used at trial, violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Torture, violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions to which the US is a signatory.

What more do you need?

quote:
quote:
The Clinton administration was one of the most active administrations regarding the prevention of terror. Clinton never said no.

Then when has Dick Morris, Clinton's own advisor, say that he didn't do it?


Because you've been lied to. It never happened. If you get your news from Fox or NewsMax, you need to realize that they are lying to you. Fox just went to court and won the right to lie during their news broadcasts.

Every time our intelligence sources said they had a bead on bin Laden, Clinton said to go for it. He never, ever said no.

Dick Morris is a hack (even when he was in the Clinton Administration) and nothing he says can be trusted to be reliable.

quote:
quote:
Huh? Do you not know how the FISA law works? You don't need a warrant right now. You can stop the action now and get the warrant later.

Right, its wonderful, because now just the threat gives probable cause.


Huh? "Now"? It was always like that. Do you serioulsy not understand how FISA works? Under FISA, you have to get a warrant. NOW you don't. NOW all that needs to be done is have someone in the administration authorize it and it happens with absolutely no oversight. This was the entire reason why FISA was created in the first place: To put in oversight. The new laws have removed that oversight.

quote:
Obviously not illegally since it was passed through legislature.

Incorrect. The FBI admitted that what it was doing was illegal. Do you seriously not remember just six months ago? The report by the FBI that their own lawyers were trying to point out that the spying on Americans the FBI was carrying out was illegal? They gave a list of the infractions. And a judge has thrown out the claim that the FBI can use such exigency letters.

quote:
What do you think will happen to you as a result of the Patriot Act? Help me understand the fear and help me understand what you think the government is doing right now, either to you, or to some hapless guy in Kentucky because I really don't understand the objection.

Jose Padilla: An American, held for years without counsel, no charges, secret evidence, tortured.

Khaled El-Masri: Kidnapped, tortured. Germany has issued arrest warrants for the CIA officials involved.

Maher Arar: Kidnapped, tortured. The Canadian government paid reparations due to their connection with the Americans. He remains on the watch list despite no evidence against him and is barred entry to the US.

I cannot count the number of Americans who are on the "No Fly" list and cannot get off it because they are not allowed to challenge it. That's secret information.

What am I afraid of? I'm afraid that the government will get some bee in their bonnet about somebody, kidnap him, torture him, kill him, and all without any redress.

These laws haven't stopped a single terrorist attack in the US. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US.

These laws have caused people to be tortured around the world, including US citizens.

Which do you think is the more pressing problem? Something that has never happened or something that is?

quote:
I mean, remember the Stasi? That's intrusion! Collecting EVERYONE's urine specimens and recovering the scent of people from adrenal glands, wiring everyone's homes, killing dissenters of Communism, etc, etc... That is an affront to civil liberties, not government agencies being able to act quickly and decisively to provide and protect the very freedom you demand from them.

Hah! As if that's what these laws were doing!

Kidnap and torture isn't "intrusion"? Denied access to counsel and tortured for years isn't "intrusion"? Invasion of privacy isn't "intrusion"?

Tell ya what, n_j, you let me do to you what these laws allow and we'll see if you feel "intruded upon."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 6:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 143 of 145 (422438)
09-17-2007 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Tal
09-16-2007 5:38 AM


Tal writes:

quote:
Your only "evidence" is some forged documents.

Ahem. There is no evidence that the documents were forged. Those who know the claimed author agree that the documents match his opinion. The worst that can be said is that they came from a source that has an agenda and will not say where he got them from.

That certainly makes them suspicious, but that doesn't make them forgeries.

quote:
Hey looky there, CBS fired 4 guys over this including 3 Execs. I wonder why? Must be becuase they did something wrong.

Indeed. Where does it say the documents were forgeries? Using a questionable source is just as bad.

That said, you are making it seem like the story rested solely upon that single document. You are ignoring all the other evidence that Bush did not report for duty.

There seems to be a bit of a problem in terminology: You seem to be using the specific, legal definition of "AWOL" while others are using a more colloquial meaning.

It is clear that Bush did not complete his service. Whether that rises to the level of "AWOL" is another matter.

Please take discussion of GWB's military career to the Where Was W Waldo? topic. Supply links back to this topic as needed - Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner etc.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 09-16-2007 5:38 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 144 of 145 (422440)
09-17-2007 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2007 8:47 PM


Re: PR Flack
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

quote:
Yes, since the collusion factor would have to be enormous otherwise.

No, it wouldn't. You'd just have to have the administration say something. The intelligence agencies don't really have much freedom to talk about their activities.

That said, they were all left scratching their heads regarding the list the administration put out. Of the ones they could talk about, they pointed out that the actions were so small that they could hardly be called "terrorist plots."

quote:
You say that as if it detracts from the argument.

Ahem. We've already covered this. "Echelon" predates the new laws. You are being asked to show how the new laws have had any beneficial effect.

Your argument is being revealed to be that the actions either didn't exist, weren't in the US, [I][B]AND HAD NO CONNECTION TO THE NEW LEGISLATION[/i][/b].

So if these things happened because of stuff from before the new legislation, what do we need the new legislation for?

What do we need to kidnap and torture people for?

quote:
Gosh, if I didn't know any better I'd swear that you're rooting for the visiting team. Tsk, tsk... Shame on you.

Ah, yes. Oh, I know you put the smiley on the end, but that doesn't make your statement any less insipid.

If you can't defend your argument without blustering and then shouting, "TRAITOR!" then you don't really have an argument. It reveals nothing more than a scared little child.

It's time to let the adults be in charge.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2007 8:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 145 of 145 (422443)
09-17-2007 5:07 AM


Short term closure coming
Another admin can reopen this topic in a few hours.

In the meantime, consider what is and isn't on-topic. If your content isn't on-topic, please find a better place for it. Start a new topic if needed.

I've supplied a link to a GWB's military career topic, just upthread.

Closing down in about 5 or 10 minutes.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit: The "Book Nook" topic HUBRIS - The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War would be a good place to discuss Iraq War intelligence considerations.

Please supply links back to this topic as appropriate.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019