Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/68583-cbsnews-launches-internal-investigation-after-suspicious-bush-docs-aired.html)

Aparently on CBS tonight Dan Rather is interviewing the guy who wrote the memos secretary. From the blurb it sounded like she says she typed them. This would solve the problem with the guy not typing according to his family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

She already said she didn't.

well i just heard a blurb on it so i'm going to listen to it and see what she says.

So she believes the documents are fake BUT she says what the documents say is TRUE. She has typed memos similar to them.

She says that it appears that someone took real memos and changed them enough that they couldn't be traced back to themself.

Reguardless of the memos she was the secretary for this guy and would know more about his dealings with Bush than the commanders family.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Actually she wasn't his personal secretary but the unit secretary, and basicly everyone else involved says no.

If they were copied, they wouldn't have used the wrong lingo, wrong dates, and wrong names.

and who is everyone else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://www.factcheck.org/

Check it out before saying false statements. You sound like Dan Rather.

I will no longer respond to you until you try reading before you post. Seriously this is silly.

Ustwo, How dare you accuse anyone else who posts on this thread
of saying false statements ? In your post no. 48 on this thread, you twice
stated that Kerry "lied" to congress in his 1971 testimony:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402551&postcount=48">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402551&postcount=48</a>
Your words (linked above):
Opie I don't know why I bother, but I will try yet again.

Kerry tried to get out of going to Vietnam by getting a deferment to go study in France. It was rejected. He took the quickest way out. I would commend him for his service if he didn't lie to congress etc when he got back.

Kerry TRIED to avoid Vietnam, he failed, he figured out a quick way home getting three purple hearts with zero hospitalization time, and then he lied about his service causing suffering for US POW's. We have what he said to congress on tape, with his long face lying his way to political fortune with the left, that can not be denied. You won't address it I know.
I did not expect you to reply to my post, <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402905&postcount=55">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1402905&postcount=55</a> because I challenged your accusations
that Kerry "lied" to congress, by posting the conclusion of factcheck.org
that kerry did not lie. Although it was no surprise to me that you ignored
my challenge to your statements, I was very surprised to read that you
used a factcheck.org finding to launch an accusation against another
member who you accuse of "saying false statements". You demonstrate
that you won't admit that you are wrong when confronted with a reliable
and respected source that invalidates a statement you have posted on this
thread, but you are quick to lash out at another member, by using the
same authority, factcheck.org, that I used to refute misinformed
accusations that you made here. You do not hold yourself to the same
standard that you seek to hold others to, and yet you treat others in a
condescending and antagonistic manner. Never admit that you are wrong,
Ustwo, and....attack.....attack.....attack.....you have learned well from
your pResident....you conduct yourself here, just like he and his puppetmaster Rove conduct themselves in the political arena ! Long on gall and nerve, but short on truth and substance.

Wow, Host. Nicely put!

Ustwo has been pwned.

Well said host!

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Your statement is that Kerry lied. You say it twice; but it is still only your unsubstantiated opinion. Is your post usefull, or appropriate in this forum ?

Funny, but I don't recall you pointing out to the authors of hundreds of posts throughout politics over the last year or so about "Bush's lie" being only opinion.

Does that make you a hypocrite? Or does it make you, like Ustwo, guilty of filtering information to support the views he holds?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=222

Quote:

Ustwo, How dare you accuse anyone else who posts on this thread
of saying false statements ? In your post no. 48 on this thread, you twice
stated that Kerry "lied" to congress in his 1971 testimony:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=48

Your words (linked above):
Opie I don't know why I bother, but I will try yet again.

Kerry tried to get out of going to Vietnam by getting a deferment to go study in France. It was rejected. He took the quickest way out. I would commend him for his service if he didn't lie to congress etc when he got back.

Kerry TRIED to avoid Vietnam, he failed, he figured out a quick way home getting three purple hearts with zero hospitalization time, and then he lied about his service causing suffering for US POW's. We have what he said to congress on tape, with his long face lying his way to political fortune with the left, that can not be denied. You won't address it I know.

I did not expect you to reply to my post, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=55 because I challenged your accusations
that Kerry "lied" to congress, by posting the conclusion of factcheck.org
that kerry did not lie. Although it was no surprise to me that you ignored
my challenge to your statements, I was very surprised to read that you
used a factcheck.org finding to launch an accusation against another
member who you accuse of "saying false statements". You demonstrate
that you won't admit that you are wrong when confronted with a reliable
and respected source that invalidates a statement you have posted on this
thread, but you are quick to lash out at another member, by using the
same authority, factcheck.org, that I used to refute misinformed
accusations that you made here. You do not hold yourself to the same
standard that you seek to hold others to, and yet you treat others in a
condescending and antagonistic manner. Never admit that you are wrong,
Ustwo, and....attack.....attack.....attack.....you have learned well from
your pResident....you conduct yourself here, just like he and his puppetmaster Rove conduct themselves in the political arena ! Long on gall and nerve, but short on truth and substance.

host, I don't read your posts because of the poor formating, extra long cut and pastes, and the fact that you always seemed a bit out of it. The only reason I read this one is because 'I got owned' which is quite silly.

The question isn't were war crimes commited in Vietnam, of course they were, they have been by US forces in every war. When you get young men in such situations, the worst in people come out. The question is was it policy, was the winter soldier movement really accurate or was it fabricated to fit an agenda, and did the leaders like Kerry know it.

Here is a long, unformated article for you to read.

Quote:

My name is Steve Pitkin, age 20, from Baltimore. I served with the 9th Division from May of '69 until I was airvaced in July of '69. I'll testify about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel, destruction of villages, indiscriminate use of artillery, the general racism and the attitude of the American GI toward the Vietnamese. I will also talk about some of the problems of the GIs toward one another and the hassle with officers.

-- Steve Pitkin, Winter Soldier Investigation, February 1, 1971.

----------

Steve Pitkin never intended to speak at the Winter Soldier Investigation. He agreed to come to Detroit in January of 1971 mostly to support his fellow veterans, but also to see David Crosby and Graham Nash perform and hopefully meet a few girls. He didn’t really have any place else to go.

Unlike most members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Pitkin had seen combat in Vietnam. He was caught in a mortar attack shortly after arriving in country as a Private First Class, and suffered minor wounds to both legs. During the months that followed his injuries became infected and "jungle rot" set in. He was eventually medivaced to an Army hospital in Okinawa, where the doctors gave him anti-fungals and antibiotics, and managed to save his feet. Specialist Pitkin would leave the Army with a Purple Heart, an honorable discharge, and a lifetime case of hepatitis C from the transfusions.

Back in the States, Pitkin did not receive a hero's welcome. At Travis Air Force Base in California he was showered with feces thrown by anti-war protestors. Later, while he waited in his Class A uniform for a plane at San Francisco International Airport, people stopped to snarl obscenities and occasionally spit. Even a World War II veteran paused to come over and call him a coward. He went back home to Baltimore, but it wasn’t home any more. Steve Pitkin was 19 years old.

"I was in bad shape," Pitkin recalls. "My family was against the war, and so were all my old friends. I had things I wanted to say, but there was nobody to listen. I was angry at our government which should have known better than to let us die in a conflict it had no intention of winning, and I was furious at the American media for making us out to be baby-killers and telling lies about what they saw."

Confused and depressed, Pitkin signed up for classes at Catonsville Community College outside of Baltimore. There he met recruiters talking up a new organization they described as a "brotherhood" of Vietnam veterans. Pitkin started going to Vietnam Veterans Against the War meetings at the campus, hoping to find some people he could talk to about his experiences. Pitkin says he "had no inkling" that VVAW leaders were meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives, or that the VVAW consistently supported their positions. He thought the VVAW was just an alternative to older organizations such as the VFW, where so many Vietnam vets felt unwelcome.

----------

In January of 1971, Pitkin was invited to go to Detroit for the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation," a national conference intended to convince the public that American troops were routinely committing war crimes in Vietnam. "I was just going to show support for the guys who were already picked out to testify," said Pitkin. "Fighting in the war was terrible enough -– I shot people -- but I never saw any atrocities against civilians. The Vietcong hung up tribal chiefs and disemboweled them in front of their own families –- they did that to their own people. I never saw Americans do anything like that."

The Baltimore contingent met up with other VVAW members in Washington, where they were loaded into rental vans with no back seats. It was freezing cold in Pitkin's van, and Kerry and another former officer were in the front where all the heat was, which made for a long drive. Pitkin was unimpressed with the tall, aloof Kerry, who rarely spoke to anyone other than the organization’s leaders, and tagged Kerry with the nickname "Lurch" after the Addams Family TV character. The ragtag group eventually made it to Detroit, got lost for a while, and then spent the night at somebody's house. The conference was held at a Howard Johnson’s motel, in a room Pitkin remembers as having big concrete posts and no windows, with press lights glaring down on the participants. An entourage of VVAW leaders and reporters always surrounded John Kerry, who, Pitkin thought, looked like he was running for President.

Pitkin watched for a day or so while his fellow VVAW members told stories about horrible things they claimed to have done or witnessed in Vietnam. He noticed other people, civilians, going around to the VVAW members and "bombarding them, laying on the guilt," as they told the veterans they had committed unspeakable crimes, but could make amends by testifying against the war.

On the second day of the conference, Pitkin was surrounded by a group of the event's leaders, who said they needed more witnesses and wanted him to speak. Pitkin protested that he didn’t have anything to say. Kerry said, "Surely you had to have seen some of the atrocities." Pitkin insisted that he hadn't, and the group's mood turned menacing. One of the other leaders leaned in and whispered, "It’s a long walk back to Baltimore." Pitkin finally agreed to "testify." The Winter Soldier leaders told Pitkin exactly what they wanted -– stories about rape, brutality, shooting prisoners, and racism. Kerry assured him that "the American people will be grateful for what you have to say."

----------

Many of the vets, particularly the vets participating in this panel, have expressed the fact that they could go on and on for a long time, talking about various instances of brutality, torture, rape, everything that's been talked about here for the last two days. But one thing they felt was very important and which hasn't, in a sense, been done by many of the veterans was to say why this happened. What happens to them that this happens and how these things came about. Steve Pitkin in particular felt the need to try and express something about how these men become animals in a sense. I know several of the other vets on the panel want to mention it very briefly. So Steve why don't you start off?

-- Moderator, Miscellaneous Panel, Winter Soldier Investigation, February 1, 1971 [Note: the moderators for this session were VVAW founder Jan Crumb and Executive Committee member John Kerry]

----------

Pitkin appears several times in the documentary film "Winter Soldier," where he comes across as vague and somewhat stunned, especially while being questioned by John Kerry in a preliminary interview. He seems overwhelmed at having to relive his harrowing experiences in Vietnam. But Steve Pitkin says today that what the film actually shows are his efforts to avoid answering Kerry’s questions at all.

During the formal hearings, Pitkin started to slam the press for misrepresenting what GIs really did in Vietnam, but a woman he believes was Jane Fonda shot him an astonished look and started to stand up. Steve could see other members of the group getting ready to cut him off, so he changed course and made up a few things he thought they would be willing to accept. "Everything I said about atrocities and racism was a lie. My unit never went out with the intention of doing anything but its job. And I never saw black soldiers treated differently, get picked out for the worst or most dangerous jobs, or anything like that. There were some guys, shirkers, who would intentionally injure themselves to get sent home, so I talked about that for a while. But the fact is I lied my ass off, and I'm not proud of it. I didn't think it would ever amount to anything."

After the 3-day conference ended, everybody piled back into the vans and headed home. Nobody had much to say to Pitkin. A month or two later he was contacted by a reporter for Life Magazine who asked about war crimes and atrocities. "I didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear," said Pitkin. Nothing he said was included in the final story.

----------

In April, Steve Pitkin went down to Washington to check out the VVAW's weeklong "Dewey Canyon III" protest, where he "ran into a lot of guys who couldn’t answer questions about what unit they were in." At one point he met up with leftist icon Jerry Rubin, who was wrapped in a Vietcong flag. Pitkin told him to take it off. Rubin shrugged, dropped the flag, and walked away. Pitkin and two or three like-minded veterans formed a patrol, confiscating Vietcong flags and T-shirts from protestors and daring them to start something. Nobody took them up on it.

Pitkin was present for the infamous "medal toss" event on Friday, where VVAW members yelled obscenities and threats against the government into a microphone, then threw military decorations and papers over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. A guy with long hair stood nearby holding a bag filled with military ribbons and a few medals, handing them out. Pitkin noticed that most of the decorations weren't right for Vietnam combat veterans -– some, in fact, were from the Korean War -– and overheard remarks that the VVAW had cleaned out the local Army-Navy stores the day before. Disgusted, he grabbed a handful of ribbons and threw them, not at the Capitol, but at the throng of reporters crowding close to the microphone, and stalked away.

After Dewey Canyon III, Pitkin was no longer invited to VVAW meetings or events, which was fine with him. He soon went back into the military, joining the 5/20th Special Forces Group of the Maryland National Guard in 1974, and graduating from paratrooper "jump school" with honors in 1976, but was unable to get back on full time active duty in the Army. Pitkin joined the Coast Guard in 1978 and served there until his retirement in May 1997.

Steve Pitkin wants to apologize to Vietnam veterans for what he did and said at the Winter Soldier Investigation. "The VVAW found me during a difficult time in my life, and I let them use me to advance their political agenda. They pressured me to tell their lies, but that's no excuse for what I did. I just want people to know the truth and to make amends as best I can. I'd hate to see the troops serving today have to go through what Vietnam veterans did."

Scott Swett
WinterSoldier.com

----------

Note: the original version of this report incorrectly identified Scott Camil as the individual who recruited Steve Pitkin into the VVAW, and who rode with Pitkin and Kerry to the Winter Soldier event. Steve Pitkin recently saw film footage of Camil, realized that he had provided the wrong name, and filed a new affidavit that corrects this error.

-- Scott Swett, September 15, 2004.

Quote:

Good afternoon brothers and sisters. My name is Steve Pitkin. I’m here today for two reasons – to tell you the truth about what happened in the Winter Soldier Investigation 33 years ago, and to apologize to you for what I did there.

Like many of you, I fought in Vietnam. And like many of you, I came home to find that wearing a Class A uniform in public was an invitation to abuse. I joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War because I wanted to find other veterans I could talk to about my experiences, and because I was angry with the government for fighting a war it had no intention of winning. I had no idea that the national leadership of the VVAW was meeting with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong and repeating their talking points.

In January of 1971, I rode to Detroit with John Kerry and Scott Camil for the “Winter Soldier Investigation.” The second day I was there, Kerry and the other leaders told me they wanted me to testify. They knew I was one of the very few real combat veterans in the room. I told them I didn’t have anything to say. Kerry said, “Surely you’ve seen some of the atrocities.”

I kept saying “no” and the mood turned ugly. One of the other leaders whispered to me, “It’s a long walk back to Baltimore.” I’m not proud of this, but I finally agreed to speak. They told me what to talk about – American troops beating civilians and prisoners, shelling and destroying villages for no reason, and acts of racism against the Vietnamese.

John Kerry knew that the Winter Soldier testimony was a pack of lies. I know, because I was there, and I told some of those lies. You can read the rest of my testimony, and my legal affidavit, on WinterSoldier.com.

After I left the VVAW and I went back into the military, I retired with 32 years of total service. 21½ of those were active duty. Today I want to apologize to you all and ask for your forgiveness.

Sometimes the truth hurts, before you can begin to heal.

Lieutenant Kerry, now’s your turn!

Quote:

o In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..." War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.

o Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered.

o Kerry charged that the war in Vietnam was a racist war, that "blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties." Research published in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor" and other sources shows that casualty rates for black and white soldiers during Vietnam closely matched the proportion of America's overall population represented by each race.

o Kerry claimed that Vietnam was "ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism..." Later in his remarks, Kerry responded to a question about what might happen to the South Vietnamese after our withdrawal with "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America..." Yet according to historian Guenter Lewy in "America in Vietnam," "...the number of civilians killed deliberately by the VC is appallingly high. No counterpart to this death toll caused by communist terror tactics exists on the allied side."

o Asked for a recommendation about possible courses of action for Congress to pursue, Kerry stated that he had talked with representatives from Hanoi and from the PRG (Viet Cong) at the Paris peace talks, and mentioned his support for "Madam Binh's points." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was at that time the Foreign Minister for the PRG. These meetings took place in the spring of 1970, before Kerry ever joined the VVAW.

o Kerry was a leader, fund-raiser, and spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), an organization that staged mock mass murders of civilians to dramatize American atrocities, and handed out flyers that read "if you had been Vietnamese" American infantrymen might have "burned your house" or "raped your wife and daughter" and "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are 'Gooks.'"

o Kerry's used "testimony" from the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation" as the basis for his war crimes charges, although none of the witnesses there were willing to sign depositions affirming their claims. Later investigators were unable to confirm any of the reported atrocities, and in fact discovered that a number of the witnesses had never been in Vietnam, had never been in combat, or were imposters who had assumed the identity of real veterans.

o The deception extended to the VVAW leadership. Executive secretary Al Hubbard claimed to have been an Air Force captain wounded piloting a transport over Da Nang in 1966. Hubbard was actually a staff sergeant who was never assigned to Vietnam.

o The Winter Soldier Investigation was financed by pro-Hanoi radicals such as Jane Fonda and Mark Lane, who hoped to undermine American support for the war by framing American soldiers as mass murderers. At the same time, the North Vietnamese military was torturing American prisoners of war to make them confess to identical crimes. At least one former POW has stated that Kerry's testimony was used by North Vietnam to demoralize American prisoners during interrogations.

o John Kerry has denied any association with Jane Fonda, but he attended the 1970 VVAW leadership meeting that chose Fonda and Executive Secretary Al Hubbard to do a national speaking tour to raise money for the VVAW and launch new chapters. Fonda was also the primary source of funds for the Winter Soldier Investigation, where Kerry was a moderator.

o The VVAW signed the People's Peace Treaty during Kerry's tenure -- the VVAW even sent a delegation to Hanoi. The document was a laundry list of North Vietnamese bargaining points, including the key concession that the United States must agree to withdraw all troops before any negotiations could take place for the return of American prisoners.

o The VVAW was at the heart of the propaganda effort that so effectively smeared American servicemen in Vietnam as murderous, drug-addled psychotics that returning veterans were cursed and spat upon in the streets. In fact, as shown in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor," Vietnam veterans are more psychologically stable and successful than their civilian counterparts.

o The VVAW was a radical and potentially violent organization that formally considered assassinating prominent supporters of the war. As reported in the New York Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, during a November 1971 meeting in Kansas City the VVAW leadership and chapter coordinators voted down a plan to murder several U.S. Senators, including John Tower, John Stennis, and Strom Thurmond. Two VVAW members who were present, Randy Barnes and Terry Du-Bose, place John Kerry at that meeting, as do the meeting minutes and FBI records. Kerry claims to have resigned from the VVAW at the meeting or shortly thereafter, but there is no evidence that he ever informed authorities about the conspiracy. Kerry continued to publicly represent the VVAW until at least April of 1972.

how is this bullshit even remotely related to the point of the thread?

what a fucking waste of time to see you bickering here.

and for those who think I can just not choose to read it, true, but I didn't know that someone was posting so far off topic until I had to read their crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Host: Member since 09-03-2004

I missed this one earlier, so since this thread has gotten WAY off topic for so long, I feel the need to bring it back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmoknight

What you have to believe in order to be a Democrat.

(1) That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."

(2) That Killian kept the documents in his personal files--though his family says he didn't keep files.

(3) That the disputed documents reflect his true (negative) feelings about Bush and a contemporaneous official document he wrote lauding Bush did not.

(4) That he typed the documents on a technically advanced typewriter, an IBM Selectric Composer--though that model has been tested and failed to produce an exact copy of the documents.

(5) That this advanced typewriter, which would have cost $15,000 or so in today's dollars, was used by the Texas National Guard and that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate it.

(6) That Killian was under pressure to whitewash Bush's record from a general who had retired 18 months earlier.

(7) That Killian's superior, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, was right when, sight unseen, he supposedly said the documents were authentic, but wrong when, having actually viewed the documents, he declared them fraudulent.

Now if you can't accept all that, there's another side. To believe the documents are forgeries, you have to believe this:

(1) The documents were typed recently using Microsoft Word, which produces documents that are

exact copies of the CBS documents.

(2) There's no number 2. All you have to believe is number 1.

A quick look at what experts could not make the IBM Selectric or the laughable $18,000 IBM Composer in the hands og National Guard do.Amazingling Microsoft Word gets the font,superscript,spacing everything done pat.

http://www.spacetownusa.com/bushdoc.gif

His secretary and colleagues has said he has said the exact things that are actually in the documents.

And as for your little animation, I will copy and past the exact thing I said to you at the "other" forum:

Look at the 8 and the 3 in the date. Look at how wide the top of the J is in SUBJECT.

Look at the lowercase m in Memo. It shows an imperfection in the strike. A computer printer doesn't do that.
Look at how the e in File shifts. Hell look at all the e's
Look at how the twin s's in pressured go from being the same size as as the letters that surround (in the msword) it to being visibly larger on top and bottom (in the actual document).

Look at the number 2 on the last line. See how it changes? It is not the same font.

FINALLY, look at the "th" in 187th:
in the reproduction: it is directly in line with the 187.
In the Original: It is significantly superscripted from the upper line of 187. WHY couldn't your buddy on spacetown do the same thing with microsoft? Maybe because it's impossible to do with MSWord?

IF this was done using MSWord, then why can't your disbelievers post a better copy than this? I think this animation though not proving that it is original, was DEFINETLEY not done on a computer (at least unless a forger had the idea to then take his document into photoshop and modify the Times New Roman to match a Selectric Times New Roman and create type errors that exist in all typewritten documents [ie ink bleeds]).

btw, I hate debating the past, I dunno why I am doing it. I guess... though I don't care to bash on Bush for this, I also don't want to see others suppress, ignore, revise his past to make him look better in the now...

I would rather this subject had been ignored all together so we can focus on important issues of today such as the loss of controll of Iraq outside of the Green Zone etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Host: Member since 09-03-2004

Hmmm, for some reason I seem to recall seeing posts by host earlier than that but that's irrelevant since there have probably been 100 posts stating that "Bush lied" since 9/03/04 including your own references within this thread.

But Bush did lie.

He presented documents he knew were false (the documents were said to be false by the CIA a year before Bush recieved them). That seems like a lie to me.

Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...9011-2003Mar22
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...463779,00.html

I have to say - who gives a rats behind? I mean - HONESTLY? And i know what y'all are going to say - "What about all the hubbub over Kerry's military record." There is a HUGE difference and here's why.

Let's, for the sake of argument say that all the documents about Bush are true. Is it bad? Yeah - when he was younger and serving in the National Guard he didn't go have a fitness test and broke a direct order. If it was so bad they should have brought him up on UCMJ charges and then he NEVER would have been President. However - that didn't happen. And however the hell many years later, it comes to light - I say a big whoopity doo. George W. Bush has never brought his military record into play as a part of why he is fit to be the Commander in Chief of this nation. And as a military wife on one of the largest military bases, the majority of soldiers like serving under Bush and would rather serve under him then Kerry.

Let's now look at the accusation against Kerry with the same devil's advocasy clause in place. So he forced a 3rd purple heart so he could go home. He then went before the US Congress and made claims that the very soldiers he served with were committing horrible atrocities and that they were "war criminals".

An oversimplification, yes. Illegal, no. Highly dishonorable, HELL YES! First an officer in charge (OIC) would NEVER leave his soldiers behind unless he was mortally wounded. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with why we are in Iraq. One of my friend's husbands is a 2nd Lieutenant and had his leg broken in 2 places during the fighting in Iraq. This qualified him to come home. But he was in the hospital for 5 days in traction and then he was back on the front lines with the soldiers he was in charge of. Why? Because those men were like his family and he wouldn't leave them for anything. Though worried, his wife understood and supported him in that decision.

Quote:

"I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals
or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I
only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I
could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon." -Oliver North, Letter to John Kerry, Washington Post

And then to come home and put those claims to Congress was so morally apprehensible that it makes me ill. Do bad things happen in war? It is war - not a tea party - what the hell do you think is gonna happen? The soldiers my husband serves with have seen things that no young man or woman their age should EVER have to see. That's war. Does it suck - Hell yes. There were definately things in the Vietnam war that should never have happened. It was one of the first wars of its kind that we fought and a lot of learning was done as to what to do and what not to do. For instance, they no longer leave a unit on the front lines for 18 months in heavy fighting like they did in Vietnam. They rotate the units out so that the soldiers have time to recoop and talk to counselors. It sucks - but it is their job.

Quote:

When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief. -Oliver North, Letter to John Kerry, Washington Post

Why is this pertinant to John Kerry's campaign and not to Bush's? Because John Kerry has made his military service one of the primary reasons he says he is qualified to run this country. Bush has acknowledge Kerry's service in the military as being honorable and his discharge to be the same, regardless of the accusation. In response, Kerry is slinging mud and is bringing Bush's service into questions and is making accusations about him as being dishonorable. He can't even pay the same respect to a fellow running mate.

This is just my opinion - but I really don't care about either. I have put the past 30 years behind me and moved on. Just looking at the past 10 years, HELL the past 4 years of their service in the public eye - I am able to make a well informed and well based decision. Military service records be damned.

Rachel

I understand now! Illegial is ok, Dishonerable is bad! It is ok to lie as long as your not under oath. Speaking your mind is a big no no if the majority don't agree with you.

I now understand! It makes perfect sense!

Quote:

- Bush, as a youth, could have tried to go to Vietnam. He didn't.
- Kerry, as a youth, could have avoided going to Vietnam. But he didn't.

Kerry did try to escape service under the student's clause but was turned down and then instead of being brought in as enlisted forcibly he went officer.

Rachel

Illegal is bad. Dishonorable conduct is bad. Conduct that is 30 years old of that magnitude when there is so much more that can be an influence should not be the major reason why you don't vote for someone. That's all I was saying on that. I don't care because I can look past those and see my reasoning.

Speaking your mind is fine as long as 30 years later you are willing to live by the consequences of your words. If he did the things he said he did he would be considered a war criminal - just as he said his comrades were.

I see honorable service to this country during the Vietnam war done in two ways.

One is to serve your nation, in the armed forces, honorably.
The other is to protest the war as best you can, because it was wrong of us to begin it.

Kerry opposed the war, but when called to service, he wen't right in. Additionally he voluntered for active service in Vietnam. The postion he originally got would have kept him safe off the coast of Nam. He did more than he had to. His own crew vouch for his bravery and integrity. When he was released he resumed his original goal of opposing the war the best he could. He fought to bring our boys home from an unnecessary war.

To me that is the IDEAL way to conduce yourself in the face of that period.

But again, this is way off target for this thread. PLEASE STOP. If you need to discuss this, take it to a brand new thread.
Let's not distract anymore from what this topic is about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Interesting, so you were in his head and know that he knew them to be false and he then still chose to make the claim. You are spouting your own personal belief and not fact.

As I have said, my husband is an intelligence analyst and an Arabic linguist. He will be the first to tell you that most intel is not an exact science. And I believe that we should look at those who handed him those documents. Just because one becomes elected President does not mean one SUDDENLY knows all the intel. He must rely on those that are around him. George Tenet has already left because he screwed up...

Rachel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

I see honorable service to this country during the Vietnam war done in two ways.

And I see two candidates who both served their country honorably during the period. They both have the military sign offs required to prove it too in terms of their officially sanctioned and approved honorable discharges and medal citations.

To try to get this back to the topic at hand....

Just as the

-intelligence used by Bush to make claims about Iraqi WMDs and attempted purchase of bomb making materials

-documentation of Bush & Kerry's service in Vietnam

-claims by Swift Boat Vets

etc, etc, etc

have been put through the public wringer so too should CBS's acquisition and approval process for this story. So far CBS has failed at all turns to account for their story generation and fact checking.

CBS has on its side.....

Forged documents.

A life long democrat, who is a A list Kerry fund raiser, who changed his story about Bush (in 1999 he said he didn't help Bush get out of service in any way) and who's own daughter is calling a liar.

An 86 year old unit secretary who said all the memos are frauds but some of them are accurate.

I mean, what more evidence does one need?

Again I say - who cares? This is one of those things that happened or didn't happen SO long ago that it really has very little effect on the current world situation. Move on to important issues that are going to effect us here and now.

What about Kerry's position on turning the war in Iraq to the UN? What about Bush's position on illegal immigrants getting social security benefits? There is SO much more that we shoudl be focusing on instead of who got a physical when. As for Kerry - if he doesn't want his military record being brought up - then he needs to stop using it to distract from all his other positional stands.

Rachel

Rachel

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Interesting, so you were in his head and know that he knew them to be false and he then still chose to make the claim. You are spouting your own personal belief and not fact.

Well if a government agency that specializes in forgein intelligence tells me a document is false (me being the president) I guess I would be inclined to believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Well if a government agency that specializes in forgein intelligence tells me a document is false (me being the president) I guess I would be inclined to believe it.

First and foremost it wasn't just a document that the intelligence was based on and he had government agencies telling him that it's (it being the Iraqi attempt to purchase) true as well. Obviously it's not as easy as you make it out to be.

You are assuming that someone told him that it was false ahead of time.

Rachel

The intel community is so vast and disorganized - which needs to be rectified badly - that things like this slip through the cracks EASILY. It's a pity - but it's the truth.

Rachel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Host: Member since 09-03-2004

LOL. duh. some of the comebacks on here are so disingenuous it amazes me. Nice work identifying this one, Rekna.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Interesting, so you were in his head and know that he knew them to be false and he then still chose to make the claim. You are spouting your own personal belief and not fact.

oops. Missed this one.

Let's put it this way. There are two possibilities here:

1) Bush talked to his intelligence personnel, was told that it was false, and made the claim anyway. Conclusion: Bush is a liar.

2) Bush refused to talk to his intelligence personnel about a vital intelligence issue, and then went off making claims about this intelligence issue, despite not being fully informed. Conclusion: Bush is an idiot.

Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me which option is correct ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Frankly, it doesn't much matter to me which option is correct ;)

Frankly, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you at all if it didn't support your presupposition of Bush failure/dishonesty. :icare:

powerclown, that's a good one. :lol:

Here it comes... I hate to say I told you so :o , but CBS is going to say they were deceived.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ocs_091804.gif

I dont' know whats more sad. CBS for doing this or some of the tfp posters who have blinders on.

Nice picture JBX

It's official!

Quote:

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Frankly, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you at all if it didn't support your presupposition of Bush failure/dishonesty. :icare:

I think you're reading me somewhat wrong here. I had a very tough time deciding whether to vote for Gore or Bush in the last election. Gore was a proven liar (the finance story) but Bush was a proven dullard (look what he did to Texas).

After 9/11 I supported Bush when he went into Afghanistan.

It was only when Bush started trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 that I became suspicious. I got about 4 hours of sleep the week of 9/11. The rest of the time was spent covering stories on it. I covered just about every aspect of it you could think of, and I knew that NONE of the terrorists were Iraqi. Why was he implying that Iraq was somehow responsible?

Then when I saw the "evidence" of WMD's that he was presenting, I really got concerned. Didn't seem like very good evidence to me. Powell touted a semi trailer in the middle of the desert as the best evidence they had that Iraq had chemical weapons sites. A semi trailer? Who says it doesn't have electronics or lumber or bricks in it? There just wasn't enough evidence to justify the invasion, yet Bush invaded anyway.

THEN, after months and months went by with no evidence that WMD's were anywhere near Iraq, and Bush started downplaying the WMD idea and playing up the idea that Saddam was a bad man and needed to be removed, I got really confused. Wait a minute! All this time he's told us we invaded because of WMD's! Now all of a sudden we invaded for a "humanitarian" cause? Why weren't we notified?

There's only two conclusions we can make from this: Either he's an idiot who doesn't remember from day to day what his thinking was the day before, or he's been misleading us as to his true motives and is now trying to make us forget about it.

Either way, that makes him unfit to lead our country.

That's why I said it didn't really matter which conclusion was the correct one - because whether it's choice A or choice B, the result is the same - we have a leader who is either incapable or too unethical to be trusted at the helm.

Is there any sort of criminal charges that can be brought against the forger of these documents? Has there been any proof as to who was the creator of the forgeries??