Memogate gets uglier for Kerry

[TritonRider]

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

[Richard Adams]

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

Uglier for CBS than anyone. As for Kerry and Lockhart it's potentially
losing a trump card. Are the documents real or not? Has that been
definitively answered or is everything sinking into the mud.

Oh, and what does this have to do with rbr? Any further revelations on
how the candidates stack up with bikes? (rimshot)

[Callistus Valerius]

> Uglier for CBS than anyone.

CBS's attempt to smear Bush reminds me when someone here posts something
like, oh and by the way did you know that Jacques Anquetil was a pervert.
Who cares, what he did 30 years ago.

[Richard Adams]

Callistus Valerius wrote:

>>Uglier for CBS than anyone.
>
>
> CBS's attempt to smear Bush reminds me when someone here posts something
> like, oh and by the way did you know that Jacques Anquetil was a pervert.
> Who cares, what he did 30 years ago.
>
>


If you're a sponsor you might be a bit concerned that your star rider
got busted for downloading kiddie pr0n. It's all relative, more or less.

*waffle* *waffle*

[Woogoogle]

(TritonRider) wrote in message >...
> 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.

[Richard Adams]

Woogoogle wrote:
> (TritonRider) wrote in message >...
>
>>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.

Yeah, for Kerry to pass his physicals he musta been on something. Too
bad the army didn't perform mandatory drug testing back then, put only
clean guys into uniform. Oh, that probably would have nailed Bush, too,
but he wasn't actually given a gun that could hurt anybody.

[Callistus Valerius]

>
> Yeah, for Kerry to pass his physicals he musta been on something. Too
> bad the army didn't perform mandatory drug testing back then, put only
> clean guys into uniform. Oh, that probably would have nailed Bush, too,
> but he wasn't actually given a gun that could hurt anybody.

Wasn't everyone on drugs then?

:)

[Donald Munro]

Richard Adams wrote:
>> Yeah, for Kerry to pass his physicals he musta been on something. Too
>> bad the army didn't perform mandatory drug testing back then, put only
>> clean guys into uniform. Oh, that probably would have nailed Bush, too,
>> but he wasn't actually given a gun that could hurt anybody.

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> Wasn't everyone on drugs then?

No, Keith Moon was as clean as LANCE.

[Tom Arsenault]

(Woogoogle) wrote in message >...
> (TritonRider) wrote in message >...
> > 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.

Tom

[Richard Adams]

"Callistus Valerius" > wrote in message et>...
> >
> > Yeah, for Kerry to pass his physicals he musta been on something. Too
> > bad the army didn't perform mandatory drug testing back then, put only
> > clean guys into uniform. Oh, that probably would have nailed Bush, too,
> > but he wasn't actually given a gun that could hurt anybody.
>
> Wasn't everyone on drugs then?
>
> :)

Thet thar's purty durn suspishus, lahk whut kinda sick-o wud keep offa
them drugs win everwun aylse is doon 'em, eh? Ya gotta ax them kinda
kwestshuns...

[Richard Adams]

(Tom Arsenault) wrote in message >...
> (Woogoogle) wrote in message >...
> > (TritonRider) wrote in message >...
> > > 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.
>
> Tom

You ought to know by now that during these final weeks there will be
people coming out of the wood work who can spin better than a
battalion of quantum physicists.


"Kerry didn't know anything about Bush's record because HE WAS OUT OF
THE LOOP!"

Truth be stranger than fiction.

[Woogoogle]

(Tom Arsenault) wrote in message >...
> (Woogoogle) wrote in message >...
> > (TritonRider) wrote in message >...
> > > 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.
>
> Tom

Sorry forgot my emoticon. I was being sarcastic. Enough OT for today.

[TritonRider]

>From: (Richard Adams)

>"Kerry didn't know anything about Bush's record because HE WAS OUT OF
>THE LOOP!"
>
>Truth be stranger than fiction.

It just amuses me that exactly the same people who were screaming that the
Bush campaign was writing the Swift Boat boys stuff based on some pretty tenuos
contacts are the first ones screaming that the Kerry camp obviously had nothing
to do with Rathergate.
You will notice that Howard has been fairly quiet. If you haven't had a
political discussion (not ****ing match) you have missed a really good
experience. Howard is definitely left, but does his homework, when he says
something he has background, he listens and responds intelligently and
honestly.
Lots of people around here on both sides could take a lesson, me included at
times.
Bill C

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 21 Sep 2004 23:33:16 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:

>>From: (Richard Adams)
>
>>"Kerry didn't know anything about Bush's record because HE WAS OUT OF
>>THE LOOP!"
>>
>>Truth be stranger than fiction.
>
> It just amuses me that exactly the same people who were screaming that the
>Bush campaign was writing the Swift Boat boys stuff based on some pretty tenuos
>contacts are the first ones screaming that the Kerry camp obviously had nothing
>to do with Rathergate.

It's completely unknown who was behind memogate (beyond CBS). The
links between Republican donors and Swift Boats vets are clear.

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.

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

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[TritonRider]

>From: John Forrest Tomlinson

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

I'm not going to dispute the that Bush was a lousy Airhead. I'm also not going
to write off the Kerry camp knowing what was going on based on their denials.
My personal opinion is that Rather knew there were questions about the source
and ran with it anyway since it fit his politics.
If this had been reversed Mike Moore would be in every news provider screaming
for a huge investigation and they'd be giving him the space to do it.
How about we try dropping the insinuations, slander(ducking Brian's lawyerese
on what constitutes slander), half truths, etc..
Clinton was a draft dodger, Kerry showed up and did his job, Bush showed up
sometimes and was a ****up. For me Kerry and his friends have been on a 40 year
mission to screw over, criminalize, and dehumanize our military. An awful lot
of it based on testimony that has been proven false and the reports are saying
VVAW staged a lot of this false testimony. and he has still not apologized for
it. Jane Fonda did.
Bush/Cheney/Scumsfeld want to do for the military what they want to do for the
environment which is rape it so it's ugly from both sides.
Let's try something novel and stick to issues and facts in a political
campaign.
Bill C

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 22 Sep 2004 00:05:44 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:

> For me Kerry and his friends have been on a 40 year
>mission to screw over, criminalize, and dehumanize our military.

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



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Ken Papai]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
> On 22 Sep 2004 00:05:44 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:
>
> > For me Kerry and his friends have been on a 40 year
> >mission to screw over, criminalize, and dehumanize our military.
>
> 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.

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.

-Ken

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:55:29 GMT, "Ken Papai" >
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.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
(TritonRider) wrote:

> >From: (Richard Adams)
>
> >"Kerry didn't know anything about Bush's record because HE WAS OUT OF
> >THE LOOP!"
> >
> >Truth be stranger than fiction.
>
> It just amuses me that exactly the same people who were screaming that the
> Bush campaign was writing the Swift Boat boys stuff based on some pretty
> tenuos
> contacts are the first ones screaming that the Kerry camp obviously had
> nothing
> to do with Rathergate.
> You will notice that Howard has been fairly quiet. If you haven't had a
> political discussion (not ****ing match) you have missed a really good
> experience. Howard is definitely left, but does his homework, when he says
> something he has background, he listens and responds intelligently and
> honestly.
> Lots of people around here on both sides could take a lesson, me included at
> times.
> Bill C

Well, I suppose I should thank you, Bill. Thank you.

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. 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

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Robert Chung]

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.

[TritonRider]

>From: John Forrest Tomlinson

>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

[TritonRider]

>From: Howard Kveck

> 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

[Ken Papai]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" ...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:55:29 GMT, "Ken Papai" >
> 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

[Tom Kunich]

"Woogoogle" > wrote in message
m...
> (TritonRider) wrote in message
>...
> >
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?

[Tom Kunich]

"Tom Arsenault" > wrote in message
om...
> (Woogoogle) wrote in message
>...
> > (TritonRider) wrote in message
>...
> > >
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.

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

[Tom Kunich]

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

[Howard Kveck]

In article et>,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> "remove the polite word to reply" > wrote in
> message om...
> > 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?

[Tom Kunich]

"Howard Kveck" > 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?

[Howard Kveck]

In article et>,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" > 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?

[Clovis Lark]

Tom Kunich > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" > 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

[Robert Chung]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" > 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

[Tom Kunich]

"Robert Chung" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Howard Kveck" > 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.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Clovis Lark > wrote:

> Tom Kunich > wrote:
> > "Howard Kveck" > 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?