Any of you read the Michael Moore letter to Bush?

[indivision]

Firstly, I haven't seen anything convincing that Bush did shirk his responsibilities when he was in the gaurd. Although, I am open to the possibility. Certainly, Moore asking questions about it, does not qualify in my mind as proof that the allegations are true. If anyone wants me to dig up the extensive exposure of Moore's blatantly fraudulent work, I will gladly do so.

Secondly, lets assume that the allegations are true. Is this the best that the left has? Bush shouldn't be president, even though he has earned a majority of favor amongst Americans over the last four years because he did something irresponsible decades ago? It's like scrutinizing an employee's qualifications after they've already been doing the job.

That's my ten cents. Honestly, in the interest of having an effective debate, the left would do themselves well to stick to their criticisms of Bush's CURRENT policies. After all, they take a tremendous risk attacking the past. Bush hasn't even started campaigning yet. If he comes forth with solid proof of his duty, it will be a blow to the Dems that they didn't have to take.

Ok, 12 cents.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by haikumania
So if you really have nothing to hide, why dodge so hard?

Because it appears to be a complete, outright lie, and no one has any obligation to answer to such ridiculous claims.

Anyway, while on the topic of questioning one's service to our country, let's talk about John Kerry.

[haikumania]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
Because it appears to be a complete, outright lie, and no one has any obligation to answer to such ridiculous claims.

Anyway, while on the topic of questioning one's service to our country, let's talk about John Kerry.

But by DODGING the question which McClellan does (notice he never says it didn't happen...he just refuses to answer one way or another) doesn't that give the APPEARANCE to voters that you have something to hide.

If you truly don't have anything to hide, wouldn't you improve your situation by just saying "That's an absolute lie, Helen." instead of "I think we've already covered it, Helen" and "That came up 4 years ago, Helen."

The White House is VERY good at politics and it just seems that they would not allow themselves to look like they are dodging a question unless they had to (because the truth is worse in their eyes than the appearance of dodging).

Adam

[indivision]

Has it occured to you that it might be a good strategy for the white house to allow the opposition to use their breath on a charge that could be so easily and clearly refuted?

Is this really the most significant criticism one could make at this time?!

[haikumania]

Originally posted by indivision
Has it occured to you that it might be a good strategy for the white house to allow the opposition to use their breath on a charge that could be so easily and clearly refuted?

Is this really the most significant criticism one could make at this time?!

I don't know, it sure seems to be hurting Bush in the polls. Here's a link to today's Washington Post which shows Bush now at only 52% who think he is "honest and trustworthy"...down 7 points since late last year.

If my "honest and trustworthy" poll numbers were dropping, I'd tell the truth if I could, rather than look like I don't want to answer the questions.

I WOULDN'T go on national tv and promise to release all my military records and then later decide to only release some of them.

I WOULDN'T have my press secretary spend 15 minutes and 30 questions dodging a simple, yes no question.

I'm not saying that Bush has anything to hide or that it is important (although I do think that )...what I AM saying is that the White House sure seems to be giving the appearance that they have something to hide that THEY think is damaging.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb12.html

Adam

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Bush should just come out and admit that the missing parts of his military record are due to week long benders.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by haikumania
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb12.html

The flaw with this data is that the last poll they ran was on 10/24/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com//wp-sr...ata021304.html). Public opinion polls show that after the attacks, Bush's approval ratings increased, not decreased.

[haikumania]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Bush should just come out and admit that the missing parts of his military record are due to week long benders.

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but I think you are exactly right.

In the 2000 election all the voters knew that George had trouble with booze (and maybe harder drugs) earlier in life and decided they didn't care.

If he missed time because he was partying or whatever...he'd be better off admitting it, rather than covering it up.

Remember, it's not the deed that gets you in trouble in American politics...it's the cover-up.

Adam

[haikumania]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
The flaw with this data is that the last poll they ran was on 10/24/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com//wp-sr...ata021304.html). Public opinion polls show that after the attacks, Bush's approval ratings increased, not decreased.

What attacks occured last October?

The point of the poll is that his "honest and trustworthy" numbers have dropped in the past few months.

Adam

[indivision]

Originally posted by haikumania
Remember, it's not the deed that gets you in trouble in American politics...it's the cover-up.

Hah! Sadly, I remember that lesson from the last president.

[haikumania]

Originally posted by indivision
Hah! Sadly, I remember that lesson from the last president.

Exactly. Most people were more upset about the lies than the adultery.

Adam

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by haikumania
If he missed time because he was partying or whatever...he'd be better off admitting it, rather than covering it up.

These are unsubstantiated, unproven, foundless claims that are unfortuantely ignorant of the facts present. To this date, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, except for an outlandish piece by Michael Moore, who is about as unreliable as the former Iraqi news agencies, that Bush went AWOL.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence of what you are trying to claim. None.

[haikumania]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
These are unsubstantiated, unproven, foundless claims that are unfortuantely ignorant of the facts present. To this date, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, except for an outlandish piece by Michael Moore, who is about as unreliable as the former Iraqi news agencies, that Bush went AWOL.

No matter how you spin it, there is no evidence of what you are trying to claim. None.

Except that I'm not claiming anything

I'm simply saying that I think that the Administration's actions give the APPEARANCE that they have something to hide and that if I had nothing to hide, I would try not to give the appearance that I did.

And if you really think that there is NO evidence that he missed a bunch of Guard duty then you need to do some more searching. The records they released this week even showed gaps in service that they denied in the 2000 election. Add in his commanders at the time saying they had not seen him and therefore could not rate him and I don't think you can say it's "groundless".

Adam

[XU1]

Originally posted by japangreg
A sound and resonating argument.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

LOL..But i think its true ... really that is all this issue is about...hoping and wishing somehow Bush can be nailed on an issue he purpotedly is passionate about.

And honestly it just looks like a desperation attempt by the opponents..
in fact as a tactic I think it will work more for Bush than against, cause come debating time I think we all know who will come on top, and that wont be Kerry...

you know attack the man but not the policies is the last resort....but since this is the first resort of Bushs oponents it shows that maybe the bag is empty of ideas.

Tony

[starchie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Visionray
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by starchie
RE: MIchael Moore


if what this man so publicly says is so false, so riddled with lies and mis-truths you would think that someone in the most litigious country in the world woud have sued him by now. i mean you can't go round lying like that in the best selling non fiction book in the nation and not have someone test you in court, can you?

No, people write all kinds of things in books. Just step into your local bookstore and go to the politics or international affairs section. You'll see books about how Bush is a great leader and books about how he is a great satan. You actually think that just because something is written down, that therefore it must be true? Obviously you've never read the National Enquirer.

no i don't as a matter of fact, but then again i'm not expecting " an ailien made love to [insert stars name] in my garden" to be taken as seriously as calling the leader of the free world a liar, a cheat, allowing an election to be rigged on his behalf.there must be truth in the story, or someone called bush would have sued his a**



an academy award for a pack of lies in a documentary - don't those people at the academy know what they're doing?

Um no. These are the same people that voted "Shakespeare in Love", and "Chicago" as best picture remember. So what they gave him the best documentary award? As far as filmmaking, it was a brilliant documentary, but that has absolutley nothing to do with the factual content of the film, nada. It doesn't mean everythign he says in there is true or things weren't taken entirely out of context.

again we are talking about the most litigious country in the world, if these claims afre false or misleading, why no brouhaha? the books certainly contain enough cross references to other peoples articles in many different publications for any of the people that have been misquoted to take to the stand. nett result - no-one yet.

peace and love

starchie

[Visionray]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by starchie

no i don't as a matter of fact, but then again i'm not expecting " an ailien made love to [insert stars name] in my garden" to be taken as seriously as calling the leader of the free world a liar, a cheat, allowing an election to be rigged on his behalf.there must be truth in the story, or someone called bush would have sued his a**


My God. So basically, since Michael Moore of all people, claims the leader of the free world a liar and cheat etc...then

A. He must of course be telling the truth and has overwhelming evidence to support his opinion.

and

B. Since he is of course telling the truth, this is the reason why he has not been sued by the Bush admin.

Eh? There are dozens of authors who slander Bush every day, and likewise, there are dozens of authors who slam Bush's opponents. Ever read anything buy Ann Coulter? Why hasn't she been sued by the democratic party because she claims all Liberals are treasonous? All her opinions must be true because she wrote it in a book and nobody has sued her right?

It's called political mudslinging, and if everyone decided to sue over it, everyone would be in court 24/7


again we are talking about the most litigious country in the world, if these claims afre false or misleading, why no brouhaha? the books certainly contain enough cross references to other peoples articles in many different publications for any of the people that have been misquoted to take to the stand. nett result - no-one yet.


These books are opinion. Michael Moore has an agenda, in case you didn't know. Of course he is going to throw around mud and slander anyone representing the republican party. That's his right to do so and just because he states his opinion doesn't mean he is right and doesn't mean he can be sued over his opinion. Likewise, just because he states his opinion on where he thinks Bush was during 1972 and 1973, based on his limited knowledge, doesn't mean nobody disagrees with him and thinks he's just another big fat angry liar who LOVES to take everything out of context. You say nobody has taken a stand against Michael Moore? There are dozens and dozens of books that argue against Micahel Moore's points. Hell, even AL Franken doesn't even like him.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by haikumania
And if you really think that there is NO evidence that he missed a bunch of Guard duty then you need to do some more searching. The records they released this week even showed gaps in service that they denied in the 2000 election. Add in his commanders at the time saying they had not seen him and therefore could not rate him and I don't think you can say it's "groundless".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...2910-8424r.htm - 'Bush and I were lieutenants'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1217-6595r.htm - Bush's drills with the Alabama Guard confirmed

[haikumania]

Originally posted by Ultima Designs
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...2910-8424r.htm - 'Bush and I were lieutenants'

http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...1217-6595r.htm - Bush's drills with the Alabama Guard confirmed

So in your opinion:

His commanders at the time saying they never saw him = groundless

Gaps in his record that show no duty for certain time periods = groundless

Some lady saying that Bush told her he was in Montgomery to train with the guard and some other guy saying Bush was with him = proof

Seems like your definition of proof depends upon what you want the truth to be.

Adam