Any of you read the Michael Moore letter to Bush?

[XU1]

Originally posted by Loyal Rogue
Hahaha

When it comes to politicians and movie-makers, there is no place or desire for truth.
They both make their living off of lies.

Generaly speaking that may be true....but in this issue alone it seems that the truth is becoming clearer....er..ahaha.

Tony

[Loyal Rogue]

Originally posted by XU1
Generaly speaking that may be true....but in this issue alone it seems that the truth is becoming clearer....er..ahaha.

Tony

If you believe that then you are one of the truly deceived.
The only real truth to this matter is that we will never really know the truth, only what the spindoctors decide to tell us.
We can speculate and debate all we want, but in the end it's just a question of what do you want to believe?
Whatever that happens to be, is your truth.

For now, enjoy your arguements.
In 5 more years you can do it all over again with the next power-mad guy/gal who buys their way into the oval office.

</cynicism>

[XU1]

Originally posted by Loyal Rogue
If you believe that then you are one of the truly deceived.
The only real truth to this matter is that we will never really know the truth

</cynicism>

OK please yourself... I still place some credibility in the things I read otherwise, I'd be having a miserable life .
Tony

[erova]

Originally posted by japangreg
Clinton wasn't hurt because the country was in a state of calm, enjoying a good economy.

anybody want to remember how the economy looked when bill took office?

umm, needless to say no one was enjoying a good economy.

[erova]

Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
The democrate favorite Kerry doesn't exactly have a stellar record.. he spent 4 months in Vietnam then got out after being wounded 3 times.. ....because he didn't report [war crimes] he's a War Criminal, specially since he was a officer and was in a position to do something...

sooo lemme get this straight, since he was only in nam for four months means it's menial service, but then he should be tried for war crimes because of the significance of his commission...

ummm, okay...

[swampy]

Originally posted by erova
sooo lemme get this straight, since he was only in nam for four months means it's menial service, but then he should be tried for war crimes because of the significance of his commission...

ummm, okay...

how long does it take to witness a war crime ?

The whole "war crimes" issue is irrelevant anywy. War is war and all nations commit atrocities, it's just that the winner gets to cover them up.

[starchie]

RE: MIchael Moore

oh my god! an american that is articulate, concerned and committed enough to spell out what he beleives is wrong, and gathers the funds to do so from the grass roots, not daddy's/uncle's money pot.

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?

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

daring to question a president who took office in an election that had it have been held in a third world country would have had the erstwhile reporters from FOX news telling us that this type of thing could never happen in the US, oh no these types of things only happen in other countries.

Mr moore also brings to light an interesting question about 9-11. what was the commander in chief doing listening to primary school children at a time when mainland USA was under attack, at least 20 minutes after the authorities knew that there were 4 hijacked aircraft in the air, at least 10 minutes after one of them had struck the WTC and why did he sit there for another seven minutes after he was told that the second plane had hit the othe tower?

i only have Mr Moore's timings at hand, but again if he is so wrong why is he not now impoverished after being sued by the Bush lawyers?


just me i suppose?

peace and love

starchie

[japangreg]

Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
hmmm mr. I seem to recall when Clinton got in, we were mixed up with Somalia, hmmm and i seem to recall later, Bosnia, and hmm Kosovo.. hmm then some bombing missions over Iraq.. so please.. get ur facts straight..

You're going to sit there and compare the activities in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo to 9/11? We're involved, either directly or indirectly in military operation over the entire globe at any given time. The reason why this didn't hurt Clinton is because the American people didn't feel the conflicts the way they feel this ongoing 'war'. The dead weren't on our territory, the damage not to us.

And I wanted to ask TGLC something from 2 pages back (geeze, I try to take one night off from FK, and this is what happens... ): you say that Bush inherited the 'war' from Clinton, citing the attacks that happened during the Clinton years as evidence that terrorists were already making attacks but were being met with little resistance; my question to you is, who did Clinton get it from? Terrorism has always been around, in one form or another, and attacks on U.S. interests have always occured. It didn't start with Clinton, and it won't end with Bush, no matter how many countries he invades.

Now, trying to get back to the point of this thread and away from the Clinton/Kerry commentary (who I still contend have nothing to do with Bush being supposedly being absent from duty 30 years ago): someone stated that this doesn't matter. Well, it seem that some people disagree: (from here)

...The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush's leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president's truthfulness -- a concern for Bush's political advisers as his reelection bid gets underway...

...Honesty and credibility have been central to Bush's appeal since the 2000 campaign, when he benefited from disgust over President Bill Clinton's lies about the Monica S. Lewinsky affair and when Bush's campaign accused then-Vice President Al Gore of "saying one thing and doing another." But a number of factors, including the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq and the administration's underestimating of its Medicare prescription drug plan's costs, appear to have undermined perceptions of his credibility...

...The survey found a steep drop in public perceptions of Bush as a president and as an individual. In a sign that Bush has been set back by recent controversies over Iraqi weapons, his National Guard record and the federal budget, the number of Americans viewing him as a "strong leader" has slipped to 61 percent, down 6 points from December and the lowest level since the 2001 terrorist attacks...

The controversy is indeed affecting his standing, and if he can't conclusively prove that he did what he said he did, his campaign is going to suffer for it. If he did walk out on his committment, it seems the U.S. population is going to hold that against him.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by erova
anybody want to remember how the economy looked when bill took office?

umm, needless to say no one was enjoying a good economy.

actually the economy was on an upswing when Clinton took office. Unemployment was still high, but jobs always lag economic growth.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by japangreg
And I wanted to ask TGLC something from 2 pages back (geeze, I try to take one night off from FK, and this is what happens... ): you say that Bush inherited the 'war' from Clinton, citing the attacks that happened during the Clinton years as evidence that terrorists were already making attacks but were being met with little resistance; my question to you is, who did Clinton get it from? Terrorism has always been around, in one form or another, and attacks on U.S. interests have always occured. It didn't start with Clinton, and it won't end with Bush, no matter how many countries he invades.

Clinton inherited the outcome of Bush Sr. gulf war. However, my point is Clinton allowed it to flourish, did nothing of meaning to stop the spread of al-queda. To be honest, neither did jr. until 9-11. Jr. actually ran on decreasing u.s. involvement abroad. That of course changed with 9-11.

Yes terrorism is hear to stay, as is war. But its the orginizations and targets we should be concerned with. This isn't really a war on terror. Its a way agianst those that will target the u.s. That war, bush is taking steps to win.

[Hellsbellboy]

Originally posted by erova
sooo lemme get this straight, since he was only in nam for four months means it's menial service, but then he should be tried for war crimes because of the significance of his commission...

ummm, okay...

so since Bush only spent 2 1/2 years active duty learning to fly F-102 Interceptors and the rest of his time in the ANG means it's menial service?

Yes he was a COMMISSIONED OFFICER... maybe u don't understand the significance of that.. but as such he's trusted with a great deal of responsibilities, and one of those being his duty to report war crimes to his superiors..

[Hellsbellboy]

Originally posted by japangreg
You're going to sit there and compare the activities in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo to 9/11? We're involved, either directly or indirectly in military operation over the entire globe at any given time. The reason why this didn't hurt Clinton is because the American people didn't feel the conflicts the way they feel this ongoing 'war'. The dead weren't on our territory, the damage not to us.

And I wanted to ask TGLC something from 2 pages back (geeze, I try to take one night off from FK, and this is what happens... ): you say that Bush inherited the 'war' from Clinton, citing the attacks that happened during the Clinton years as evidence that terrorists were already making attacks but were being met with little resistance; my question to you is, who did Clinton get it from? Terrorism has always been around, in one form or another, and attacks on U.S. interests have always occured. It didn't start with Clinton, and it won't end with Bush, no matter how many countries he invades.

Now, trying to get back to the point of this thread and away from the Clinton/Kerry commentary (who I still contend have nothing to do with Bush being supposedly being absent from duty 30 years ago): someone stated that this doesn't matter. Well, it seem that some people disagree: (from here)
The controversy is indeed affecting his standing, and if he can't conclusively prove that he did what he said he did, his campaign is going to suffer for it. If he did walk out on his committment, it seems the U.S. population is going to hold that against him.

No kidding he is suffering from it.. just turn on the news and you will see that the News is just playing it all up over the networks. Funny how the John Kerry news(about his affair) doesn't even make mention on the mainstream press.. where if the news was about Bush, he would be getting baggered with it as we speak. For the last few months it's been nothing on the news except the Dems and their bush bashing and yet the President has managed to stay above the average when compared to other Presidents at this same time in their terms.

You also stated that Bush has the worst economy is decades.. I seem to recall he recieve such a economy from your beloved Clinton, and that the economy is in fact making a recovery, and a strong one, with unemployment down to 5.6% and growth up over 4% which is higher then anywhere else.. And as Greenspan stated the economy is getting good, and getting better and that more jobs will be coming.

[Hellsbellboy]

Originally posted by japangreg
Only when he makes a decision on that issue. Would you take hair care advice from a bald barber? How about being told to floss by a toothless dentist?

How does someone who ducked out of a cushy stateside post during a war where thousands of US service men are killed have the authority to ask other Guardsmen to risk and give their lives for something?

The President didn't duck out of anything.. as u can read from the letter I posted.. and today another former ANG pilot came out and said Bush was their when he was suppose to be.. Your beating on a dead horse.

[japangreg]

Originally posted by Hellsbellboy
The President didn't duck out of anything.. as u can read from the letter I posted.. and today another former ANG pilot came out and said Bush was their when he was suppose to be.. Your beating on a dead horse.

Both your replys seem to be missing the point: I'm not arguing that Bush did in fact skip out, I'm arguing against the assertion that it doesn't matter, which XU1 posted in the first page of this thread (spending last night not posting on FK has me a bit behind the times, apparently, but as the converstation in this thread has come down to slamming Clinton and Kerry and not talking about Bush's record or Moore, I guess it really doesn't matter...)

[Ultima Designs]

Bottom line - this AWOL controversy is absolutely ridiculous. It's something that Terry had to start, because some in the Democratic Party will do anything, no matter how nasty or wrong, to destroy others.

How about we talk about something worthwhile and legitimate?

[Visionray]

[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.



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.

Personally, I think Moore makes some good points, but the way he goes about his arguments make him look childish and annoying, hence why he was booed off the stage at the academy awards.

[haikumania]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post but I couldn't find an easy place to link to this exchange from this mornings White House press briefing.

Reading it, I can't fathom that there isn't something to hide in Bush's National Guard files. I mean is it remotely realistic that you can dodge THIS HARD around answering a simple question when there is nothing to hide. Doesn't this come across 10 times worse than simply answering the questions fully, releasing ALL information, etc if there is nothing damaging in them?

It seems that the only thing worse than the very clear APPEARANCE that you are hiding something is to actually admit what you've been hiding. So if you really have nothing to hide, why dodge so hard?

Adam

*******Full text from this am's press briefing minus the last 5 questions or so to fit the posting limit****

Q: Did the President ever have to take time off from Guard duty to do community service?

Scott McClellan: To do community service? I haven't looked into everything he did 30 years ago, Helen. Obviously, there is different community service he has performed in the past, including going back to that time period --

Q: Can you find out if he actually had --

Scott McClellan: Helen, I don't think we remember every single activity he was involved in 30 years ago.

Q: No, this isn't an activity. Was he forced to do community service at any time while he was on --

Scott McClellan: What's your interest in that question? I'm sorry, I just --

Q: Lots of rumors. I'm just trying to clear up something.

Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?

Q: Pardon?

Scott McClellan: Rumors about what?

Q: About the President having to do community service while he was in the National Guard, take time out for that.

Scott McClellan: I'm not aware of those rumors. But if you want to --

Q: Could you look it up? Would you mind asking him?

Scott McClellan: That's why I'm asking what's your interest in that? I just don't understand your interest in that.

Q: It's what everybody is interested in, whether we're getting the true story on his Guard duty.

Scott McClellan: Well, you have the documents that show the facts.

Q: I'm asking you to try to find out from the President of the United States.

Scott McClellan: Like I said, it's well known the different jobs he had and what he was doing previously, that we know. That goes back to --

Q: I didn't say "previously." I said, while he was on Guard duty.

Scott McClellan: But you're asking me about 30 years ago. I don't think there's a recollection of everything he was doing 30 years ago.

Q: Well, he would know if he had to take time out.

Scott McClellan: Again, I mean, the issue that was raised was whether or not the President was serving while he was in Alabama. Documents reflect that he
was --

Q: Well, this is another issue.

Scott McClellan: -- hold on -- that he was serving in Alabama. That was the issue that was raised. We went through, four years ago, other issues related to this.

Q: So you won't answer the question or you won't try to find out?

Scott McClellan: Well, I'm asking you, what's your interest in that question? I'm just curious, because rumors --

Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard?

Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented --

Q: I'm asking you a different question. That's permissible.

Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you're asking it? I'm just -- out of curiosity myself, is that permissible?

Q: Well, I'm interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very --

Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we've released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous --

Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard.

Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this?

Q: It's a very legitimate question.

Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let's talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that -- or two years before that, it came up four years before that --

Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled?

Scott McClellan: Helen, if you'll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this --

Q: Don't dance around, just give us --

Q: It's a straightforward question.

Q: Let's not put too fine a point on it. If I'm not mistaken, you're implying that he had to do community service for criminal action, as a punishment for some crime?

Q: There are rumors around, and I didn't put it in that way. I just --

Q: Could you take that question? I guess apparently that's the question, that he had to take time out to perform community service --

Scott McClellan: That's why I wanted to get to this because --

Q: -- as a sentence for a crime.

Scott McClellan: No, that's why I wanted to get to this because I want to step back for a second. I want to go back through a few things. Look, the -- I think we've really exhausted the issue that came up. The issue that came up was related to whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous, baseless accusation that he did not serve while in Alabama. The conspiracy theory of one individual, that the National Guard cleansed documents, has been discredited.

Q: How so?

Scott McClellan: Read The Boston Globe today.

Q: Well, we want answers from you, not --

Scott McClellan: Read the Boston Globe. No, the answers are from the people that would have knowledge of that. But read --

Q: Why do you think this person made those allegations?

Scott McClellan: Hang on, hang on.

Q: What? Just read The Boston Globe --

Scott McClellan: Just read The Boston Globe. Read The Boston Globe. I would draw your attention to that. What I think we're seeing now is just politics. And we're not going to engage in it, because there are great challenges facing our nation, and there should be an honest discussion of the actions the President is taking to make our world safer and better and make America more prosperous and secure.

You want me to go --

Q: -- the personal record of a President is --

Scott McClellan: No, hang on, Helen, hang on. I've said from this podium, if we have new information that comes to our attention that relates to this issue, we have made it clear we will share that information. You're asking me to go and chase rumors. There was a conspiracy theory --

Q: I think --

Scott McClellan: Hold on, hold on, Helen. There was a conspiracy theory made by one individual, when everybody he accused of being involved in that said, it's ridiculous, didn't happen.

Q: This is not based on a conspiracy theory.

Scott McClellan: And there was a lot of attention given to this individual, and he's been discredited. There's a Boston Globe article on it this morning. And there are some --

Q: That says what? Your point --

Scott McClellan: You can go read it. I mean, we've got other things to move on to. I mean, you can go read it. But there are some, unfortunately, who simply are not interested in the facts. Again, the documents -- the records document that he did serve while in Alabama. And now there are people that are bringing up issues that were addressed four years ago.

Q: But you still haven't answered Helen's question. She asked you a simple question.

Scott McClellan: There are people that want to replay the 2000 campaign all over again, Bill, and --

Q: You still haven't answered her question about community service.

Scott McClellan: -- there are too many important -- there are too many important policies and decisions that are being made that we need to discuss.

Q: Why does a "yes" or "no" elude you on this?

Scott McClellan: I didn't say that. I said that these were all issues addressed four years ago. If there's additional information --

Q: This issue quite obviously wasn't addressed four years ago.

Scott McClellan: Oh, issues -- these issues were addressed four years ago.

Q: This issue was? The community service issue was addressed four years ago?

Scott McClellan: The issues -- the issues that we're going to here --

Q: I don't recall --

Scott McClellan: This is called chasing a rumor. And I'm not going to engage in this kind of politics, Bill.

Q: -- finding out whether a rumor is true or false.

Scott McClellan: No, this issue, absolutely --

Q: Why can't you say whether or not he performed community service?

Scott McClellan: Absolutely, this issue came up four years ago. And if you all want to play politics, then go call the RNC, call the campaign.

Q: The best defense is offense. We know that. Just, all you've got to say is you don't know.

Scott McClellan: Helen, it was -- this issue was addressed four years ago. I think people that were involved in the campaign will know --

Q: -- if they know --

Scott McClellan: -- that the issue that you're trying to bring up was addressed four years ago. It's about chasing rumors.

Q: It isn't a question of four years ago. The issue has come up now, very large.

Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.

Q: Headlines.

Scott McClellan: I'm not going to get into chasing rumors.

Q: So you refuse to answer the question?

Scott McClellan: You're saying that people said he was forced to do something, and you're asking me to chase a rumor.

[XU1]

Originally posted by japangreg

The controversy is indeed affecting his standing, and if he can't conclusively prove that he did what he said he did, his campaign is going to suffer for it. If he did walk out on his committment, it seems the U.S. population is going to hold that against him.

You wish...

Tony

[japangreg]

Originally posted by XU1
You wish...

Tony

A sound and resonating argument.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

[Ultima Designs]

Originally posted by japangreg
The controversy is indeed affecting his standing, and if he can't conclusively prove that he did what he said he did, his campaign is going to suffer for it. If he did walk out on his committment, it seems the U.S. population is going to hold that against him.

Yep - that's why the most recent Gallup poll shows Bush's number rose since Terry's claims:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr040210.asp?ci=10534