Forged documents?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Bruce, Sep 11, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Tracy Gies

    Tracy Gies New Member

    This just in...

    Fox News is reporting that discharge papers for Col Killian have been located. They are dated before the date on the memo in question. Perhaps not a smoking gun, but it does provide further evidence that the memo may be forged.
     
  2. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Thanks for this, Bruce; I was thinking of his ADA position and mistyped, but it's a pretty important distinction, I agree.
    I'll take this opportunity to mention, on the record, that I think the gubernatorial appointment system is undemocratic. I thought it was undemocratic in Mississippi two years ago, when we had a Democratic governor and two Republican senators, and I still think it's undemocratic now. It should be acceptable for the governor to appoint a replacement on an interim basis, but there should always be a special election to determine who gets the seat.
    ...and rumor has it that we might get Barney Frank, which would make him the first openly gay senator in U.S. history. Pretty darned cool from where I'm standing; I can see why it would be less so for others, but at least whoever gets it won't be appointed by the governor. And take heart: When the Democrats reclaim the governor's office, the special elections rule will still apply.
    But as you've mentioned to me a good number of times, virtually all of your police sources are pretty committed Republicans, so...

    My point wasn't exactly that Kerry had a stellar career as ADA (he might have, he might not have; it's not a position that lends itself very well to those kinds of determinations), but rather that he does have experience as a prosecutor and can use that as a biographical anchor if he campaigns on the issue of crime.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2004
  3. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    I wouldn't care if Bush burned his draft card and fled to Canada; I can't fault anybody for not wanting to serve in Vietnam. I sure wouldn't have. The only reason this dead horse has been resurrected is because of the whole ugly mess with the Swift Boat Veterans going after Kerry, which is every bit as petty as the Democratic attacks on Bush. I wish both sides would just look at credible released documents (which seem to confirm both candidates' professed military records), stop relying on politically-motivated gossip, and move on to substantive issues. I'm tired of hearing about Bush and Kerry; I'd rather hear about what Bush and Kerry will do if elected. Neither candidate is talking about the Supreme Court, for example, despite the fact that the winner could easily end up appointing three or four justices between now and 2008--and that's going to be a very big deal if it happens, folks.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2004
  4. Ted N

    Ted N New Member



    I would have drawn the line on the Canada route. I have never faulted anyone who has done what the country has asked them. I think it was neat that Chris Matthews was able to get out of the draft by joining the Peace Corps.



    I think it started with the Democratic convention when Max Cleland said something on the lines of "just spend three minutes with the men who served with John Kerry and..." then all the men who served with Kerry wanted their three minutes.

    Ted N.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2004
  5. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    It was actually a pre-convention campaign commercial from John Edwards (still available on www.johnkerry.com), but there's no way that Unfit to Serve could have been proposed, contracted, written, typeset, proofed, and published, all of the multiple contributors assembled and all of the permissions squared away, between early July (when the commercial premiered) and late August. This has obviously been in the works for some time--over three decades if you look at John O'Neill, who was recruited by Nixon to hatchet Kerry way back in '71--with the publication timed to interfere with Kerry's post-convention bounce. This was not a bunch of uninterested military personnel providing an objective account of Kerry's service in Vietnam; this was a bunch of Bush supporters with a Navy background who had served closely enough with Kerry that they felt they could reliably smear him in a book and increase the odds that they'd get four more years of a Republican White House.

    If most conservatives here really are willing to uncritically accept the Swift Boat version of events, then I don't see how you folks can criticize any documents that suddenly get unearthed after the Bush convention. I'm a Kerry supporter, but I don't drink his kool-aid; I know a post-convention smear campaign when I see it, and that's why I don't buy into this "new evidence" on Bush. It would be really, really nice if conservatives on this board made at least a token effort to be similarly objective in dealing with Kerry, but I'm not holding my breath.

    (And it was pretty cool that Chris Matthews got out of the draft by serving in the Peace Corps. Always liked that guy.)


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2004
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    If that's the case, why did the Democratic controlled MA Legislature wait until just now to change the system? :rolleyes:

    I think Marty Meehan has the inside track on that. He has raised something like $4 million, which dwarfs other potential candidates like Frank, Markey, and Delahunt. Also, Frank's sexual persuasion will not play well state-wide. It's probably an advantage in his district, but it would kill him in the working-class areas of Boston.

    Marty Meehan is actually a Democrat that I like. He's very moderate, with some conservative leanings, on most issues. He also co-sponsered H.R. 218, which is a huge plus in my book.

    That doesn't change the fact that Kerry was a slacker as an ADA. I've been hearing that for years, long before he decided to run for President.

    Even if Kerry was a great ADA (which he wasn't), he worked in a district court, which means he prosecuted relatively minor crimes like drunk driving, simple assault & battery, shoplifting, etc. Kerry doesn't much mention his time as a prosecutor, with good reason.
     
  7. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    That's very big of you, Tom. Suggest that National Guard service somehow equates to draft-dodging, then magnanimously allow that you are willing to tolerate it.

    The fact is that service in the Air National Guard is military service. Flying jet interceptors in the CONUS air-defense role, particularly during the Cold War, was a vital and even a cool job. I can't imagine how it can be turned into avoidance of military service unless thousands of other pilots' military service is demeaned as well.

    I don't think that's why this is happening.

    I think that's precisely why this TX ANG red-herring keeps getting publicity.

    In the post 9-11 climate, security policy has become a preeminent political issue and concerns many voters.

    And I think that John Kerry's campaign felt that Kerry was at a serious disadvantage in that department. Kerry was a leader of the anti-war movement and his voting record during his subsequent years in the Senate continued that anti-military theme.

    Meanwhile Bush is running on his record, a strong and aggressive response to the first foreign attack on the continental US since 1812.

    So Bush's advantage on defense and security needs to be reduced, somehow. The plan seems to be to turn attention away from the men's policy records to their Vietnam-era service records.

    Kerry served in Vietnam. Bush served in the Air National Guard. So if Bush's service can be demeaned while Kerry's heroism magnified, then Kerry can be promoted as if he were the resolute military leader and Bush the unreliable opponent of military service.

    It's a neat way of defusing Bush's advantage and effectively turning the tables.

    But I object to the political tactic, already tested with guys like Dan Quayle, to try to portray the National Guard as if it were not really part of the military and National Guard service as somehow dishonorable. That's a direct insult to hundreds of thousands of National Guard veterans out there.

    Flying an F-102 in defense of the United States isn't really something that one can fake. Your ability is verified every time you land it. It was a high-risk high-skill job and shouldn't be sneered at.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F102.jpeg
     
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Because they didn't mind if the system benefited them; wouldn't a Republican legislature have probably behaved in exactly the same way? Look at what's going on with the redistricting in Texas. Politics is dirty.
    I understood Meehan to be the frontrunner, but the prospect of a gay senator really appeals to me on several levels, and I've always liked Frank. (The gigolo business in the 80s notwithstanding--and he did the sackcloth and ashes routine for it, which I wish more politicians would do when this sort of thing happens.)
    As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I also support H.R. 218; gotta agree that this speaks well of Meehan.
    My father heard that Clinton was dirty years before he became president, too. Maybe it was true; I don't know. The only two presidential candidates I've only heard good things about are Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. (Bush Sr. is, by all accounts, one of the nicest guys you'll ever run across. Also more of a freethinker than most folks probably realize.)
    No particular prestige, maybe, but it's at least a job that is related to the issue of crime. I mean, look at Kerry's background right now: Vietnam vet (done to death), anti-war protester (spun unpleasantly), assistant D.A. (not prestigious), lieutenant governor under Dukakis (understandably not an image that benefits him), and a 20-year career in the Senate marked by legislation that doesn't have the Kerry name all over it. Obviously a guy who's accomplished a lot in his life, but he's going to need to run on issues, not his resume. It's still much stronger than Bush's was when he came in, but now Bush has four years of incumbency to add to his total.


    Cheers,
     
  9. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Never said it did, Bill; just that I don't think that the fact that Bush didn't go to Vietnam speaks against him. In other words, I was defending your candidate. I do wish you'd realize you're talking to Tom Head, rather than "Insert Generic Democratic Foil Here." You seem to have gotten awfully partisan all of the sudden, which doesn't really become a straight-shooter like yourself.
    True. The same could be said of working in the Peace Corps in a volatile area. Know what? I think I'd have gladly chosen either rather than serving in Vietnam.

    I have many friends and acquaintances in the National Guard, and would never denigrate it (just as I would never denigrate service in the Peace Corps, which I respect so much); I see it as the descendent of Washington's well-regulated civilian militia, the most perfectly democratic military system ever devised. But you know what? In the late 60s and early 70s, it did function for many people as a way to stay out of Vietnam. That's why it was so popular in a period when other forms of military recruitment weren't. That doesn't mean that Bush is a coward. I'm not a coward, and I wouldn't have wanted to go to Vietnam, so how can I call Bush a coward for feeling the same way?


    Cheers,
     
  10. adamsmith

    adamsmith member

    The only other presidents we've had recently who haven't served in combat, as far as I know, were Reagan and Clinton. The fact that both served two terms isn't lost on me.

    And it looks like you may be adding Bush now to that short list! This reinforces the point I was trying to make; that Americans aren't necessarily attracted to an ex-uniformed and decorated military person running the country.

    For a non-American view on the US invasion of Iraq; it may not have lessened terrorism in the short term ,but it sure taught the mainly Muslim countries that have been harbouring terrorists and sticking up their finger at the West ,pre-Iraq, that the West, mainly the US, will not tolerate this sort of activity or safe haven.

    The about-turn of Libya to the Iraq invasion is a clear example of what I mean.
     
  11. BLD

    BLD New Member

  12. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    John Kerry must be reading this forum...

    ...because he's finally doing what I've been saying he should do for months, and focusing on the issue of crime:
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/13/kerry.monday.ap/index.html

    Excerpt: "John Kerry is criticizing President Bush for letting a decade-long ban on assault weapons expire while unveiling his own $5 billion plan to fight crime and picking up a police union endorsement."

    My guess right now is that about half of Bush's bounce is temporary and about half is less temporary. Kerry's campaign needs to be a good mix of pro-Kerry and anti-Bush--too much of the former and the media will ignore him, too much of the latter and he'll turn off undecided voters. Today, he's doing exactly what I think he should do by keeping those two positions in tension while providing specific policies that will appeal to a large segment of the voting public. Here's hoping he's able to keep that up.


    Cheers,
     
  13. mcjon77

    mcjon77 Member

    The problem with focusing on Gun Control (even the assualt weapons ban) is that it gives more fuel to argument that Kerry is a gun grabbing liberal who wants to repeal the second amendment. Most hard core gun guys already believe this, but its the one's who aren't as hardcore, but are still worried about the issue that could come into play. In this case it would not be so much people who were going to vote for Kerry, instead voting for Bush, but rather people who probably would not have voted at all being motivated into voting for Bush.

    Keep in mind, many experts believe that the 1994 assualt weapons ban and the brady bill were one of the key factors that led to the Democrats losing the house in 1994 (first time in 40 or 50 years if I recall) and Al Gore losing the election.

    Jon
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    In my last post I explained why I thought that the attacks on Bush's military service record are a fundamental part of Kerry's campaign strategy.

    Well, here's the Democratic National Committee's "Operation Fortunate Son":

    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040909_1601.html

    Some excerpts (highlighting by me):

    WASHINGTON Sept. 9, 2004 — Seizing on 30-year-old memos and memories, Sen. John Kerry's operatives are painting an unflattering portrait of President Bush as the "fortunate son" who used family connections to dodge the Vietnam War and then lied about it...

    The challenge for Kerry is to talk about issues that matter to voters today health care, education, jobs and the war while his allies at the Democratic National Committee do the dirty work. The DNC's goal: convince voters that Bush string-pulling in the Texas Air National Guard is part of a pattern of elitism, lies and lack of credibility that stretches to the White House...

    The DNC has nicknamed its effort "Operation Fortunate Son" after a Creedence Clearwater Revival anti-war anthem from the 1960s...

    This time, Democrats are pressing media organizations to dig deeper while Kerry and his team make a broader argument about Bush's credibility and character...
     
  15. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Here is a link to a short cinematic comparing the CBS documents to documents created on Word. Interesting...

    DOCUMENT COMPARISON
     

Share This Page