Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Good analysis, Stephen. I figured the memos were valid when the White House initially accepted them as genuine. If they were inaccurate, Bush would have said so.

Great point, AP! So Stephen, how much fun was this to write? Well done, btw.

With the memos faxed from an Abliene, TX Kinko’s, all eyes are on this guy Burkett. He probably saw the private files, but became so frustrated everything else was not impacting negatively on Bush, he resorted to simple forgery.

Does that alledgedly make him a man with a grudge, a personal vendetta, a political agenda? Or, is he like us, angry and disillusioned that truths that are so obvious, telling and crucial to the future of this country, simply are not registering with the American electorate?

Are we done now?

Stephen:

Campaigns, and issues like this, often take unexpected turns. And there will certainly be twists and turns to come.

I believe that the forged documents (assuming that we can side with the mount evidence provided by experts) will give Bush cover on this issue. Did he get preferential treatment—Im sure he did, just like thousands of others did and do.

But by providing fake documents as their evidence, CBS handed Bush an easy out. Its interesting to see CBS acting as a political arm of the Kerry campaign though, and rather repugnant. In one way, I suppose it can be seen that CBS is trying desperately to restore its image, but by insinuating itself into the election in this manner, they are simply acting as unpaid (or paid) consultants to Kerry.

So much for the unbiased media. CBS cannot in any way claim to be unbiased as they begin to admit that while their evidence is faulty, the president is still guilty. Think of how this would work in a court of law: I’m sorry, your honor, I know that we have provided DNA evidence from the wrong person, but we still know the defendant is guilty. We don’t have proof, but just look at him….you GOTTA know he did it.

How will this turn out—-tune in and see. But I suspect it will have the ultimate result of giving Bush the ability to be seen as the victim of a plot.

How will this turn out—-tune in and see. But I suspect it will have the ultimate result of giving Bush the ability to be seen as the victim of a plot. Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 16, 2004 07:43 AM

Yep, through its unprofessional heavy handedness, CBS News may have just guaranteed Bush a victory.

This whole thing reminds me of the story of the kid who spent the day digging through horse ‘droppings’ because he just knew there must be a pony around somewhere.

It looks like this time Dan really stepped in it.

Oh, I anticipate extraordinary developments. Perhaps even the odd chance of contradiction. But I think the Bush Campaign lost its easy out when the party started screaming about bias and demanding investigations.

But it really never would have been an issue if he had never lied about it. Yes, Bush lied. Bush said he never got preferential treatment. He said he did his duty. But the records increasingly show this is not the case. It’s the opposite of what happened to Kerry. Instead of further investigation revealing less basis for the charges, it reveals more support for them, even as some of the evidence is debunked.

As for this whole “CBS as political arm of Kerry campaign stuff” do yourself a favor and drop it. That sort of conspiracy theory will only serve to fuel further doubts about the president in the rest of the media. The authenticity of the documents is no longer an issue.

Really it was an issue only as long as the information in those documents depended on whether they were forgeries. Now Pandora’s box has been open, and all the evils that the Bush administration wished to keep discredited now become the focus again. And now they have no escape, besides to call the woman a liar, which is a bad idea because she, CBS and everybody else can point to the unforged documents out there, especially those released by the white house itself.

You want to talk real worst case scenario’s how about this- a treasure trove of missing guard files in the hands of someone now emboldened to bring them out.

I mean, hell, the secretary, you don’t get much better sources than that, unless your subject is still alive.

NOTOTH-
Guaranteed a victory? How so? This may not be a knockout blow to Bush’s credibility, but it will be a nagging presence for the rest of the campaign, I promise you that.

My advice to you? Let this issue drop. The more your party fixates on this, the more Kerry can take the initiative in the campaign.

joe,

I am trying my very best not to be gloating and sarcastic, but it is amazing the depths of denial you guys will plunder. I’m tempted to start a Blue Column pool on who and/or what time one of you guys are gonna mention her!

This was like capturing 2 Saddam Hussein’s, and having Baghdad Bob there to point out the double and then the real ‘evil doer’.

Marian Carr Knox is her name! And, get use to seeing that kindly grandmother of impeccable credibility face, because while Tucker Carlson is paraphrasing your words, it will be followed by her 60 Minutes II sound bite. Remember, it was the word of Martha Stewart’s broker’s assistant that sunk her, and not the doctored call sheet.

Like me, most American voters found this whole episode confusing, and gave up trying to understand the twists and turns. No more. Knox’s emphatic statement of her bosses displeasure with handing out favors to the privilege few, was like putting the 18 1/2 minutes back into the Nixon tapes.

Did he get preferential treatment—Im sure he did, just like thousands of others did and do.

But he’s the only one who lied about it, and then tried to cover up the evidence.

Three cheers for the embedded patriots at the Pentagon who keep digging up documents that Bush swears don’t exist!

Its interesting to see CBS acting as a political arm of the Kerry campaign

Because you were saying CBS was a political arm of the GOP every time they reported dirt on Clinton? Or every time they mentioned Gore “invented the internet?” Please.

Stephen, I hope this is all that gets talked about from now ‘till November. Republicans decided that Bush is vulnerable on the issues, so we don’t hear about the issues from them. If it’s all going to be about mud slinging - and Americans seem to really love it, despite what the opinion polls say - then so be it. Those guys win. This election will be a referendum on both candidate’s characters.

Keep dreaming guys. No one cares about this. Look at the polls, they already believe he got some special treatment, but they don’t care. As far as the testimony of a 80 something old woman that admittedly is pulling for Kerry, I don’t think people will take it as seriously as you hope.

What you don’t get is that this election never had anything to do with Bush in the guard or Kerry in ‘nam. It has to do with terrorism and the economy. Kerry’s down in the polls because he’s not answering questions. It’s been over a month since the last time he took questions from the press.

Go ahead, hang your hopes on screaming ‘Bush lied’ a little louder. Good luck with that.

- D

My advice to you? Let this issue drop. The more your party fixates on this, the more Kerry can take the initiative in the campaign. Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 16, 2004 08:58 AM

My party fixates on this? With all due respect, Stephen, it’s the blue column that (typically) brought it up here.

Delzario,

Kinda funny that I’m hearing that ‘…this election has nothing to do with Bush’s Nat’l Guard service or Kerry’s Vietnam service’, alot lately from your side.

Just as often as I heard during the Swift Boat smear campaign that ‘…Kerry brought this upon himself because he made his Vietnam service the center of his campaign’.

Go ahead and dismiss the 80 yr old Mrs. Knox like an old Jewish voter in Miami who can’t vote properly.

But, you gotta ask yourself. Who has more credibility: John O’Neill or Marian Carr Knox?

Bert-

“…an old Jewish voter in Miami who can’t vote properly.”

Perhaps you should be reading the red column discussion about race baiting instead.

“Who has more credibility: John O’Neill or Marian Carr Knox?”

I would say they have roughly equal credibility. Both are partisans. O’Neill is a decorated veteran with partisan politics who’s had a beef with Kerry for the better part of 30 years. Knox is a secretary also with partisan politics that’s making accusations that are only backed up by fake documents and her word. If you listen to her talk you’d think it’s just Moore with a really good make-up job.

I noticed that you didn’t at all answer the question of why Kerry’s not giving interviews.

-D

Stephen:

The issue of Bush’s service was brought up by CBS BECAUSE they had new information—-the memos. Its easy to see now that CBS failed in its efforts to check the documents for accuracy, and that they are forged. So the bottom line is that their “new evidence” is based on forgeries. They NOW claim that despite using forgeries for their proof, the story still stands.

If that is the case, then why use the memos in the first place? Why didnt CBS contact Marian Carr Knox in the first place, if her opinion is so vital to the issue? Why did CBS dismiss the comments of the two well respected document experts who disagreed with their opinion, and use the comments of an expert who now claims to have only seen one of the documents before the show aired? Why did CBS dismiss the comments of the Killian family, who disagreed with their assessment?

To now claim that the memos are unimportant is beyond reason. They ARE the reason for the entire rehashing of this old story. That’s why CBS made the documents the centerpiece of their story.

The “left” will always think that Bush is unfit to be president, and they will never believe anything to the contrary, regardless of the evidence. When the “left” has evidence, they gloat over it. When the evidence is disproved, they say it didnt matter anyway, cuz they know the real truth anyway.

The real truth in this instance is that CBS showed themselves at the very least to be a hack journalism outfit, and that they dont deserve the trust of the public. To have been so quickly and easily outed shows how poor a job they did in their “investigative” efforts.

Delzario,

Kerry is not doing interviews because he doesn’t want to answer questions about mounting evidence, that Bush lied about getting preferential treatment, etc. When your opponent is self-destructing because of his own lies, you stay outta the way.

John O’Neill served in Vietnam, but not on Kerry’s boat. Mrs. Knox typed the original memos, knew her boss very well and sat outside his office. Media Matters.org has ample proof that O’Neill is lying, where is your against Mrs. Knox?

Where is your proof against Robert Mintz? Where is your proof against the Texans for Truth ad?

Bert-

Are you serious, Kerry’s not answering questions because of ‘mounting evidence’ against Bush. That’s laughable. His last question answer was August 9th, what evidence was mounting then? More likely he doesn’t want to answer questions about his lack of detail for handling everything from Iraq, to North Korea and Iran. Or maybe he’s still avoiding questions about his own Vietnam service.

‘Original memos’? Mrs. Knox isn’t saying that there were EVER memos. She only says that the sentiments were there. Something that’s been contradicted by his own family. Like I said, her own statements are such partisan rhetoric I questions her ‘memory’ of events 30 years ago.

After years of crying ‘Bush lied’ do you really think anyone’s going to care about one more questionable accusation? Specially after so much of the story has been discredited. You guys in the Blue ought to stick to the issues. You might actually be able to get traction if you got out of the ’70s.

-D

Bert:

Your “burden of proof” seems to be pretty easily dismissed. Lets look at a couple of situations.

Juanita Brodderick claimed she was raped by Clinton, but there was no longer any evidence to support her claim. There was opinion, innuendo, circumstances (it was shown she knew Clinton, and Clinton knew her etc), but no solid proof. I’m guessing here, but I’ll stake my life that you did not believe her.

Same for Katherine Willey.

Now we have a kindly elderly lady of 86 who makes a statement. And you buy in completely. No matter that she says the memos were forgeries, and that she never typed them. Its good enough for you that she says that the sentiment of the memos was essentially correct.

Amazing how the burden of proof is so light for those whose information might help your candidate.
Any hypocrisy there?? Yeah, I think so.

And just for the record, Bert, had Brodderick or Willey been able to prove anything, I’d have believed them. As it was, though, without proof, it became simply a “he said/she said” situation that could neither be proven nor disproven.

Joe-
The old lady was the woman who typed up what did go into his personal files. She was a person who had access to that information, who was in the thick of things as events occurred.

We know she says they were forgeries. We also know she says that the information used to compose the forgeries is accurate. Not the sentiment, the information. She confirms the absences, she confirms the order to show up for the physical, she confirms he didn’t show up, she confirms that the unit was a bipartisan haven for trust-fund babies looking to stay out of Vietnam, and that pressure was applied from above for Killian to sweep it under the rug.

This is a lot less thin than the sexual assault charges made of Clinton. This is more than He Said, She Said. Ms. Knox has documentary evidence on her side, and I’m not talking about the memos. According to documents the White House recently provided, Bush missed a huge amount of training sessions that he was required to show up for. We’re not looking at charges easily explained away by the fog and confusion of war, we’re looking at documented fact.

Stephen:

Hearsay testimony is NOT documented fact. I”m not saying that Knox has NO credibility—she has a certain amount simply for having been in the position she was in. But she has provided absolutely NO proof—all she has provided is her own word. And part of her statement is that she believes the forged memos contained the type of sentiment her boss had.

Stephen, comeon, admit it. You hold Republicans to a much higher burden of proof than this. Thw SBVT guys have a similar basis of “proof” as does Knox, in that they served with Kerry, they fought in the same battles, and in at least a couple cases, served on the same boat. Surely their experiences hold up to the same level of scrutiny that you give to Knox’s recall. Yet you discard their statements, even though some (not all) have been proven to be accurate.

Its okay to suggest that Knox has a closer view of things than most do. But its also okay to suggest that her memory of what happened over 30 years ago, with one officer out of many, might not be totally accurate.

Stephen, hold Knox to the same standard of proof that you require from those who do NOT share your opinions. Then you can be considered a fair and equitable judge of things.

Its obvious, also, that CBS is guilty of shoddy preparation. Their story is beyond the pale of good journalism, and their pitiful attempts to change the focus is laughable at best.

Hearsay? Hearsay is when a witness says somebody told them so and so said something. When they hear it themselves, they can testify to itself. As somebody who was in a position to know the Lt. Commander, who handled the duties of typing his letters and correspondence, she has authority on the subject. Her word IS proof.

She didn’t talk of mere sentiment, Joe. She talked about facts, specifically those in the letter. She confirms the orders, the kinds of letters put in the personal files- she confirms the substance as well as the sense of what the documents were based on. According to her, Bush WAS ordered to attend a physical, and by not showing up disobeyed the order.

I will concur that CBS committed some serious journalistic mistakes. But even if they are guilty of that, a haphazard treatment of the facts is not an appropriate response. Knox must be taken seriously, given her position. The burden of proof is now on those who would seek to discredit her.

First, you have to catch her in a mistake. You’ve insinuated she’s wrong. Why don’t you come out and say how she’s wrong? Point for point, go look at what she said (the linked page itself has links to the video of Rather’s interview with her), and then find out where what she said is untrue. Stop pushing this interpretation wholesale, and start going piece by piece to see where it’s sound.

Knox is not relating a number of short ambushes or incidents. She is a woman who coordinated this officer’s day everyday for a number of years, who typed his memos day in and day out. And from what I can tell, she was more or less this officer’s personal secretary. That cumulative experience that would be less vulnerable to the ravages of time. My standard of proof was that things proceed from consistent documentary proof combined with the eyewitness accounts. It was never perfect memory, which would disqualify any account from that time. The SwiftVets suffer not merely from bad or fallible memory, but contradictory accounts of the time, when memory would be less of a factor. An example is the citation for Thurlow’s bronze star, authored by a crewmate. You have a competing account consistent at both this point in history and in the past.

Knox, being the person she is was in a position to first encounter the documentary evidence at the time. The records recently released by the White House are contemporary confirmation of the many of the assertions she makes, and that adds credibility to her vouching for the contents of the documents she said were rather well-informed forgeries. The SwiftVets would have had an easier time of things, if their charges had hit the mark, with documentary proof supporting their charges.

And no, that recently posted report citing the leg wound doesn’t count towards debunking the Silver Star. It was never mentioned in the citation. What was mentioned, in fact is corroborated by the document, which praises the tactics used to go after the enemy.

Steven said:

But it really never would have been an issue if he had never lied about it. Yes, Bush lied. Bush said he never got preferential treatment. He said he did his duty. But the records increasingly show this is not the case. It’s the opposite of what happened to Kerry. Instead of further investigation revealing less basis for the charges, it reveals more support for them, even as some of the evidence is debunked.

I think that every liberal in the media & most on WatchBlog has said Bush lied. (About missing work) Lied, liar, liar liar!!!! Bush lied. Liar. Rather worked on this story for 5 years. Get a life Dan.

Joebagodounuts said:

Stephen, hold Knox to the same standard of proof that you require from those who do NOT share your opinions. Then you can be considered a fair and equitable judge of things.

Its obvious, also, that CBS is guilty of shoddy preparation. Their story is beyond the pale of good journalism, and their pitiful attempts to change the focus is laughable at best.

You might as well give it up Joe. They can’t see it! I don’t understand it either. I thought that since they came up with the “I didn’t lie, I MISREMEMBERED, yea, that’s it, I misremembered”(under oath, by the way) for Clinton. I was under the impression that lying didn’t exist anymore???? Come on lefties, say it. You can do it. Cambodia (ring a bell?) That’s right, KERRY IS A LIER. I was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Seared, seared in my memory! That was a big fat one!!! Lier, lier, pants on fire!!
Nobody cares about that one either, but Rather didn’t bother to reveal that one on his little bipartisan spot. I expect someone will say that he admitted he was wrong. I don’t recall that.

Delzario said:

Keep dreaming guys. No one cares about this. Look at the polls, they already believe he got some special treatment, but they don’t care. As far as the testimony of a 80 something year old woman that admittedly is pulling for Kerry, I don’t think people will take it as seriously as you hope.

My wife just read to me off drudgereport that 60 minutes in the nations top market (New York) Rather finished not only behind nbc nightly news and abc world news tonight, but also pulled less audience than reruns of the Simpsons, Will & Grace, & King of Queens. Rather finished dead last in N.Y. during the 6:30 PM time slot among all brodcast channels tracked by Nielsen on Tuesday! Of course we all know how conservative New York City is! hmmmmmm

Steven said:

that adds credibility to her vouching for the contents of the documents she said were rather well-informed forgeries. The SwiftVets would have had an easier time of things, if their charges had hit the mark, with documentary proof supporting their charges.

What??????????????? You mean if they had well informed forged documentary proof?

Rather finished not only behind nbc nightly news and abc world news tonight…

That’s alright avg. The cable “news” circuit will keep this issue in play longer than you think.

The beautiful thing is, it has nothing to do with Kerry. Kerry can keep talking about how Bush is screwing seniors and what a cluster eff Bush’s Iraq policy is, while Bush has to defend himself from investigative journalists.

Averagejoe-
I think many liberals have said Bush lied. The question, is whether we’re right. Care to address why the president says he did his duty, when the last two years of his service he didn’t show up for enough of his training sessions to qualify under ANG standards? Maybe the president’s got his own standards for what doing his duty is, and he doesn’t want to be bothered with anybody elses, even the Air National Guard’s.

Oh, another interesting thing- not showing up for his physical was a violation of Air National Guard standards. If Ms. Knox is correct, it was also disobeying a direct order. They explain it by saying he made them up, but he didn’t make them up in time according to records. They also explain things by saying he made special arrangements with his superior officers.

In other words, Bush had to recieve special treatment in order to resolve whatever he resolved in order to be discharged honorably. And don’t make a big deal out of being discharged honorably from the guard. The Washington Sniper struck an officer, stole equipment, and spent several days in the brig, and he still was honorably discharged. It just means nobody of higher rank had enough of a bug up their but about you and what you did to go through all the crap to see things happen otherwise.

Many of the documents used to assert these thing were released by the White House themselves, in response to a lawsuit. They said they didn’t have any more files. That’s what they said before, before the mysterious documents reappeared.

As for Cambodia, ever heard of Bernique’s creek? Google it. Then you’ll likely be better informed. Memory is never perfect, always reconstructive. In the case of George Bush, it’s actually creative! But seriously, He was close enough, and it was a common enough thing for Swiftboats to go up that river, whatever that former Nixon ringer John O’Neill said. He may not have been there then, but he was certainly there within a few months of that time, and many SwiftBoats took trips up that river.

As for ratings, Newshour doesn’t pull the best ratings in the world, but a lot of people prefer their hard news approach to things rather than the infotainment that typifies NBC and ABC. Ratings aren’t everything.

What??????????????? You mean if they had well informed forged documentary proof?

Any real documentary proof at all, well informed forgery or otherwise. Beside, I’m not relying on the documents in question for anything I’m relying on Lieutenant Commander Jerry Killian’s personal secretary, Ms. Knox.

Your people are relying on the fact that there are 240 swiftvets. Well jeez, if it was 150 people, folks just might not be convinced. Going for 350 would be pushing it. One might get suspicious- seriously, every time somebody looked at the record, it contradicted the SwiftVets. Well then, they claimed Kerry wrote up all the reports. But he didn’t! Others wrote them up as well, not all of them friendly or familiar with Kerry.

You really ought to be kinder to them. I posited that they may not be knowingly telling any untruths about what they remember. They may have been too concentrated on certain things to really pay attention to the gunfire and the other thing. That’s more than many liberals are willing to posit.

There are tons of documents, with no taint of forgery on them, which can be used to back up her story. Where’s the back up to the SwiftVets? I’ll wait for you to produce it.

My point Steven is that they both probebly lied to a degree, but bfd. Both of those drums have been beat on so long and hard that nobody really cares! The shame here is Dan Rather!

Stephen:

perhaps you should learn law school lingo before butchering it so badly. Hearsay is when you repeat what someone else said. Knox is saying that this looks like what Killian wrote. Therefore it is hearsay. Consult your nearest lawyer—-even John freakin Edwards would verify it.

You say that I’ve “insinuated she’s wrong.”, referring to Knox. Go read my post—perhaps for the first time. I said she has credibility but no proof. Now how in the world do you take that to mean I’m suggesting she is wrong.

Stephen, a first year law student (at a bad law school, no less) would understand that proof is required in order to prove something. It’s not enough for me to say “Stephen is an alien from outer space”. Its not enough for your mother to say that you are an alien from outerspace. Should she be believed simply because she knows you well? Of course not.

And neither should we believe Ms. Knox without proof. Certainly not any more than we should believe Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Brodderick or any of the other women who made claims against Clinton. We shouldnt believe them until they supply proof. Proof is the standard.

Stop trying to change the standard simply to conform to your desires. Its infantile and beneath you, by a long ways.

First of all Stephen,

Thanks for stepping in with very pointed and effective responses to Mr. Delzario and joebags.

In the court of public opinion joe, those on the right have used ‘hearsay’ (def: credibility without proof?) to it’s full advantage in defense of the Swift Boat Veteran’s smear campaign. And, when we offered up ample evidence of ‘no proof in their credibility’, you dismissed it out of hand usually charging ‘partisan propaganda’.

So, now you cannot claim that Mrs. Knox was employed by the same company as Mr. Killian, but her desk was in another building. She was in Killian’s swift boat alright, typed all his correspondents, with strong familiarity of their contents.

When John Corsi turned out to be a racist bigot, no one suddenly believed he was not the co-author of Unfit, even when he joined Mary Cheney in that undisclosed location.

As I’m familiar with it, hearsay is evidence that the person could not know from direct experience. She had direct experience of his state of mind, direct knowledge of the contents of the letters and memos. That’s not hearsay. If she heard somebody describe the contents of the letters and memos, that would be hearsay, because she would be unable to know for herself what they say.

Proof is in the other documents that have been released, the other witnesses who have no memory of his presence on base. Proof is in documents showing that he did not show up for many drill sessions, and that he did not make up many of the missed sessions in the time allowed for such things. Proof is in an agreement to show up for guard duty in Massachussets that he never honored

Proof is in the reaction of Dan Bartlett who in confronting the charges that Bush missed a physical, something Marian Knox confirms is a violation of Air National Guard Standards, in that he excused the president by saying they weren’t flying the jets Bush was trained for, not by denying he missed the physical. The White House spokesman essentially said that Air National Guard Standards weren’t binding on Bush.

So what’s going on? What gave Bush the right to decide what orders to follow, and which to disregard? Can we trust somebody who has that little respect for his duties to carry out the duties of the presidency? Can we trust a man to run this country whose criteria for following the orders of superiors, going to war, and chasing down our nations enemies is “Whether he feels like it?”

Steven:

Memory is never perfect, always reconstructive. In the case of George Bush, it’s actually creative!

You are absolutley right Steven. If it were on March 19,June 7,October 14, or any other obscure date. But 20 years ago I used to drive a tractor trailer cross country.I remember a lot of different events,but couldn’t tell you any date, or even year.Except Christmas Eve 1983.It was my first Christmas away from my family. I was in Federal Way Washington at a truck stop. I can remember numberous details,right down to the way the ham at the restaurant had been cut in a circle & a full inch thick. (I didn’t realize that it was canned). That entire afternoon & evening & next morning, I felt so alone & every minute I was visualizing what my kids were doing. Kerry was in a simular situation.(only he in a much more lonely not to mention unsafe place than I). So I say not always reconstructive.
Certain events or certain times do tend to get seared, seared into a mans heart & soul. As that time is seared into mine. If Kerry was spent Christmas Eve in a boat in Vietnam,away from his family, (which I’m sure he did) There would be no mistaking the date. Like he said in his own words “seared, seared into my memory.” He just wasn’t in Cambodia! That part he made up. If he was the commanding officer of that boat, he could tell you the exact location on the map where he was on that river. By his own words, HE LIED! As far as Bush being creative.He doesn’t hold a candle to Kerry.
Funny how sharp the 30 year old recollections of an 86 year old woman!! She remembers conversations from her boss arout Bush, out of how many trainees? Does she recall all the names of the other trainees? Better check her voting record.

Bert and Stephen:

You both have standards of proof that are far too partisan for me to continue this thread. The standard of proof for anything negative towards a Democrat is so high as to be unattainable—and even if that is somehow attained, you discredit it (Yeah Clinton lied under oath in a federal court, but hell, it wasnt about anything serious).

On the other hand, your standard of proof for anything negative towards a Republican is simply that it has been said. Once said, whether there is proof or not, you buy into it. Dan Rather goes on tv touting NEW EVIDENCE in the form of memos which are now undeniably forged. And you both buy in wholesale, since the forged memos say what you believe in advance.

I’d love to see either of you in a court of law.
“Ahem, your honor, I know that the evidence we have is falsified and made-up, but we reallyreallyreally believe our client, so we ask you to believe our non-evidence anyway.”

So, with this, I will not read another post on this thread. I’m sure you will feel compelled to answer anyway, but do it for someone else’s benefit—-i havent the time for your silliness.

joe,

Usually when someone calls something I write or said ‘partisan’, it clearly translates to ‘I cannot effectively refute your stated position, so here’s a response that infers it’.

The standard of proof for anything negative towards a Democrat is so high as to be unattainable—and even if that is somehow attained, you discredit it

Replace the word ‘Democrat’ with ‘Republican’, and I’ll be damned if that is not what us Blue Column debaters have posted repeatedly in these Comment threads!

Your vow not to bother reading Stephen and this response, certainly gets you outta providing evidence of such skulduggery on our part. On the other hand, finding such evidence offered up by our Red Column detractors, is in ample supply.

Both of those drums have been beat on so long and hard that nobody really cares!

Nobody cares that the President is a liar, avg? I doubt it.

joe, the woman’s an eyewitness to Bush’s shenanigans. Get over it.

I see where the United States Navy has finally spoken out on Kerry’s behalf over the Swift Boat Liars for Bush nonsense.

“Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed,” the Navy’s inspector general, Vice Admiral Ronald Route, said in a memo written to Navy Secretary Gordon England.

“In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.”

I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before Republicans start saying bad things about the Navy, too. Why do Republicans hate our troops?

Averagejoe-
I’m afraid memory is always reconstructive. Always. That’s just the mechanism by which it works, neurologically speaking. There is no hard drive in your head. If memory is a tapestry, it’s threads come from everywhere in the brain.

It’d be interesting to find out what details you remember well, and what things you don’t remember as clearly, or don’t remember as they were. If somebody challenged you on those memories by calling you a liar, though, would you be able to gainsay them? If all falsehood equals lying, well then, they can claim you lied whether or not you simply forgot.

All Kerry has to do is get the date wrong on something, and you guys call him a liar. But Bush gets one point after another wrong when he should know better, and you say he’s telling the truth.

As for the recollections of an 86 year old woman, several things come into play. Structure, repetition, and the fact that Bush wasn’t just anybody’s kid, but a congressman’s. If he was a real screw-up, the subject of a bunch of meetings and conversations, then he could come up as a subject an awful lot.

Joe-
Why do you constantly bring Clinton into this? Why is Bush’s career, and the files that have been released on him the last thing you consider?

In case you haven’t heard, the very person who’s telling you these documents are forgeries is the one telling you that the information in them is true! You’re selectively listening to this woman. Why are you willing to buy her disputing the authenticity of the memos, but not her recollection of the information in them? You cannot dissociate one from the other. If she did not remember how her boss’s letters were formatted, worded, and used, she couldn’t tell you the documents were fake! That’s the whole catch to this- to accept her assessment of forgery, you more or less have to accept her authority on Killian’s personal documents. By accepting that, you accept what else she has to say on the issue, including her confirmation of the information in those documents. That’s what’s so elegant about the way the interview lines up the facts.

Steven:
If she did not remember how her boss’s letters were formatted, worded, and used, she couldn’t tell you the documents were fake! That’s the whole catch to this- to accept her assessment of forgery, you more or less have to accept her authority on Killian’s personal documents. By accepting that, you accept what else she has to say on the issue, including her confirmation of the information in those documents. That’s what’s so elegant about the way the interview lines up the facts.

I never said I accepted her opinion on the documents. I have a problem with the way you guys disreguard the mans own families recollections of what he told them and are willing to accept an 86 year old persons memory as sharp as a tack.I don’t think anyone looking at any document even if they composed it themselves 30 years prior would be able to remember it.The liberals would have slobbered over those documents & accepted them as fact if they were written in crayon!!

Clinton is just an exsample, you probably still don’t think he lied. Kerry knew he wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, he lied, plain and simple. Bush didn’t take his physical and missed some other stuff. He did his duty, not as good or complete as he could have, maybe even should have been written up. But good enough to get an honorable discharge. I graduated, but I skipped my fair share of classes and assignments, but I did enough to pass! As did Bush.

JBOD was right, you guys refuse even to look at any questions about your guy. I expect that in the blue column to a degree, but at least in the other two columns at least recognize faults and willingness to look at the things brought forth.

“including her confirmation of the information in those documents. That’s what’s so elegant about the way the interview lines up the facts.”

Conformation of imformation on forged documents
PALEEEEEESE!!!!
JBOD is right. I’m outta here

AvgJoe,

Why is it that you and joebags are deciding to bail on this issue, all of a sudden?

Maybe, the fact that there is not the volume of evidence to cloud, muddy and distort like the Swift Boat Vets smear campaign? Where cornered on a specific point, you had the luxury of moving on to the next?

Today on his show, John McLaughlin asked the panel simply, ‘Is there any evidence that refutes the facts in the Killian memos?’ He got a resounding ‘no’ from the panel, of course, with the exception of the Washington Times’s Tony Blankley.

What CBS and Dan Rather did right, was hold the contentious ‘bullet points’ to one! And, as the reputation of a WatchBlog debate, you’ve signaled that this issue has sufficiently been vetted.