Most Americans think it is Kerry who is engaging in negative attacks and Bush who is talking about the issues. That per the NY Times/CBS poll:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in644205.shtml

Do you Bushies even know how to tell the truth anymore?

Rebellion said:

I dare you Rebellion -- go do your search and find ANYWHERE where I claimed that the memos were real. I made no such comment whatsoever. You're lying when you say (or insinuate as you did above) otherwise.

But if you don't like being called a liar (which you are), here's your chance -- prove your baseless accusation against me that I said anywhere in this forum that I believe the memos were real. You insinuated it -- now prove it or else accept the fact that you use false insinuation in here and think it doesn't matter to your integrity.

I guess the ball is in your court -- you can put up or, well you know how it goes when you make false accusations.

Come on.......people. Wake up and smell the coffee here. Here's what you'd have to believe in order to NOT think at this point in time that CBS and the Kerry campaign didn't have some coordination on this thing:

1) That after Bill Burkett contacted Max Cleland and was given to someone higher up in the Kerry campaign, that it was just dropped.....even though Cleland said, "It sounded like he had something."

2) That it was mere coincidence that the person running the Kerry campaign.....Mary Cahill...was the first to call and "congratulate" Ben Barnes after his interview on "Sixty Minutes II" with Dan Rather.

3) That at just the EXACT same time CBS was running the document story, the Kerry campaign was READY with their new "Fortunate Son" campaign.....which began the very next morning. The Fortunate Son campaign plays exactly on what was in those documents. And we're supposed to believe that was "coincidence?"

4) That the fact that BOTH Dan Rather and the Kerry campaign are standing by the "contents" of the documents is not coordinated?

5) That on the Wednesday BEFORE the airing of the "Sixty Minutes II" piece, Terry McAulliffe had a conference call with reporters and said, "Stay tuned" as if he knew exactly what was coming.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Well, that's good to hear Beagle. That you were on the same page as the rest of us on here and doubted the documents from Day One is very encouraging. Maybe there's hope for Dems after all.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

I assumed you spoke English. See that little thing at the end of the sentence? This thing "?" Those of us who understand English and punctuation like to call that a "question mark." That means it wasn't a statement of fact, but instead was a question. Notice in the second sentence I use the words "If so" That also refers back to that not being a statement of fact, but instead a statement that if I am correct in my assumption. If the assumption is incorrect then the statement is not applicable to you. You have attacked Bush's service record in the past, but it is possible you did not comment on the memo. In the future I will take into consideration your lack of understanding in regards to punctuation.

You used the information in that memo for several of your posts (haha, that's what you get for relying on C...BS for your information). You also did question the validity of the accusations of forgery.

http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...ghlight=#63625

Interestingly enough there is a nice lie/strawman argument made by you on this thread. You attack people for blaming the forgery on Kerry, yet there isn't a single post where someone says anything near "Kerry did this" on that thread. Is it a strawman or are we back to that comprehension thing?

This is a nice summary of the CBS debacle to date, with some unanswered questions at the end....questions that will be answered.

Memos, lies and the CBS tape
Published September 22, 2004

http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-085106-6584r

"We are confident about the chain of custody" of these documents, a CBS spokeswoman told the New York Times on Sept. 14. We hope some aspiring novelist is taking notes because, as retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett acknowledged Monday to USA Today, "This is going to sound like some (*)(*)(*)(*) sci-fi movie."

(Nice start, heh? )

Mr. Burkett, recently outed by CBS News as the source of the now-discredited Texas Air National Guard memos allegedly written by President Bush's former commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, has recently shed light on that "chain."
(*)(*)(*)(*)
The story begins in March, when Mr. Burkett, who had just been on MSNBC's "Hardball" discussing Mr. Bush's Guard service, received a call from a mysterious woman he calls Lucy Ramirez. Previously, Mr. Burkett had identified the source of the memos as one George Conn, another former Texas National Guard officer, conveniently abroad in Europe. In an e-mail to USA Today, Mr. Conn denied any involvement with the Killian memos. Mr. Burkett himself admits that he had lied about his source as a way of protecting her.
(*)(*)(*)(*)
In their conversation, Lucy Ramirez explained how she had in her custody damaging documents to Mr. Bush and scheduled a meeting with Mr. Burkett to hand them over. That meeting occurred on or around March 3 at a livestock show in Houston. But, according to Mr. Burkett, Lucy Ramirez didn't show up. Instead, as he told USA Today, an unknown "man handed him an envelope and quickly left." After receiving the memos, Mr. Burkett said he stopped off at a Kinko's store in Waco and made copies. In the parking lot outside, Mr. Burkett said he then burned the originals, pursuant to Lucy Ramirez's wishes. Over the next few days, Mr. Burkett said he hid the copies "in cold storage" at an undisclosed location 100 miles from his home in Baird.

(Please....someone call the Comedy Channel, huh?)

Then, apparently, five months go by. Five months in which this very vociferous anti-Bush partisan sits on the most damaging documents yet found that all but seal a case he's been making for years. Consider, also, that on Aug. 13, in an online post, Mr. Burkett wrote: "I have found no documentation from Lt. Col. Killian's hand or staff that indicate that this unit was involved in any complicit way to ... cover for the failures of 1Lt. Bush."
(*)(*)(*)(*)
Then suddenly, on or around Aug. 21, Mr. Burkett contacts former Sen. Max Cleland, indicating that he had potentially damaging information about Mr. Bush's service. Mr. Cleland apparently told Mr. Burkett to contact the Kerry campaign directly. According to Mr. Burkett, he then "gave them the information." In another online post, Mr. Burkett said he contacted the Democratic National Committee, but they were apparently "afraid to do what [he] suggest[ed]."
(*)(*)(*)(*)
In early September, a CBS producer phoned Joe Lockhart, former Clinton press secretary and senior Kerry adviser, asking him to call Mr. Burkett. According to Mr. Burkett, he had agreed to turn over the documents to CBS if the network would arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign. CBS News denies there was any deal. Mr. Lockhart acknowledges he called Mr. Burkett but that it was a one-time conversation and the disputed memos were not discussed.
(*)(*)(*)(*)
By Sept. 3, CBS producer Mary Mapes had some of the documents in her possession and began writing the story that would air on "60 Minutes II" on Sept. 8. Meanwhile, in the very same week, the Kerry campaign launched "Operation Fortunate Son," a campaign video that depicts Mr. Bush as "a very fortunate son who uses connections and pulls strings for special favors," according to an AP story dated Sept. 9. The story also mentioned "newly unearthed memos by the late Col. Jerry B. Killian" as being part of the ad.
(*)(*)(*)(*)
On the face of it, Mr. Burkett's story hardly instills confidence. It is shockingly sad that CBS News fell for such obvious trickery. But it is also just as sad that CBS News permitted partisan bias to govern its judgment on a story.
(*)(*)(*)(*)
So, this convoluted chain ends with Mr. Lockhart -- a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign. Is it believable that Mr. Burkett, at no time during his conversation with Mr. Lockhart mentioned the documents in his possession, as Mr. Lockhart contends? Is it believable that Ms. Mapes never mentioned to Mr. Lockhart that CBS was planning on using these documents in a story about the president's Guard service? Finally, is it believable that the Kerry campaign's launch of "Operation Fortunate Son" the day after the "60 Minutes II" story aired was entirely coincidental?


The answer:

No.

__________________
"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying. He sold us out."
- Paul Galanti, US P.O.W.

Kerry's campaign may have been "tipped off" by Burkett that something was going down, but does that prove coordination ? Coordination needs actions going both ways. A White House lawyer helps the Swifties. Is that coordination ? Did Burkett lie to the Kerry supporters ? as he did to CBS ?
Isn't Burkett A FREE AGENT eccentric ? .

Was't there a volunteer with he bush campaign that ended up in a swiftie ad. Is that coordination ?

Is Burkett a 527 ? isn't the prohibition against coordination limited to 527,s ? Is CBS A 527 ? SHOULD THEY BE ? IS FOX NEWS A 527 ? SHOULD THEY BE ?

..it's the bloody liberals and their "liberal media" again...

Great post btw...

There are a few differences here f100... lets look at the objectively...

First, there was a lawyer that was advising both the 527 Swiftees and the Bush/Cheney campaign... But, bear in mind that there is such a thing as lawyer/client privilege.. Honestly, do you know any lawyers in real life? Do they talk to you about their other cases? Regardless, the lawyer stepped down after a stink was raised.. do you advocate that Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, or Joe Lockhart step down?

Also, there were no laws broken by the Swift Boat Veterans.. If you think that a former prosecuter and a trial lawyer cannot find duplicity if there is duplicity then you are being dishonest with yourself.. the Kerry/Edwards campaign are chock full of lawyers(as the Bush/cheny campaign) and have attempted to use litigious means to stop the Swift Boat Veterans to no avail...
Because the Swiftees are not breaking the law...

Texas Penal code 32-21 applies directly to Burkett, Rather, Mapes, Lockhart and whoever else was involved in floating a forgery over the airwaves.. This is not taking in account the numerous federal statutes violated... Texas penal code 32-21.. look it up=)

There was no corroborating advertisement from the Bush/Cheney campaign in reference to the Swift Boat Veterans as well as No direct contact between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush Campaign.. meaning that the Swiftees did NOT call up Karl Rove... or at least there is no evidence of such action..

The Kerry Campaign and CBS ADMIT they were in contact with each other and the day after the CBS forgery report, the Kerry campaign released it's "Favored Son" ad.... to the objective person this seems to be clear and present evidence of corroboration.... It is a FEDERAL OFFENSE punishable by up to TWENTY YEARS in PRISON to attempt to influence a federal election.. currently the "usual suspects" include Rather, Mapes, Burkett, & Lockhart... do you advocate their investigation and possible prosecution? Also, WHO do you think should do the investigating?

MOST IMPORTANTLY, DO YOU ADVOCATE THE PEOPLE NAMED IN THIS SCANDAL TO STEP DOWN FROM THEIR POSITIONS OF POWER?

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds