Letters to the Editor
-
"Cleland did not lose his limbs in battle."
Which is why he has no Purple Heart. A grenade fell off his web gear, and rear-office-pogue that he was, he bent over to pick it up instead of knowing (and hearing) that that meant the spoon had popped off. A combat veteran knows that very distinct metallic pop and hiss of a spoon coming off a live grenade.
It's tragic, but it was also foolish.
-
Re: terrible formatting
I trust our local ex-Marine neocon will be able to decipher my terrible use of numbering in the last post. It won't be nearly as complicated as his pedantic grasp of 1960s-1970s typewriters or MS Word formatting.
-
Groenhagen Posturing
Read the 9/11 Commission report. The Bush admiistration was in the process of implementing a rollback strategy against al Qaeda when 9/11 occurred. This was an OFFENSIVE posture, which we did not have during the Clinton administration.
And how did that "offensive posture" work out? What's that, I couldn't hear you? You say, 19 hijackers flew their planes into buildings? You don't say!
So, from what you've told me, you're mighty steamed that Clinton didn't do something about the USS Cole bombing during his last month in office, however you're fine with Bush's ineffectual efforts in his 9 months in office leading up to 9/11.
Is there anything else you'd like to add here? Otherwise, your double-standard is plain for all to see.
-
The memos are forged
Joseph Newcomer, a liberal who happens to be a computer typesetting expert, and who happens to care more about truth than who wins, has proven that the so-called National Guard memos are forged. You can read about it on his web site at
http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm.
-
One more comment
It's a shame to see this letters page bogging down on the memos, which were only a small part of the evidence showing Bush's absences from guard duty.
I'm tempted to start debating specifics, but to keep it brief, I'll just note that given a document of unknown origin, the burden of proof lies in showing that it is authentic, not the other way around.
It is impossible to show a fax to be an authentic document since there are so many ways to produce a fake one. Yet CBS made the decision to run with these faxes and consequently did the brunt of the work in turning a compelling circumstantial case against Bush into an indictment against those making the case.
So while it's clear TO ME that the digitized images are not facsimiles of 70s-era memos, I don't completely dismiss the view that they were planted intentionally. Even then, you get the obvious problem: if you were planting fakes to be discovered, why would you risk making them so obviously fake?
All of this is largely irrelevant, though, and I really wish people would stop pinning their hopes on the memos being vindicated somehow. While I consider them to be "proven" to be fake (in the sense of Occam's law: simplest explanation of their origin), what is certainly true is that no known party is in possession of original documents that can be proven authentic.
-
Cooking the books
C. COOK:
1. Who cares about Clinton? Bush broke the law. Whether the documents Rather presented were fake or not:"
An absolute falsehood. TANG records show that Bush fulfilled his TANG obligation and was not AWOL. See http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
"2. Bush DID break the law and was AWOL."
Just a repeat of your first lie.
"3. Multiple people have adequately answered your asinine assertions that Clinton WAS NOT accused of 'wagging the dog'. Whether his wars were "illegal" or not, you resort again to "BUT CLINTON". You neocon crybabies just can't ever seem to stop your pissing and moaning and but-Clintoning."
The quotes I provided from members of the GOP leadership were supportive of Clinton's retaliation against al Qaeda. They even express a desire that Clinton would go further. Your fellow moonbats provided quotes from insignificant back benchers such as Bob Barr.
"4. In case you were wondering, here's the real story behind Clinton's draft dodging:
I've already provided the real story from a man who was there. Here it is again: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/761.html
BTW, you failed to cite a source for your "real story." Can we assume it was from some pro-Clinton spin site?
-
Former Marine, not ex-Marine
"I trust our local ex-Marine neocon will be able to decipher my terrible use of numbering in the last post."
-
You Idiot
"BTW, you failed to cite a source for your "real story." Can we assume it was from some pro-Clinton spin site?"
No, unless http://www.snopes.com is a Clinton spin site.
You have been drinking the Koolaid for way too long, my man. While you say your source says the guy was there, the story I presented details every aspect of the account. Was your "source" a Bush friendly spin doctor?
Yet you refuse to believe the MULTIPLE accounts of Bush being AWOL. Nobody can seem to find where he was when he was supposed to be in Alabama. Geez, little man. Take a break from the cheetos and clean your keyboard.
-
More dishonesty from the moonbats
paulpsd7:
"And how did that "offensive posture" work out? What's that, I couldn't hear you? You say, 19 hijackers flew their planes into buildings? You don't say!"
Yes, the offensive posture came five years too late. If it have been enacted in, say, 1998, 9/11 could have been prevented.
"So, from what you've told me, you're mighty steamed that Clinton didn't do something about the USS Cole bombing during his last month in office,..."
Clinton had more than three months to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole. Michael Schneur, who headed Alex Station, said that there is no reason why al Qaeda should not have been hit immediately after the Cole was bombed.
"...however you're fine with Bush's ineffectual efforts in his 9 months in office leading up to 9/11."
Nine months? He was in office barely seven months and his transition period was greatly shortened by Gore's efforts to steal the 2000 election. It took months to get many of his key staff confirmed. The fact remains that Clinton had eight full years to do something about al Qaeda, and he failed. Bush had fewer than eight months to clean up the mess that Clinton had created.
"Is there anything else you'd like to add here? Otherwise, your double-standard is plain for all to see."
Double-standard? Let's see. Clinton killed 567,000 Iraqi children through sanctions on Iraq, dramatically increased the number of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula, which led bin Laden to tell CNN in 1997 that he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in retaliation. Our embassies in Africa were bombed a year later, the USS Cole was bombed in 2000, and then we had 9/11.
It's so clear now! It's all Bush's fault.