The smear campaign against Bush

Remove all ads!

I already had about as low an opinion of Kerry as it gets, but what I've been reading about his 60 Minutes sponsored smear campaign against Bush has made my opinion of Kerry and his henchmen reach entirely new lows.

More info for those of you who haven't been keeping up with these events.

With apologies to Tal , but I just couldn't resist. From what I heard on the radio this morning Dan Rather (who did the piece on 60 minutes) is supposedly furious. The radio is claiming that Rather will publicly apoligize to GWB if it appears to be a fraud. I admit to not liking Rather, for I have never thought him to be impartial, but if he was fooled and fesses up, then he gets points in my book for integrity.

 

Yes, the documents do appear to be forged. In addition to the "th" Snook mentions above, it also appears that the documents use "variable character spacing" - basically, all the letters take up a different amount of space, as opposed to typwriters from the 1970s where an "i" would take up the same amount of space as a "w".

However, I agree with Tal that there are many question marks regarding Bush's service record, and it certainly doesn't appear to me that everything was done on the up-and-up.

 

Interesting that the "smear campaign" against Kerry is being led by a privately funded organization. This smear campaign against Bush is being led by a national news network!

Also, the National Guard story arose months before anyone ever heard of a Swift Boat Veteran. The Democratic party and it's ties to various 527 bash groups goes way back. They've spent more money than Conservative 527s and have more tangible links to the Kerry camp to boot.

 

Well of course they have links to Kerry's campaign. In fact, Kerry's campaign advisor even said that with all the bashing that has been done regarding Kerry's service record, anything that shows up in Bush's service record is "fair game".

 

Well, I recently saw a guy demonstrating for Kerry, he had a shield with "Communists for Kerry!" - certainly a GOP plant.

How about a theory: Now it would be quite cunning for the GOP to play faked Bush records to the press. When they are bad for Bush but unable to withstand scrutiny - that has a good chance for the press chasing the scoop bringing them up without checking.

It would undermine the whole discussion about Bush's service record, and therein be quite helpful for the whole campaign, wouldn't it?

 

I am going to play Devil's Advocate here and propose that perhaps this wasnt a cunning GOP plan but just gullibility and bad research on the part of CBS as they are taken in by some overzealous liberal who knows that Bush II deserted but real badly want to prove it to the world?

 

Possible. But as well they could have gullibly swallowed disonformation. We'll see, or not.

Considering that today, some 3 years after 9/11 42% of the Americans think Saddam was directly involved ion 9/11 - do you think the truth will ever make a difference?

And even if facts hint that - as with Iraq - the statement is plainly false - the number above indicates that facts can be quite irrelevant to perception.

Nevermiond the facts, for the GOP followers this is clear anyway - a vicious Democratic smear campaign against their glorious war president!
For the Democrats, probably rightly, Bush remains the draft dodger, avoiding personal involvement in dirty business like Vietnam.

Silly episode.

 

Everyone forgot to add that the CIA killed Kennedy.

Good Grief

 

Well...

1) the documents still might be genuine: reportedly other documents from the same time on Bush's service released by the WH also have superscript, variable character spacing, and a the same font.

2) if it was a forgery, it was a pretty stupid one. Then again a poor forgery can still work, i.e., the "photo" of Kerry with Jane Fonda: even though this was a bald lie, it still associated the two in the public eye.

3) if it wasn't a forgery, the Repubs have done well in neutralizing it. "Experts" can go a long way if you're hoping to muddy an issue.

4) It remains to be seen whether the Repubs can spin this to discredit all of the attacks against Bush's behavior during the Vietnam war, or whether this scandal will just continue to draw attention to the obvious gap between Bush and Cheney's avoidance of the war, however you look at it, and Kerry's volunteerism, again, however you look at it. Also, will it delay the coming attacks against Kerry's 70s criticisms of the war?

5) It remains to be seen whether the Dems can have the "sugar coat" document debated nonstop on all major news networks for the next two weeks, like the farcical SBV issue was. Whether "sugar coat" is true or not, having pundits go on and on about this, using "Bush" and "failed to report for duty" again and again in the same context, will certainly begin to associate the two in the public eye. So will the Repubs draw out their forgery accusations as a way of denouncing the Dems, or just drop it in quickly and hope that the whole issue disappears?

 

I'm not aware that anyone has been able to prove that the CBS story had anything to do with the Kerry campaign. Can you prove this, or are you just furthering the retro-smear? If low-life Kerry and his evil henchmen are indeed behind this, can you at least back it up? There are plenty of people willing to stick it to Bush without this necessarily being directly tied to Kerry, as you are incinuating.

 

Of course it didn't come out as relevant. In order to be relevant it would have to pierce the "shield of superiority" that the liberal elite have. Instead of the outrage expressed at the Swift Boat Veterans attack ads, it has been spun into a conspiracy theory that the Bush campaign planted the evidence to make themselves seem like victims and their opponents look like idiots.

Bravo

P.S.

It was supposed to be "funny clever" as opposed to "funny ha ha"

 

I'm having some difficulty recalling the outpouring of "conservative outrage" about the SBV attack adds. I must have missed something...

And some *huge* differences between SBV and "sugar coat," if indeed it was forged: the "sugar coat" doc was a single piece of evidence, and it really didn't add too much to the indisputable facts that Bush used family connections to get out of the Vietnam draft. Just as no one disputed that Cheney used five deferments to get out of the draft. SBV, however, was a wholesale smear of someone who just as indisputably had volunteered for a particularly dangerous tour of duty, and leveled by people who had 1) originally been recruited by Nixon to discredit Kerry; 2) for the most part weren't even there; 3) had all sorts of inconsistancy in their story; and 4) yet were given full access to both cable and network news.

And I'm not even going to say anything about the "liberal elite" (though, as I recall from living in Houston Texas, the women of the "conservative elite" tended to have huge hair and too much makeup...)

 

Okay - I admit I read the top a little fast and didn't connect the joke. I was suffering from coffee deficiency at the time.

Now this - "In order to be relevant it would have to pierce the "shield of superiority" that the liberal elite have."

THAT'S comedy.

 

Well, I think the big hair is more of a Texas thing than a conservative thing. If you've ever seen Ann Richards, you would know what I'm talking about. And she's fairly liberal, God bless her. But she must also be one of those "liberal elite." Of course, everyone knows there is nothing "elite" about the Bush family. They are just the best connected political family in the country - maybe in the history of the US. But that would not qualify as "elite" for some, I guess.

 

The entire point of this thread (and for the most part my comments in the other one) were an attempt to show the one-sidedness of the left's thinking. To re-iterate when the SBV controversy started this board, many other boards, the press, etc. were quick to jump up and down and claim "dirty" politics, people are lying, etc. Now we have a similar situation from the other party and the same people who were so morally outraged are suddenly very quiet. Rather than accepting that their "good" guys may have done something despicable it is being spun as a "evil" plot by the republicans.

I have seen/read numerous threads that critique the USA for being convinced she is always right and never wrong, and yet people seem to be unable to accept that "their" side may be wrong. This bothers me as I consider it intellectually dishonest.

Now I've seen people respond that the conservatives weren't loud enough in their denouncements of the SBV. Does that really matter? Isn't the old saying "Two wrongs don't make a right?"

As to the entire Vietnam thing here is my spin. I do not and never have blamed Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Cassius Clay, or any of the countless others who did everything they could to avoid serving in the military. One of our family stories was that when I turned 18 my mother bought two bus tickets to Canada so we could escape if there ever was a war. Of course, this wasn't true, but the point is that there was no way my mother was going to let me get killed in a war. There were plenty of families that felt the same way in the Vietnam era and still do to this day. I have a cousin over in the desert and my aunt is a nervous wreck. However, he chose this career and we are all proud of his service. I'm quite sure if he had been drafted she would have fled the country with him though. Admittedly, I do have a problem with Kerry in Vietnam, for I'm convinced that he had no interest in serving, and only in trying to build a resume. I'm convinced that that is the wrong reason to serve, and I only hope it didn't get anyone else killed because of it.

As to how the entire thing will turn out. In my opinion even if the documents turn out to be forgeries, I'm sure there are plenty of others that will show that Bush didn't meet his military obligations. I think it is naive to think that he did.

As to people with big hair, I'll put our Italian ladies from Revere, MA against anyone else in the country

 

Well, doesn't that say something about Kerry? He WAS willing to go over there and do what he felt was in the best interest of his country. Yet, while there, he saw things that changed his opinion of the war. Later he spoke out about what he experienced and how it had changed him. Is it fair that the conservatives are now attacking him for this? It is really all a matter of politics, and as such, is it fair to anyone who had the guts to go over there and fight?

It is a known fact the the face of war changes men. That Kerry came back a different man should not be a news flash to anyone who experienced war first hand, especially that one.

The real issue should be: Has America learned the lessons of Vietnam? If so, how much is the war in Iraq like Vietnam? Or, how is it different?

 

The REAL issue is: if these politicians took all the enormous amounts of time and energy they spend on discrediting each other and devoted that to productive causes (like running the country, for instance), imagine what they could achieve.

The resources that are devoted to these campaigns must be colossal.

 

Amen, Harbourboy!

This election campaign (not unlike the one here in Australia) is being run on personality, not issues.

As far as the issue of service records, well, I'm sure plenty of Democrats pulled anything they could to get out of going to Vietnam as well. But the issue is one of leadership and courage; Bush, Cheney and others pulled strings to get out of going to Vietnam because they just didn't want to go to war. Cassius Clay did jail time for refusing to fight.

The difference was the reason why they refused to go - Clay made himself a political target by giving white anti-communist America the metaphorical finger and rejecting the war. Bush, the "commander-in-chief", didn't go because he wasn't prepared to get shot at, rather than any consciencious objections he had to the war. To then turn around and vilify his opponent for being indecisive, cowardly and lacking moral integrity would be funny if it weren't so serious.