Re: The "Religion of Peace" In Their Own Words.......


"Ray" <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140764131.718943.183960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Liberal_Logic? wrote:
"Ray" <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140720007.236175.253810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Liberal_Logic? wrote:
"Ray" <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Liberal_Logic? wrote:
the Bush National Guard documents thing. Didja notice how that
"issue" totally fell off the face of the earth the day after the
administration
finally coughed up those coveted documents? I have yet to hear a
peep.

Actually, that issued continued for long afterwards and is still
unresolved - those "coveted documents" raised more questions about
Bush's national guard 'service' than they answered.

Then WHY didn't the Dems continue using the issue to
bash Bush during the campaign? The dems just gave
him a pass out of the kindness of their hearts I suppose.

After the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" organization ran a barrage of
highly successful (from a political standpoint) ads that falsely
attacked and unfarily dishonored Kerry's Vietnam War service record,
MoveOn.org ran an ad attacking both Swift Boat lies and Bush's national
guard service.

Kerry responded by specifically condemning the MoveOn.org ad, declaring
that the presidential campaign should be about issues, not personal
attacks. (Compare with Bush, who never specifically condemned the
Swift Boat ads, even as John McCain condemned them as dishonest and
dishonorable.) After Kerry's condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad many
(though not all) Democrats followed his lead and stopped highlighting
Bush's spotty and still highly questionable national guard record.

I don't buy that for a second.
If there was anything usable in those docs it would have been used.

Boston Globe, September 8, 2004:
---------------------------------------
Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service --
first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out
of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush
signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a
punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records
show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The
1968 document has received scant notice.
---------------------------------------

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

So why wasn't it used?
You want me to believe this sequence of events:

1) For MONTHS prior to the election, the left threatens to hold their breath
forever
unless the B Administration hands over the docs.

2) The election is very close, the administration barfs up the docs.

3) With the docs in hand, the left finds CONCRETE evidence of Bush going AWOL.

4) The left has a change of heart OVER NIGHT, and practically GIVES the Bush
administration 4 more years in the white house.

Dan Rather would have been better off with that link than what he
DID go forward with.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


The media are surely in large part responsible for the said state of
'debate' during political campaigns. However it's not the media who,
for example, concocted and launched the 'Kerry is a flip-flopper' smear
campaign - that was instead Bush and his allies.

Agreed, but the way you tell it Kerry didn't have a smear machine
of his own.

Can you name a personal attack that Kerry's people unfairly smeared
Bush with as noticably, effectively, and repeatedly as Bush's people
smeared Kerry with the 'Kerry is a flip-flopper' personal attack? Or
Bush's allies did with the Swift Boat lies?

I'm not talking about just the "official" ads where the candidates have
to say: "I am XXXXXXXX and I approve of this message". The indipendant
liberal smear ads on Bush (AND the reverse toward Kerry) were too numerous
to count. Still, from the way you argue your point above, it wasn't the
actual
ads that bothered you as much as the fact that Bush's were BETTER! LOL!


The sad fact of the matter is, negative campaigning works. Even when
it's exposed as lies and/or unsupportable during the campaign. And why
is that? Because a significant portion of voters don't follow issues
and campaign details closely, and instead too often assume that if
there's smoke then there must be fire.

So sure, blame the media - they surely deserve it for all too often
uncritically sucking in and regurgitating personal attack talking
points and not covering and highlighting the actual issues. However
also blame the other key players who are responsible for this digusting
mess: the politicians who use and/or look the other way about dishonest
personal attack ads instead of addressing the issues, and the people
who are suckers for dishonest personal attack ads - every time.

True, but it just aint gonna happen.

What - negative attack ads stopping? Untortunately true, but I didn't
say or suggest otherwise. I was instead telling you that if you want
to do the blame thing re- negative attack ads then don't just blame the
media - they are but one of the guilty parties. At the end of the day,
negative attacks wouldn't exist to the degree that they do if they
weren't so effective at distracting and fooling voters.

Agreed 100%

I really think there should be some serious BI-PARTISAN legislation
to stop those inane independent negative ads. (And the official ones
for that matter.) I know that's a colossal can -o- worms with freedom
of speech, but SOMETHING needs to be done before 2008. Those
ads hurt BOTH sides and do absolutely nothing for the debate on
the important issues.















.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?OT:_=ECFrom_9/11_to_11/4_How_soon_we_forge?=
    ... Could Bush had put more effort into stopping terrorism before 9/11? ... 2001 that an attack within the country, probably involving hijacking, ... up and "blinking red" regarding the attack, the administration simply ... it's history both the CIA and FBI are marred by some really bad events. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Bush to New Orleans Jazz Legend: "Pick Up All the Trash"
    ... While I share your disdain for most of what the Bush ... Administration represents, I think the practice of bashing American ... It's one thing to attack policies and statements and positions; ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)
  • Re: That Guy Bush - 4 Kerwinjrs Eyes Only
    ... >> Using the above source you provided in the first That Guy Bush thread, ... >> 1999 analysis should have alerted his administration to a terrorist ... >> attack on the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks. ... > So we'll take the word of a known liar over the overwhelming evidence ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: That Guy Bush - 4 Kerwinjrs Eyes Only
    ... >> Using the above source you provided in the first That Guy Bush thread, ... >> which the source may or may not be based, in which Clinton more or less ... >> 1999 analysis should have alerted his administration to a terrorist ... >> attack on the scale of the Sept. 11 attacks. ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • All the 9/11 True Believers Can Do Is Ignore This
    ... How did Bush see the first plane crash on live ... he praised the attack, available on the Internet? ... Why were the bin Ladens flown out of the U.S. on ...
    (sci.physics)