Documents forged? content 100% accurate

Status
Not open for further replies.
I gotta tell you, Fred. This arguement is more confusing than a flea in a dog pound. Maybe I'm not reading it right, but it seems that the accusations are made-bogus proof is offered. Truth comes out, so then the shift to "well, maybe the commander wrote something else", or "well, the document might be a bit suspicious, but what the secretary says is gospel". Trot out more facts....... :rolleyes:

If we on the right are supposed to be so mean-take the kids lunches and kick the cripples and old folks to the curb types, why is it the "understanding and I feel your pain" on the left will make excuses for everything on earth but a conservative?

Did somebody drop a horse apple in their cocoa puffs and they can't get over it?
 
I doubt that the retired general in question just woke up one day and on his own decided he was going to protect George.
Click to expand...

LAK, you are missing the point on the General. Let me try it again....


The General in question retired a year and a half BEFORE he supposedly applied pressure to the peon!

Get it? He was NOT AROUND when this memo said he was around. HE WAS LONG GONE! OUTTA THERE! HISTORY!

HE HAD NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT COLONEL KILLIAN OR GEORGE W. BUSH ANYMORE! NO AUTHORITY! NO INFLUENCE!

It's called one of many stupid blunders in some obviously forged documents!

That fact alone is enough prove the documents and the 'testimony' of the secrectary to be false! They both say something that has been proven to be false!
 
Yeah, but Quartus, we really don't know that there weren't other documents that might be real! I mean, there just has to be. Everyone knows that Bush is a loser and anyone with half a brain can see that he's as bad as Hitler.

You're so quick to dismiss this whole line of attack on Shruby just because there isn't any evidence. What are you, a REPUBLICAN!?!

- Gabe ;)
 
"I doubt that the retired general in question just woke up one day and on his own decided he was going to protect George."

Given that General Straudt (sp?) has already given several interviews in which he ADAMANTLY AND ABSOLUTELY REJECTS the accusations that he applied pressure to Killian to get him to protect Bush, it's a moot point. But hey, he can't be trusted, he was a General in the military. The person who CAN be trusted is an 85-year-old woman whose statements have also been rejected by at least 4 other people (they can't be trusted, either, you know).

It's absolutely pathetic the depths to which the Bush bashers will allow themselves to sink into this morass.

Inconvenient facts? That's ok, they can be "explained" away with another half-baked theory that has no basis in proof.

Shifting the premise of the argument when confronted with facts that destroy your original argument... that seems to be a favorite tactic of the Bush bashers/liberals/democrats, and it's in FULL use here.

I'm sure it won't be too long before we hear that the Easter Bunny actually wrote the memos, and that we KNOW we can trust the Easter Bunny because of his connections to Christianity.
 
You guys need to remember that this is the same LAK who still can't figure out why STEEL cable drums don't burn.
Click to expand...

Unfair, Fred. He conceded that point once it was pointed out that they are steel. He can't be faulted for not knowing steel cable drums when he sees them - not everybody is familiar with them. The wooden ones are a lot more common.
 
Not terribly unfair. LAK seems to think that he knows what was in the mind of a dead man, but - despite the wooden drums being more common - he did not even note that the drums in the picture we are refering to were warped.

In short, he has an incredible capacity to see/know things that never were, while simultaneously being blind to that which is right in his face.

I don't think pointing that out is unfair.
 
despite the wooden drums being more common - he did not even note that the drums in the picture we are refering to were warped.
Click to expand...


Yes, he missed it, but he conceded the point once it was pointed out. He didn't continue to argue anything based on the drums.


HANSEN! OFFSIDES! 10 YARDS!

:D
 
Quartus
HE HAD NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT COLONEL KILLIAN OR GEORGE W. BUSH ANYMORE! NO AUTHORITY! NO INFLUENCE!
Click to expand...

That is an assumption. It assumes that the general was not simply acting on someone else's behalf - a go between. But in any case I was merely addressing the idea of people in such a position keeping journals etc. Nothing more.

You are taking this far too seriously. The Bush Kerry show is all WWF; the absurdity of what has been the focus of national news about them for all this time ought to have given some people a clue by now. I do not think I have seen a better expression of this than the little presentation at http://www.jibjab.com

Fred,

Steel drums don't burn (like steel buildings), but a Boeing 757 running over them at 500 mph might have been expected to have displaced them, just alittle. ;)
 
Steel drums don't burn (like steel buildings), but a Boeing 757 running over them at 500 mph might have been expected to have displaced them, just alittle.
Click to expand...
Again, do you posses information as to their pre-impact orientation?
 
"That is an assumption. It assumes that the general was not simply acting on someone else's behalf - a go between."

No, the assumption is that that Straudt attempted to influence someone on this subject. Straudt has, in several interviews, DENIED categorically, that he ever did so.

There's NO proof that Straudt ever attempted to exert influence on Bush's behalf.

The memos supposedly saying he was pressuring Killian wouldn't stand up to evidentiary requirements for a court of law -- far more people have said in no uncertain terms that they are fake than have vouched for them. That also makes the CONTENTS (no matter what Dan Rather claims) tainted.

Only in liberal/anti-Bush minds can something so absolutely tainted and with no verifiable shred of proof be held up to be factual information. When asked for FACTS to support their contentions, the best you people can do is innuendo, accusation, and hystrionics.

It's pathetic, this grasping at straws.
 
It's pathetic, this grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

Pathetic is a kind and gentle way of putting it.

It's actually stupid beyond belief, not pathetic. It shows an utter lack of any grasp of logic, cause and effect or ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

In short, it's a perfect example of what passes for thought in liberal circles: a bunch of group controlled, knee-jerk, emotional reactions to something that is beyond their comprehension.
 
"It shows an utter lack of any grasp of logic, cause and effect or ability to distinguish reality from fantasy."

And that is what makes it so pathetic.
 
I think this one has run its course. The discussion is veering off topic quickly and ad hominem is starting to rear its ugly head.

I'm going to close this before it gets further out of hand. As always, feel free to PM or email if you have any questions about this closure.

-Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top