I pretty much talked about this at length when I discussed the use of Undisclosed Sources on my blog... and then later again cause I forgot some stuff.

What it boils down to is that in order to trust that something was properly authenticated... you have to trust the authenticator. But CBS won't even disclose who did it.

Mainstream media have finally have to acknowledge us now that we've put them under scrutiny. We (me, too!) deserve the credit for breaking the forged memos story.

I want to acknowledge someone else: Matt Drudge. Although he's not a blogger, he laid the groundwork, in my view. I once heard Hugh Hewitt describe bloggers as pamphleteers, like the ones from the old days.That's an apt description. Bloggers are the new pamphleteers, defenders of independence, free from reliance on mainstream (liberal) media, and Drudge predicted it would happen.

Old media has long resisted questioning each other's veracity. It is to the economic benefit of all major media outlets that consumers judge major media as an institution a reliable and trustworthy source of information.

The media has long competed to be the first to run a story but once a particular narrative is establish everyone else just follows along with the herd. Questioning the narrative will place doubts in the minds of consumers as to whether the 9 out 10 outlets who follow the narrative have the story right or whether it's the 1 dissenter. If the consumers believe the dissenter has it wrong the dissenter's brand is destroyed.

This form of market collusion worked in the past when barriers to entry in media markets were extremely high and only major media could effectively question major media. The internet has changed the rules of the game. Now anybody can question a story and communicate it effectively to the wider world.

Now non-CBS major media faces a no-win dilemma: If they defend Rather they risk lashing themselves to his sinking ship. Their brand will be destroyed along with CBS's if the documents cannot be proved genuine. But if they help sink CBS they will damage the general brand of major media itself.

Sucks to be them.

not suprisingly, you conflate multiple issues:

1) the authenticity of the docs (which in your opening, you conclude are forged; and

2) cbs/rather's process of authentication.

and as with many republican supporters, you use this tactic to avoid the more substantive question, which is did bush really serve or did he get some 'friends and family discount.'

after going after kerry's service, your partisan shame really shows through now. you don't even have the courage to suspect, let alone admit, that georgie didn't properly serve.

cbs may be in trouble. but the lack of honesty that plagues this country is more troublesome to me.

Oh come on, dinesh. The left and a chunk of the media immediately and categorically dissed the Swift Boat Vets as liars and political hacks without considering for a frigging millisecond that there could be any merit whatsoever to what they were saying. This latest Natl Guard story is simply retaliation, nothing more nothing less, for the damage done to Kerry. MSM and the left holds up those dubious Killian memos the way medieval zealots held up relics of saints: here we have proof of the damnation of Bush. This is entirely partisan.

Dinesh,

Your response was critical but thoughtful in that it contained no silly rants as is often the case with disagreement these days.

However, you miss the point completely. One can't discuss the substantive issues raised in a document if it's a forgery.

Re the TANG issue, the Republicans have never made the National Guard part of Bush's resume to any great extent. For most people, it seems that what happened 35 years ago isn't as relevant as what's happening today (the current polls suggest this is so).

I'm afraid, fraud and forgery is a weak arguement on which to rest your case (though a case can be made against Bush in many other ways). This just isn't one of them

dinesh:
I suggest that you ask yourself "why would anyone believe charges that are based on forged documents?" Also ask yourself "why would anyone believe charges that are based on a thoroughly discredited, partisan source- ie., Ben Barnes?" Don't you think people who make charges have some responsibility to provide credible evidence to support their charges? Or is it the accused's responsibility to do all the legwork? You get to just throw mud, and I have to spend all my time scraping it off? Have you ever heard of the notion of "the presumption of innocence?"

www.andrewsullivan.com

for a right-wing thinker that deviates from talking points.

oh, and as for facts, in case any of you are interested in those.....

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

the more substantive question, which is did bush really serve or did he get some 'friends and family discount.'

Why, pray tell, is this a "substantive question", when the only piece of evidence that even prompted that question has been exposed as a crude forgery? Please get real.

Andrew Sullivan hasn't been near "the box" in quite some time.

Oops... I blew it. For some reason I thought dinesh said that Andrew Sullivan was a "right-winger that thinks outside the box." Hence my little joke. I apologize for any confusion.

Dinesh:

You use a couple of interesting techniques yourself:

1.) You want proof that the allegations, which are contained in what appears to be highly questionable documents, are not, in fact, true. Seems to me that the first burden lies on the accuser - prove the documents are valid and then ask that the allegations be addressed. This falls into the "How long have you been beating your wife?" mode of questioning.

2.) You confuse what you believe are partisan assaults on Kerry's record as having something to do with the allegations on President Bush's records. While they are similar in nature, they have nothing to do with each other; these are separate incidents and they rise and fall based on the evidence supplied. The motivations of the players has nothing to do with the validity of the evidence. The allegations are either true or not.

The Swift Boat Veterans have made allegations and have submitted their evidence. You are free to evaluate that and make judgements as to its veracity. You can decide whether these allegations are partisan smears or valid accusations. Those that disbelieve them can address the accusations with their own evidence. And that is exactly what happened. Several hundred SBVT members have said their piece and a handful of others have disputed it and, IMHO, these refutations have largely been in the he said/he said vein. Rebuttals not refutations. Based on these dynamics, the voters can evaluate what has been alleged by the SBVT.

The same goes with these accusations against the President. These new documents show up and there is an immediate reaction - the documents are questioned. Within hours there have been numerous presentations of evidence that some believe place the CBS documents in doubt. Some of these presentations come from experts in thier fields and include very visible demonstrations (see Charles Johnson's overlays of the documents and default Word printing processes). As a result, there appears to be a growing belief that the documents are forged. CBS has not yet, in any meaningful way, addressed any of the questions that have been raised.

I personally think you don't like the fact that all the responses to the evidence put forth by the SBVT haven't blunted their allegations while what you see as the turnabout is fair play response by the Dems has failed miserably. Your truth is doubted while that which you think is dishonest is winning the day.

For Dinesh
Andrew Sullivan Comments"
"RATHERGATE: It seems pretty clear to me that CBS's documents were forged; and that Dan Rather's Rainesian excuses are getting lamer and lamer. This strikes me as a big deal for CBS. It's not just that they made awfully big claims on documents they obviously failed to check out thoroughly enough; but Rather subsequently blustered about their legitimacy. Shouldn't he quit after such a display of recklessness? What would Rather be saying if an Internet site had pushed these docs? "

NEXT.....

Dinesh, CBS has admitted that they do not have original documents. By that standard of "evidence", this document is authentic:

http://slingsnarrows.erudite-absurdity.com/archive/002500.html

It is not unusual to see (as above) a reference to a "categorical" denial or something being "categorically" denied, most often in the big papers (sometimes running AP or AFP feed) or on CNN, and usually in reference to some statement by a state department or foreign ministry. I've never understood the need for that modifier. However, if anything, the denial should be described as "uncategorical". That is, there is no category under which the facts in question would be admitted.

Dinesh,

Where in hell are you coming from calling Andrew Sullivan right-wing?

He is so far left that everyone else in the Blogosphere routinely dismiss his radical writings and ravings?

Sheesh! Can you find any Demon statement anywhere
that a rational person can believe. You write like someone who exiyed the real world, long ago.

Hey dinesh or whatever you call yourself,
Why don't you take you nose out of John Kerry's ass and go spew out our rubbish back in Pakistan?
They are more likely to enjoy your kind of Bush-hating, nonsensical rhetoric!
How on earth can you talk of "more substantive question, which is did bush really serve or did he get some 'friends and family discount.", when the very document upon which this trumped up piece of garbage is based is 100% ascertained as a FORGED document here (http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm )?
Since you think you are so cute, will you please also explain to me how Barnes could have used his influence "when he was lieutenant governor" to get President Bush into the National Guard in 1969, when Bush ACTUALLY got into the National Guard in 1968 and Barnes did not become Lieutenant Governor till 1969?
How on earth do you get someone into a service when that person is ALREADY in the service?
While you are about it, please be kind enough to explain how the officer to whom this memo is addressed, COL. WALTER STAUDT, just happens to have LEFt the National Guard a good EIGHTEEN before the date of the memo?
How do you address a memo to someone who is NOT even in the service anymore?

You don't know what you are talking about dude!
How would you like it if I walk off the street and produce my own "memo" proving you are Al Quaeda (since your name sounds Pakistani or East Indian) and then just say "the real issue here is for you to explain your trip to a Bin Laden training camp in Afghanistan"
That'd be nonsense right?
Well that is exactly what you are accusing President Bush of.
This "memo" is a forgery. Ergo, there is no President Bush "National Guard issue". to discuss. Period!

so i can't respond to everybody at once, but i will say that the allegations made against bush and kerry's service are both driven by partisanship, designed to obfuscate more important issues of the campaign.

as for bush's service, his service history has been questioned, as he states, since famed political career began. however, while the cbs documents have created quite a stir, those documents are not necessary to evaluate questions regarding his service. see the u.s. news & world report link above.

i noticed that no one addressed the factual assertions presented by the u.s news & world report article. i can see that greg reads selectively, any other explanations?

dinesh,
Byron York answers your arguments about Bush's service, not that it will matter to you. Your argument seems to be that everyone who believes Bush served is a dishonest partisan hack.

cbs may be in trouble. but the lack of honesty that plagues this country is more troublesome to me.

This idiotic statement seems to make my case above.

www.andrewsullivan.com

for a right-wing thinker that deviates from talking points.

Are you serious? Right-wing? Andrew Sullivan is a single issue man right now, and that issue is gay marriage. That's his only talking point and it seems to have swayed his other opinions of the President as well. I would hardly call him right wing.

Dinesh,

I see you have the tunnel vision most liberals have about Bush. Remember that this whole National Guard Kerfuffle came out back in 2000, and back then the liberals "proved" that Bush hadn't served based on the hazy memories of the men in the Alabama Guard unit Bush supposedly transfered to. HOWEVER, a recent search of records PROVED that in all 6 of the full or partial years that Bush served he did acquire enough time points to meet or exceed his duty requirements for that year. (This was shown in another blog, but I don't remember the url).

That said, the attacks on Kerry by the SBVT, and the CBS forged papers still shouldn't be compared, because they have different origins and purposes. The Swift Boat Veterans are against Kerry because they truly feel he is "UNFIT FOR COMMAND" and that is what they have tried to say in their ads. They are against Kerry because of his actions both during and after the war. Also several are registered Democrats who have decided that for this one election they will cross the aisle and vote for a Republican.
The CBS forged papers though appeared in the hands of one of the most partisan major media players, and he used it to back up a purely partisan attack in Bush. In that attack nothing substantial about Bush's ability to lead or policies was said, this attack was simply about hurting Bush.

Now, I know you'll say that the SBVT ads have been very negative, and I don't deny that, but they charge Kerry with aiding the enemy in a time of war, and say that this reports to congress in 1970 & 1971 as part of the Vietnam Veterans Against War were a BETRAYAL of the American Military. I don't see the charge that Bush might have managed to avoid his last year of duty in the National Guard as being quite the same level of crime as what Kerry did.

i have tunnel vision? that's hilarious coming from a people who support a party that relies on talking points and avoids discussion of facts.

as for facts, byron york (linked above) does what most partisan commentors (right or left) do when presented with inconvenient facts....just slide right over them. for example, regarding the points earned in 1972-73:

"So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service."

however, u.s. news reports the following:

"A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, shortly after becoming eligible for the draft. In his "statement of understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included attending "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He also acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty if he failed to meet these requirements."

hmmm. who shall we believe? no forged documents, no red herrings, just facts and analysis, and for some reason, i tend to believe that byron york is recycling somebody else's bad research, whereas u.s. news did their own.

it is so sad that we recycle so much bad information that fiction and opinion becomes fact.

it's classic now that folks on the right are dissing andrew sullivan now that he's opposed to bush. dissent and the right will eat you and turn their backs on you. what are you guys, the political 'goodfellas'?

mark:

i think you make a good point regarding the distinction between examination of each candidate's records.

however, like many people, i don't believe that actions (like going to war and becoming a medaled war veteran), or inactions, like failure to report b/c you're the wealthy son of a prominent politician on his way to help a family friend run for senate or go to harvard business school)from 35 years ago are dispositive for today's realities.

while i'm definitely not voting for bush this november, i am less than enthusiastic about kerry for obvious reasons. that said, however, it is apparent that after 3.5 years in power, the republicans cannot be trusted any more than the democrats. republicans have control over both the senate and the house and they have the presidency, and this is what we have:

1) a very large budget deficit, with plenty of entitlement programs (including the bush healthcare boondoggle); i.e. LACK OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY;

2) a misguided war effort that has politicians (and not very good ones at that) instead of generals running the war;

3) a president who is more hated in the muslim world (the world who hearts and minds we are battling for) than osama bin laden;

4) increasing influence of iran, in iraq's affairs and nuclear development efforts;

5) alliance with a military dicatator in pakistan, who contrary to popular american belief and newsmedia soundbites, must pacify a nation with plenty of osama sympathizers;

6) no meaningful plan for the war effort, other than slogans such as "we're not turning back".

7) and abdication of the separation of church and state;

8) and abdication of state's rights (e.g. FMA);

9) fiscal irresponsibility and false promises re tax cuts (the deficit alone is going to force somebody to pay, and many believe that growth will be insufficient to account for this);

10) creating a culture of division in a time of war rather than unity (remember the pledge, "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under god, INDIVISIBLE, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL).

i have great respect for conservative values. i just don't see the republicans upholding them.

Listen mr dinesh,
It wasn't President Bush who called ALL 2.5 million Vietnam vets, war criminals and compared them to Genghis Khan, in a testimony before Congress no less.
It was Mr. Botox aka El Gigolo who also goes by the name of Lurch John Kerry who came before congress and lied and committed perjury against all the 2.5 million men of the American Armed Forces who for the most part served, served very honorably in Vietnam.
Kerry the weasel lied and gave false evidence about things he hadn't actually seen (he was forced to admit that in that debate with John O'Neal on June 30th 1970 on the Dick Cavett http://www2.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryONeill.)
John Kerry basically gave the North Vietnamese fiends even more ammunition to torture US prisoners of war, who kept quoting John Kerry's outrageous and vicious smears and lies even as they tortured American soldiers.
For John Kerry to turn round 30 years later and run his entire campaign on the 4 months that he served in Vietnam, after calling all US soldiers in Vietnam child killers, is the biggest outrage I ever heard!!
This is why the overwhelming majority of veterans are going to cote against the man that smeared them over 30 years ago, and destroyed lots of lives!
This is partly who Bush is clobbering Kerry even as we speak in every poll out there( the other reasons being that Kerry has been in the US Senate for 20 years and hasn't sponsored even a SINGLE bill , amendment, hearings, nothing, but managed to get himself by far the most liberal record in the history of the US Senate!!)
Revenge is a dish best eaten when cold!
Kerry is going to pay for his crimes!
John Kerry is going down big time!

right, well smithy, maybe we should just suspend elections altogether since kerry is such a criminal and given that we are in a war and all....

Lets just take you weasel points one by one and take them apart shall we?
You claim thatPresident Bush has :
"1. a very large budget deficit, with plenty of entitlement programs (including the bush healthcare boondoggle); i.e. LACK OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY"
Nonsense!
If you know anything at all about history, you know that every single country that has been involved in major wars has run budget deficits, from France, England, Russia, Germany, Austria etc etc.
Was it absolutely essential to take out the Taliban and Saddam? OH YES!
If we hadn't we'd be carrying our dead children out of schools here, like they did in Russia just last week.
Is it acceptable to run deficits to take out people who want to destroy this country? Of course!

Plus Bush inherited the Clinton recession. Without the tax cuts we'd still be wallowing in recession by now.
Bush acted brilliantly!

"2)a misguided war effort that has politicians (and not very good ones at that) instead of generals running the war;"

Refer you to above. This is one of the most justifiable wars in the history of mankind!
When we have 3000 innocent Americans slaughtered by a bunch of vicious Islamic psychopaths, we have no alternative but to go to where they come from, and blow their ugly, hate-filled heads off!
And in case you don't know the American constitution, BOTH houses of congress voted overwhelmingly for war with both Afghanistan and Iraq, as laid down by the constitution.
President Bush acted ACCORDING TO LAW AND THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM AS PRESIDENT!
Chew on that will you?

"3) a president who is more hated in the muslim world (the world who hearts and minds we are battling for) than osama bin laden;"
Hated in muslim world?
Are these the same Muslims that just last week slaughtered 350 innocent little children in Russia and shot them in the back like the pathetic cowards that they are?
And are these the same creeps who came here and murdered 3000 Americans on 9/11?
Dude, I couldn't give TWO HOOTS about what these precious muslims of yours think, one way or another.
They can start off by rooting out the vicious terrorists they keep breeding!

"4) increasing influence of iran, in iraq's affairs and nuclear development efforts"
Iran's pals in Iraq are being slaughtered even as we speak. Only today, US war planes have taken out another 30 Iran backed Islamic crazies and sent them to go meet Allah!

"5) alliance with a military dictator in pakistan, who contrary to popular american belief and newsmedia soundbites, must pacify a nation with plenty of osama sympathizers"

Even in world war two, this country formed an alliance with Stalin (one of the biggest mass killers in history) in order to defeat a greater evil, Hitler.
Nothing new in forming alliances with not so great characters to defeat a greater enemy.
Every country has done that at some time in its history.
Just go read some Europeans history will you?

Rest of your "points" are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent. They are not worth wasting my time over.

CBS has done this before... most recently "uncovering" memos that "proved" Bush was warned about 911 in "1998"!!!

When of course Clinton(D) was still looking for targets to bomb to postpone more hearings...

I'd like to see Dan Rather 'get it'...

But my belief in the Easter Bunny is waning...

Dinesh,

I honestly haven't decided who I'll vote for, although I will never again vote for a "liberal" in any election, no matter what party they represent. You did have some good points in your list of reasons to be upset with the Republicans, but some are incomplete.

>>>1) a very large budget deficit, with plenty of entitlement programs (including the bush healthcare boondoggle); i.e. LACK OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY;

Both parties are equally responsible for this. This was predicted by several well educated men back when the US was first founded that once the people learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" they would do so.

>>>2) a misguided war effort that has politicians (and not very good ones at that) instead of generals running the war;

The media has as great an influence on this as anyone. If Bush was to back off and let his generals wage war properly the media would crucify him for the "attrocities" commited. Unfortunately, it has hamstrung the military. (and is a great example of why democracies should never fight unless its for their lives.)

>>>3) a president who is more hated in the muslim world (the world who hearts and minds we are battling for) than osama bin laden;

in the Middle East and Muslim Worlds, all non-muslims are pretty much hated unless they spout the muslim party line. Kerry isn't any more liked, and I wouldn't expect the Imam's to start talking about the US being a wonderful place should he win.

>>>4) increasing influence of iran, in iraq's affairs and nuclear development efforts;

I thought the UN was supposed to stop this.....
But more seriously Iran has a very controlled government which is also rather methodical and willing to take risks to increase its influence. Most of these developments would have happened on any president's watch and can only be stopped through military means. (Realize that most muslim clerics consider lying to "infidels" to be perfectly acceptable to Muslim laws)

>>>5) alliance with a military dicatator in pakistan, who contrary to popular american belief and newsmedia soundbites, must pacify a nation with plenty of osama sympathizers;

That same military dictator is at least trying to fix a country that is little more than a bunch of primitive clans fighting over some of the most desolate lands imaginable. Also, we can't fix every problem at once. Afganistan and Iraq rightly should be receiving most of our efforts for now.

>>>6) no meaningful plan for the war effort, other than slogans such as "we're not turning back".

no plan survives contact with reality. Overall, Bush hasn't made any major blunders here, and we are winning a battle that we could have lost in 6 months without a determined leader. on this I refuse to make a final determination until I see it play out completely.

>>>7) and abdication of the separation of church and state;

There is no seperation except in the minds of liberals and ONE letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend. All the constitution and bill of rights say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of any religion" (emphasis mine). That doesn't say that the church and state must be seperate, only that congress can't require us all to go to church or be of a certain religion, as is done in saudi Arabia.

>>>8) and abdication of state's rights (e.g. FMA);

And the fact that the homosexual lobby has openly stated that once they get one state to honor their right to marry they will use FEDERAL law to force other states to honor gay marriages isn't an attempt to over-ride states rights?

>>>9) fiscal irresponsibility and false promises re tax cuts (the deficit alone is going to force somebody to pay, and many believe that growth will be insufficient to account for this);

fiscal irresponsibility is a bipartisan problem, and while the increased spending probably will cause deficit increases most economists now agree that the Bush Tax Cuts helped growth the US economy and in doing so actually increased tax revenues.

>>>10) creating a culture of division in a time of war rather than unity (remember the pledge, "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation, under god, INDIVISIBLE, with LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL).

Hate to say this, but that culture is incubated in the press which is mostly liberal. Bush simply is a focus for it.

>>>i have great respect for conservative values. i just don't see the republicans upholding them.

the republicans don't uphold them, but they try, I haven't seen any democrat uphold anything other than communism recently. (admittedly I'm from California, where most democratic politicians are openly socialist/communist in their views)

That's not the best rebuttal I could give, but since I have limited time right now to post, its a start.

So, Mikey got a documentary Oscar for Bowling.
Will, CBS get a Comedy/Drama Emmy for 60 Minutes?
How can we recommend that?

mark:

i appreciate your comments--you make many good points. the largest issue for me is iraq. the country is swept by "war fever." i think bush has made significant blunders in iraq, from our basis of entry to the prosecution of the war. in my estimation, it will be a liability for many years to come unfortunately. so, leaving all of the bravado and bluster of bush's 'war president' rhetoric aside, he should be held accountable for this disastorous foreign policy debacle. its funny that republicans used to talk of accountability (both on a personal level, think 'war on drugs' and a higher level, think 'clinton's impeachment), but nobody has really had to pay for the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 or subsequent developments. i feel that should change.

see www.juancole.com for a daily dose of what is happening there. we (the interim iraqi govt and the coalition forces) are really in jeopardy of losing control over iraq. its mind boggling that more americans aren't alarmed by it.

further, with republican control over the house and senate, i believe that kerry as president would force negotiations between the 2 parties, and perhaps result in gridlock. i am a firm believer in the separation of powers, and a kerry president would restore this balance so desperately needed.

smithy:

here's one fact for you...

15 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia. we invaded iraq. get a map and figure out the difference.

Smithy:
Let me point out, that there is not a single respected economist that would agree that cutting taxes help in a recession. (that famous “income form the tax-cut” is a just myth). Cutting taxes without reducing expending is delaying taxes for the future. (I believe Milton Friedman himself said that).
What have helped to get out of a recession in the past was to increase expending. A war is a good tool for that. Well, Bush got a war of choice and nothing happens….. There is nothing brilliant on Bush economics policies.
Ps) When I said “war of choice”, I am not saying that it was a bad choice, it is just a comment about the timing of it)

The people on "60 minutes" are supposed to be investigative reporters. So, after concerns about the authenticity of the documents were raised, why didn't they *investigate*? They could have presented document experts from both sides, mentioned the views of the family of the purported author, etc. But instead, their entire positioning of themseles has been as a player in the dispute, rather than as a neutral and objectie referee.

Sono : "Let me point out, that there is not a single respected economist that would agree that cutting taxes help in a recession"
Yeah?
Respected economist? What do you call Milton Friedman, the biggest tax cuts proponent of all, and one of the economics giants of our era, having won the Nobel Prize in economics and practically every economics prize there is?
I'd say he was a darn site more respected that you are wouldn't you?

Read these quotes from Friedman in the Wall Street Journal:
" I have long said, "I never met a tax cut I didn't like"

AND

"Tax cuts that increase incentives to produce and that eliminate distortions in the price system -- supply-side tax cuts -- give a double whammy. They restrain government spending and increase future income and current wealth. Permanent tax cuts are much to be preferred to temporary cuts. "

http://www.postpolitics.com/blogs/archives/000412.html

"Not a single respected economist" eh? LOL!

Not as a solution for recession(That is what I said), and not with increase expending. Don't take Friedman out of context.

Dinesh " "15 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi arabia. we invaded iraq. get a map and figure out the difference"

Hokay!
Now pray, sire, where did the bombers in the US Embassies in Africa come from? And the bombers of the USS Cole?
The guys who bombed the WTC way back in 1993 under Jefferson Clinton?
And the guys who bombed the Australian embassy in Bali and in Jakarta just last week?
Bottom line: Islamic terrorsist come in all shapes , sizes and nationalities, all united by a common desire to hate, kill, destroy and maime!
We hav no alternative but to hunt these evil men down and kill 'em whever we find them at, beafore they come here agin to kill us, as the Russians are finding out to their great pain and cost.

sorry I meant spending, not expending

smithy:

the answer to your question: not iraq.

uhhh back to the subject of shark's post.....

anybody have any issue with the u.s. news and world report article?

so, if rather's goose is cooked, how long before other big media outlets, INCLUDING FOX AND CNN, get skewered? don't they commit, on a daily basis, the same sort of outcome determinative type of reporting?

dinesh : "the answer to your question: not iraq"
The answer to my question, is every single Arab country has contributed "members" to the terrorist organisatins that have carried out terrorist acts throughout the world, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Iraqis even Kuwaitis have been caught with terrorist groups.
And just in case you forgot, Iraq attacked the USS Stark way back in March 1997, killing 37 American sailors, long before America even dreamt of taking out Saddam!

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

Sono :"Not as a solution for recession(That is what I said), and not with increase expending. Don't take Friedman out of context"

I think it is you that is denying reality.
I am taking Milton Friedman exactly IN context.
In addition to my first quote where Friedman says "I never met a tax cut I didn't like"
Note, he didn't make any exceptions for reccessions.
there is yet another quote from the same Wall Street Journal Article in which Friedman SPECIFICALLY PRAISES President George Bush's tax cuts as in :
"Of course, some tax cuts are better than others. Tax cuts that increase incentives to produce and that eliminate distortions in the price system--supply-side tax cuts--give a double whammy. They restrain government spending and increase future income and current wealth. Permanent tax cuts are much to be preferred to temporary cuts. They are a stronger restraint on spending and do not need to be repeated.
From this point of view, President Bush's tax proposals rank very high"

This was President Bush's tax cuts to REVERSE the Clinton recession, mind you. And he was very successful at doing it too, giving us(from negative growth) the fastest growth rate in 20 years, the highest productivity growth rates, the biggest exports growth rates in 20 years, rapidly expanding industrial output etc etc.
And the greatest economist of our times was full of admiration for President Bush's astute economic moves!!

COrrection.
"Iraq attacked the USS Stark way back in March 1997,"
should read :
"Iraq attacked the USS Stark way back in March 1987,"

Smithy:
Even Milton Friedman is against cutting taxes without cutting spending. Tell me the date of that articule. It probably was 2001.

Also saying that this is the fastest growing economy is misleading. (an increase from 1 to 2 is 100% increase, while an increase from 3 to 5 is only 66 % increase, but the real increase is actually double in the last example)

And the recession did not start with Clinton. See what Greenspan was saying about it in 2001.

Dinesh:

Please see:

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/09/some-grade-school-arithmetic-for-us.html

Next.

Interesting that Sharky makes the connection between Michael Moore and Dan Rather, which was something that occurred to me as soon as I became convinced the docs were forged.

See, the rationalization of the left vis-a-vis F911 was that even thought the film was nothing but a pack of lies, they were lies that added up to what the left called "essential truths." I believe the definition of "essential truth" is "something the left really wants to believe is true in the absence of any supporting facts or logic."

Fast forward to Dan Rather/CBS News. Phony documents are lies, but they support "an essential truth" as defined above. Since Moore got away with it, CBS figured they could, too.

Cary, like Dinesh is going to believe that post, come on. It is obviously written by a partisan Bush operative who selectively sees facts in Bush's favor.

The only things Dinesh believes are those that happen to be critical of Bush and/or his policies. Those sources are unbiased and fair, at least in Dinesh's world.

my world? you've got to be kidding me....read the stuff that smithy froths at the mouth about and tell me my world view is skewed?

let's invade all arab countries! charge!

i sorta hope bush wins, then you'll have to dig even deeper to blame clinton for everything. it'll be another republican controlled govt for 4 more years and all of this rot will blosom and you guys will still blame clinton for everything. classic. there's a reason to vote for bush right there.

and, don't forget to read the turncoat andrew sullivan today.

3 TRILLION DOLLARS IS THE COST OF BUSH'S PLAN AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE WAR.

Any comments about Bush's world view, or do you guys prefer going after me, clinton and kerry?

Richard Perle, just about a year ago:

"A year from now I'd be surprised if there's not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush."

"3 TRILLION DOLLARS IS THE COST OF BUSH'S PLAN AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE WAR."

Apparently, >$2Trillion of that figure is the "cost" of creating an option for private accounts in social security. An upfront investment that lowers social security costs in the long run, provides capital for economic growth, and is a policy I favor.

The other increases should be vigorously opposed and pressure ought to be brought on the few conservatives left in Washington to resist new spending proposals in Bush's second term.

I can't believe this...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
News Release:
For Immediate Release: Contact: Dave Dahl Campaign
731-287-8166
October 11, 2004 www.VoteDahl.com
Dave Dahl denounces
Fitzhugh's attack of Republican voters

Dyersburg, TN- Today, Republican nominee for State House District 82, Dave Dahl, denounced a flyer distributed by Democrat State Representative Craig Fitzhugh that attacks Bush voters and mocks those who are mentally challenged (flyer included). "Hard-ball politics is one thing and everyone expects tough battles, but using those who are born with mental disabilities for political fodder is disgusting," said Dave Dahl on Monday from his campaign office in Dyersburg.

The flyers have been distributed for at least 2 weeks from State Representative Craig Fitzhugh's campaign office on the town square in downtown Ripley, which also serves as the Kerry-Edwards campaign headquarters. Dahl said, "At first I really did not believe that Fitzhugh and the Democrats would stoop to such gutter politics, but then people started bringing the flyer to me at the end of last week. I was shocked and disgusted."

Dahl said, "In my first campaign against Mr. Fitzhugh two years ago, the Democrats conducted a negative telephone poll on my then five year old adopted daughter because she was born in Texas and not in Tennessee. I guess I should not be surprised that Mr. Fitzhugh and his crowd would attack Bush voters and call them 'retarded.' This is how the Democrats do business." Dave Dahl continued, "The single minded plan for Mr. Fitzhugh and the Democrats in Tennessee is to attack Republican voters, attack those supporting Republican candidates and to ignore the real issues of the day: jobs, prescriptions drugs costs, education, security at home and taxes."

"This kind of reckless disregard for those who suffer from mental disabilities is much larger than any state representative race. This act is so atrocious and indecent that my campaign will be sending a copy of the Fitzhugh flyer to the United States Special Olympics Committee, the Special Olympics International Group and state and national advocacy groups who work with and support special needs children and adults," said Dahl.

Dahl concluded, "My heart goes out to the millions of families who have children and loved ones with special needs. To have their family members mocked in this manner is inexcusable and wrong from any perspective. These kinds of issues cross all political and social boundaries. I call on Mr. Fitzhugh to issue a public apology."
###