Ou of intrest have the CBS memeos proven to be false? I thought that there was some serious doubt about the claims that they were forged, especially after the so-called expert turned out to be a Rebulican lawyer who has in the past hit the headlines for his anti-Clinton escapdes.
I think that’s a pretty blatant misrepresentation of what people were saying. The $4,000 figure is for a Selectric Composer which of course was unlikely. Proportional spacing was also available on the Executive. No one was claiming prescience, but rather that the similarities occurred because both IBM and Microsoft adhered to the font definition and that Word defaults for things like margins, etc. may have been based on standard typewriting practice. None of this is to say that they were right - Killian’s secretary has stated that they aren’t originals - but I don’t recall anyone here insisting on what you’re saying.
Minty Green Xenophon:
Tossing out ad hominem arguments to see how far you can push the rules of GD without getting a warning is a poor substitute for a rebuttal.
I cosider the insults in combination with your failure to even attempt a substantive rebuttal a concession of the validity of my points. I’ll notify the moderators of your choice as well.
Thanks. Perhaps Cheney, who is arguably no longer a public figure, could press for some damages agains the Democracts then. 
So far as I know, there is no “undisclosed location” exception to public figure doctrine. 
If you can convince a moderator you’ve been insulted, be my guest. As far as rebuttals go, when and if I attempt to rebut a point you think you’ve made, I’ll let you know.
For the moment, my point to minty green stands: you will most likely find further debunking of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush unpersuasive, and so I consider that a potentially fruitless dialogue for minty to pursue with you.
Sorry to have contributed to a small hijack of your interesting thread, Bricker. For what it’s worth, I agree with the OP to the extent that the loser of this election should bring suit against the attacks you’ve cited. So I’d be delighted to see Mr. Bush sue CBS in January '05.
Thanks, but I think the 22 pages previously mentioned pretty much covered it.
If you weren’t rebutting a point, what was it you were doing?
I haven’t seen much, besides the assertion that they’ve been debunked. Which is kind of odd since the people most stridently making the claim seem unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Minty Green:
I think those 22 pages showed how much abuse Sam was willing to take, and for that, I agree with you, it was enough.
However, if you’re unwilling to debate the material that supports your stance then there’s no point in your making it, is there?
Scylla, it’s great to see you again! Your absence was noted by many.
It really is asking a little much to expect us to redebate a subject which we truly exhausted previously. If there was some portion of that debate that we left unaddressed, I don’t know what it would be. Our eyes were little x’s by the time we finished.
I don’t think that Kerry could sue the SBVFT based on their recollections. It is well known that eye witnesses can differ significantly in what they remember and still believe they are being truthful. Studies also have shown that individual recollections also change over a period of time. The only ones that I fault were anyone who failed to apologize after realizing he had contradicted himself from earlier reports and anyone who talked about what Kerry did and didn’t do based upon what other SBVFT had told him. Also, if someone wanted his name withdrawn from the ad, he should have been allowed to do so.
I don’t think that Bush would have grounds to sue CBS even if the documents are eventually proven false. Apparently CBS did believe that they were legitimate. And there is evidence that the contents were accurate – although I certainly won’t claim that they have been proven accurate.
Most men of good will, upon observing a remark directed to someone else, and then having had the remark further explicated and defined for their benefit as having been a point made to someone else, might come away with the impression that said remark was not, in fact, intended as a rebuttal. I would explain that process of communication further, but I frankly don’t see the point. I suspect my explanation is not actually necessary, and I will not lend false importance to either the swifties’ lies or to your portrayal of my exchange with minty by engaging in superfluous additions.
You were criticizing my argument. Men of good will direct their criticisms at the party they are criticizing. They don’t make their criticisms as snide asides to third parties as you did to Minty Green. So do don’t presume to lecture me on what men of good will do and don’t do when you’re behavior is inadequate to the standard.
I chose to overlook this rudeness and respond directly to you.
Enough games. Debate the debate with me, or leave me the fuck alone. Don’t expect me to ignore your snide asides whether or not they are to third parties and don’t lecture me about goodwill until you demonstrate some.
I beleive you made a promise to that effect. The first few times you broke it you claimed it applied only to Great Debates. We are now in Great Debates. If you would like to discuss the subject matter with me civilly, do so, otherwise don’t waste my time.
Every single time you pull this shit I am going to call you on it. Won’t that be fun?
Thank you.
It depends. IIRC, from that thread, Sam was the only one who read the book, and it was quite a pile on against him. I don’t insist anybody debate the debate with me, but if one wishes to state that the SBVT are debunked and are all liars, than one will need to do more than link to that thread to support the claim. The thread does not support the claim.
I agree.
I agree that indicting someone on hearsay is questionable, you’d have to show me an example where that happened, and I’d join you in in your beleif.
They are. They were. There was a response to that article. I linked to it an earlier thread. THe gist was that you had to opt in to be a part of the ad which required an email from that person’s computer which the Swiftvets claimed to have. Anybody could simply change their mind by emailing them back again, and their address is prominently displayed on the website and all communicatons. The Swiftvets claim to have never been contacted by anybody wishing to withdraw prior to that article.
Why don’t you go start your own SBVFTT thread instead of continuing to hijack this one?
That’s untrue. I was criticizing mg’s approach toward this debate. I was warning him against a losing proposition, specifically against reopening a discussion regarding thoroughly discredited smears. I gave this warning based on my belief that such a discussion would only serve to falsely portray those smears as still arguable in some way not yet addressed. You know this because I told you specifically.
I do not accept you as an authority on that standard, although I do recognize that you understand the standard. That’s why I mentioned “good will” in my response. However, that was not a lecture. I give lectures every now and then at a professional level, and I have a method. When and if I ever lecture you, I’ll tell you beforehand that I’m lecturing. I’ll tell you what I’m going to say, I’ll say it in several different ways, and then I’ll review what I’ve said. You and all onlookers will recognize my remarks as a lecture.
Another false statement; actually one untruth and one false implication. What I promised was to respond to your *arguments * in Great Debates, and not impugn your motives. When I answered your insults in the Pit with my own, I was not breaking that promise. When I advised minty (who I see once again doesn’t need my counsel), I was not breaking that promise. In each of my responses to you in this thread, I have kept that promise.
I will respond to every inaccurate portrayal of my posts with a reminder of the truth. Won’t that be fun?
Why don’t I? Because it belongs here. This is a thread about whether Kerry should sue the SBVT for libel and/or slander. Naturally, the first question to be answered would be what are the grounds? Where is the lie, the untruth?
I think it’s a natural evolution and a legitimate question.
Now, since you were so kind as to offer me a suggestion, let me do the same: Why don’t you debate? What you think of me or my arguments, or where you think they belong is moot.
Since you continue to ignore the actual substance of the debate and take issue with me, or the way I phrase things, I continue to assume it’s because you have nothing, nada, zip.
I have no intention of flogging this particular dead horse with you. That is why I referred you to the exhaustive and exhausting thread linked above, in which pretty much everything that it is possible to say about your dead horse has been said. Repeatedly. For 22 pages. We’re all sick of it, except for you, whose determination to wallow in the political filth is apparently as strong as ever.
As for this thread, the issue raised by the OP was whether candidates who have been defamed during their runs for political office should sue for defamation. Despite the use of Kerry and Bush as examplars, you will note that the OP did not ask anything at all about what happened in the 1967-1973 time period. There have been multiple threads on the questions of Kerry’s and Bush’s respective military service. This is not another such thread, and your attempt to turn what looked like an interesting discussion into yet another he-said she-said about their service is not particularly welcome, at least for my part.
Your repeating the lie doesn’t make it any less of a lie. What you said was:
“Been there, done that, mg.”
Had you stopped there what you said above would be true. But you go on…
"Our friend’s analysis of that thread precedes his questions “Where are they lying? What did they falsify?”
Clearly you are criticizing my post, since you quote it… Therefore, you are lying when you say you did not.
and then…
“It’s good to know there are constants in this world.”
To which MG gets to make his little quip about being out of reach or out of touch.
Another lecture. This one on lectures :rolleyes:
When you say “It’s good to know there are constants in the world,” that is an insulting jibe, not a response to the substance of any argument that I made. You are Xeno The Forsworn by your own definitions.
Yes, so I note. You conveniently redefined your promise after the fact to justify what you said, just as you are trying to redefine what you said here. In both cases the record of your own words betrays you. There’s really not much to you here but word games.
Hijack over. You and MG can have the last words on the subject if you wish.
If you wish to debate me at this time or any other with courtesy and good will, you will get the same in return.
-Word up
I doubt it. I don’t think anybody there with the possible exception of Sam read the book, and my review of the thread suggested inadequate familiarity with the subject matter to approach anything like “thorough.” For example, proof was offered that one of the main witnesses for SBVT Gardner was clearly a liar, since he says “The boat never left the dock without me on it,” and “I wasn’t on the boat to witness that (the Rasmussen) event.”
Nobody investigated enough to know that Kerry served on two boats. The first was with Gardner on the boat that he, Gardner never let leave dock without him, and the second was the boat Kerry served on during the Rasmussen incident. Therefore there is no inconsistency or lie.
I’ve also noticed that the shrill cry of “debunked” or “proven false” started on or about page 2, which was interesting since the book hadn’t come out at that point.
More ad hominem’s. You know Minty, Ad Hominem arguments are the last resort of a weak debator, but the mainstay of a bankrupt viewpoint. If that’s all you have to offer, than I guess it’s all you got.
Excellent. But in order to be defamed, doesn’t something said or written have to be untrue. If I lie and say “Fred has sex with chickens” that would be defamatory. If Fred does commit unnatural acts with poultry than it’s simply a fact.
Is this not the correct from a legal standpoint?
So again, the question is how was Kerry defamed?
The SBVT have a an ad with a film of the medal throwing incident. Are they defaming Kerry to say he threw those medals?
The day you are concerned about my feelings will be the day I worry about yours. Until then, it’s a free message board… or uh, it used to be. But, I couldn’t care less about how you feel about my arguments.
“May have been based on”?
Uh huh.
Well, lest the point get drowned by the examples, let me just point out:
Here’s a poster who STILL believes the forgery story is false, and apparently believes there was only one expert who was calling them fakes.
But I certainly acknowledge that the forgery was not as obvious on day one as it is now, and to the extent that I mischarcterized defenders’ early rationales, I withdraw it. Some people may have defended the authenticity of the memos at the early stages based on what you said above.
However, having spent time at the Pentagon, time with the Army National Guard as a civilian contractor, and being older than 40, I have to say that the similarity of the CBS documents to modern-day MS Word and the DISsimilarity to typewritten documents of the 1970s was immediately apparent to me. I would have been able to, off the top of my head, post “highly technical” comments about fonts and proportional spacing myself. As we now know, those are merely highly suggestive, but not definitive, indications of the documents’ falsity.
- Rick
Good to hear it. But I’ll have the OP’s debate, please, not that substitute you’ve proposed. GDers have been there, as I say; done that.
The OP’s debate: “I contend that [Bush and Kerry] have been damaged by knowing lies, and both should sue. And win.”
Despite my earlier statement that I’d “love to see” Mr. Bush bring such suit in January '05, and despite agreeing that both men have arguable cases, I would have to recommend, were I an adviser to these gentlemen, against such legal action on the part of Mr. Kerry should he win in November, and on the part of Mr. Bush in either scenario.
Here’s my reasons:
Bush victorious in Nov '04: Political strategy here needs to be to set the conditions for continued Republican occupancy of the White House beyond 2008. If Mr. Bush is reelected, it will be due to the successful portrayal of the President as a courageous and decisive leader in the fight against world terrorism. It will have been because enough Americans have a faith in Bush himself to be effective against terrorism. Bush and his party need to ensure that faith is placed in his possible Republican successors, and that “strong, courageous, decisive leadership” is considered a uniquely Republican feature. While a lawsuit against alleged defamers may be spun as a fight against a form of terror, or even against unpatriotic behavior (criticizing the CoC, y’know), the details of Mr. Bush’s ANG service which would come out in such a trial would not by any conceivable measure support the portrayal of Mr. Bush as strong, courageous, decisive etc. The details would instead tend to undercut that image and erode support for the President during the critical period of time when he should be setting up a Republican dynasty.
Bush defeated in Nov '04: This defeat would make Mr. Bush eligible to run again in '08 against an incumbent who will have inherited several situations which require brilliance, not just competence, to bring about solutions which are not largely unpalatable to most Americans. Bush should hope, in this scenario, to say in ‘08 "If you’d just kept our team in place, we coulda stayed the course and you wouldn’t have all these libruhl screwups happenin’…" If he’s been undercut by a losing lawsuit, this will hurt him. Even if he wins the suit against CBS, his prospects in '08 wouldn’t be improved, as, again, more of his ANG story will have come out, and the details don’t help him.
Kerry victorious in '04: He’ll need to follow at least one of his predecessor’s promises in order to lead this country effectively. He’ll need to be a “uniter not a divider”, or he’s screwed in his dealings with Congress. Bitter, partisan battles need to be either avoided by a President Kerry or pursued in a scorched earth manner, with prosecutions of Bush administration officials up to the very top. In either case, a President Kerry would either be too busy with legal matters of higher consequence, or with running a united government to suffer the distraction of a personal defamation suit.
Kerry defeated in '04: Here’s where a lawsuit might serve a political function. Any details about Kerry which would come out during an examination of SBVT charges would reveal, at the very worst, that by the government’s own records, Kerry served not just honorably in Vietnam, but with distinction. Any examination of Kerry’s testimony before Congress subsequent to his distinctive service in Vietnam would reveal, at the very worst, that his accusations of atrocities, of the uselessness of the war and the dishonorable nature of the war’s prosecution have been confirmed and documented rather than discredited by history. A win in this lawsuit would be a clear winner for Kerry, and a loss wouldn’t hurt him. Were I advising a non-President Kerry in Jan '05, I’d say “bring it on”.
Now, to some quick personal business.
You’re seriously insulted by the thought that I find your approach to debate consistent? How’s that thin skin working out for you?
Great! 'Cause I have to respond to one more thing you said. (I promised to respond every time you did this.)
Stop it. I will respond to each inaccurate representation of my posts with a reminder of the truth. Won’t that be fun?
There are two untruths in that sentence.
-
My promise was first made to Gaudere, in GD and about my behavior in GD, and I subsequently repeated it to you and have kept to it.
-
I defined my exchange with mg in this thread for your benefit; minty didn’t need that definition because he understood my point the first time. You, however seem determined to take it as an insult. I’ll certainly admit that your recalcitrance in defending the swifties’ perfidy does not reflect well on you, but I clearly stayed away from that characterization in my exchange w/mg. My characterization of such stubborn rejection of opposing arguments on your part in this foum was that it seems to me to be a “constant”. SDMB history does nothing to cast doubt on that opinion.