[Snagglepuss]
Axe, even.
[/Snagglepuss]
Oh, come on – we all know slimy underhanded behavior is perfectly acceptable when conservatives do 'em. It’s one of those “moral values” or something…
You wouldn’t equate running off to Europe to get stoned with running off to Texas to get drunk? No, they’re not equatable - there’s no basis for believing Clinton got stoned at all, much less habitually. There’s much more factual basis for believing Bush did cocaine as well. But I’m grinding an axe, huh?
To CBS, but again, none of them were running for President. How does this retroactively absolve Bush of his irresponsibility thirty years ago?
What evidence are you relying on to form those conclusions?
I have already agreed, elsewhere, that the Armstrong NCLB fiasco was a serious breach of ethics. Apart from that - what are these documents that show Fox journalists are instructed to spin the news to Bush’s advantage? And what smear campaign did SInclair mount against Kerry, precisely?
What irresponsibility is that, precisely? Cocaine use? I deny it. Desertion? I deny it.
Relying on family connections to get into the Texas ANG instead of being sent to Vietnam? Likely true. I don’t agree it’s irresponsible, although unquestionably Kerry’s service is much more consistent with a heroic man than Bush’s was. But lack of heroism does not equal irresponsibility.
Because his answer “I didn’t inhale” was so convincing, right? Now where was it that I saw people arguing that someone had to be guilty of something because his answers to questions on the topic (Bush’s cocaine use, in this case)were less than straightforward…
Oh, that’s right, it was right here where a poster called “ElvisL1ves” states that
:dubious: :dubious: :dubious:
Because his answer “I didn’t inhale” was so convincing, right? Now where was it that I saw people arguing that someone had to be guilty of something because his answers to questions on the topic (Bush’s cocaine use, in this case)were less than straightforward…
Oh, that’s right, it was right here where a poster called “ElvisL1ves” states that
:dubious: :dubious: :dubious:
Actually, I don’t see on what basis “I didn’t inhale” is immediately seized upon as a blatant lie. While Mr. Clinton did show a willingness to lie under oath about another matter, I don’t agree that we may extrapolate that any statement he makes was a lie. There’s nothing inherently incredible about someone trying pot but not inhaling. What about this statement is so blatantly false? Educate me, because I think Mr. Clinton got a bum rap on this point.
ElvisL1ves wrote
So, as long as you’re not running for President, it’s ok to lie and slander?
So, I’m curious. In your obviously esteemed opinion, what other ethical breaches are reasonable and appropriate for someone not running for President?
You may want to review Dio’s post as he says the documents did exist and that Rove stole them, substituting fake ones in there place.
You also might want to link us to that interview. My recollection is that the secretary said the Docs did not exist, although she said the fake ones were consistent with what her boss as thinking.
No, she said the docs they showed her had the same content as the ones that she typed but that they weren’t the exact pages.
The Rove think is just my own well-founded paranoia.
about having the word “penetrated” mentioned in the same sentence with Karl Rove? :eek:
But she only said that, she told the panel, because CBS assured her the content was accurate.
Two words too many in that sentence.
The innocent explanation for Bush refusing to take his physical would be…???
We all knew about Kitty Kelley’s book. Since truth is a defense against libel, don’t look for her to get sued.
Why didn’t Bush say he nerver did coke? And there are signs that his body is paying the price for his indiscretions.
I did a little digging, and the news stories at the time reportd that Knox claims there were memos ordering Bush to report for his physical, but I can’t find where she says real memos supported the other significant claim of the “fake docs”-- that her boss was getting pressure from above to give Bush preferential treatment. I’ll have to read the latest report to see how Bricker’s quote fits in context.
You’re not getting it, are you? This came up during, and because of, a presidential campaign in which the youthful histories of the candidates was quite central. The news story allowed the Bush partisans to deflect attention from a person who has, and has used, the authority to send people to die. Some, like you of course, were happy to be relieved of the responsibility of considering that uncomfortable subject so you could engage in some good old liberalmedia bashing. Do you see that now?
Weirddave, another who can’t make himself face it, has spouted this:
When did Clinton ever get asked a follow-up question about his marijuana use? What did he answer? As a devoted dittohead, surely you must know. :wally
Note in passing that he did give an answer to the drug question. You naturally assume that it’s a lie, but riddle us this: Wouldn’t a better lie have been No? I’ll help you out: No, because there were other people who could come forward to say differently. Now change the names and see where you get. :wally
If you *like * looking gullible, that’s your privilege. If you don’t want me helping you avoid that, I won’t. :wally
ElvisL1ves wrote
No, I don’t think you’re getting it. The only attempted deflection going on here is your own.
Members of CBS News – an organization of some size and stature, who’s only job depends on and requires trust and honesty – lied, cheated and slandered with the express purpose of influencing a Presidential election. And you’re trying to change the subject to talk about one of the candidates in that race.
What you’re doing is on par with saying “Who cares about Watergate? You’re just trying to change the subject from how rotten this McGovern character is.”
So your 2 cites are to Kitty Kelley, and an anonymous reader contribution on Buzz Flash that theorizes that Bush avoided having a physical exam because his body is falling apart from rampant drug use?
[snicker, snicker]
You might be interested to know that Kitty Kelley’s source for the allegations that Bush used illegal drugs at Camp David has denied that she made any such allegations:
And there’s the small matter that Bush took a physical exam on Dec. 11, 2004, and he was declared “fit for duty.”
Please, please don’t stake your reputation on such silly allegations.
The White House thugs got to Sharon Bush. I’m sure her original conversation with Kitty is on tape or she took scrupulous notes. She may recant now, but why should we believe her?
Bush “fit for duty?” Ha! The dude wears a heart device (the bulge in the debate) and is a dry drunk. They obviously made a major adjustment in his meds between debates.
Wait, I’m a dittohead? Shouldn’t I listen to Rush then (I can’t stand the man) or at least vote Republican?(I haven’t done that either, at least not on anything other than the local level.) You keep pulling shit out of your ass about me to avoid the clear evidence that I’ve presented that you continually apply different standards to politicians depending on weather you like them or not. To reiterate: When Clinton predicates and uses technical lawyer speak to avoid a question about his possible youthful drug use, you dismiss it as inconsequential, apparently reasoning that if he wanted to lie he would have just said “no”, but when Bush predicates and uses technical lawyer speak to avoid a question about his possible youthful drug use, you scream “He didn’t deny it! That’s proof he’s a coke head!” Through it all you absolutely refuse to recognize the clear contradictions in your stance, and somehow think that the Wally smilie is some kind of coherent argument. You’re an idiot, and a dishonest one at that. The sad thing is that you’re probably lying to yourself about this as well.