"How low can ya go..."
 

this article makes me wonder just how far the GOP will go to keep the White House:mad: this scare tactic is appalling...:mad::mad::mad:

Cheney ties election result to chance of terror attack

USA Today

Jill Lawrence and Richard Benedetto

USATODAY
The presidential campaign spiked to a new level of rhetorical heat Tuesday

when Vice President Cheney warned that a vote for Democrat John Kerry could

bring terrorist attacks on the USA.

Speaking to supporters in Des Moines, Cheney called it “absolutely

essential” that on Election Day voters “make the right choice. Because if we make the

wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in

a way that will be devastating.”

Cheney's remarks overshadowed accusatory exchanges by Kerry and President

Bush over Iraq and drew a response from North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry's

running mate.

“Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today,” he said. Protecting

America from “vicious terrorists” is not a partisan issue, and Cheney and Bush

ought to know that, Edwards said.

Cheney said the nation under a Kerry presidency could “fall back into a

pre-9/11 mind-set,” which he described as viewing terrorist attacks as “just

criminal acts” and the nation as “not really at war.”

Kerry, a fourth-term Massachusetts senator, Vietnam combat veteran and former

prosecutor, often says America is at war and maintains he could fight a more

effective war on terrorism than Bush. Today he planned to spotlight what he

calls Bush's wrong decisions on Iraq with a speech at the Cincinnati Museum

Center at Union Terminal, the same place Bush made the case for war in October

2002.

At the time, Bush argued that Saddam Hussein had to be ousted because he was

“harboring terrorists” and had weapons of mass destruction. Stockpiles of such

weapons have not been found. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission found no

cooperative relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

“The truth is, there are terrorists there that were not there before we went

in” to Iraq, Kerry said Tuesday at a town meeting in Greensboro, N.C. But

Bush, campaigning in Lee's Summit, Mo., said that “we were right to make America

safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

Even as Bush and Kerry visit battleground states and express concern about

voters without jobs or health care, the Iraq war remains at the forefront.

Voters ask about it, and the candidates use it against each other: Bush to cast

doubt on Kerry's consistency, Kerry to cast doubt on Bush's judgment.

In Lee's Summit, the president drew chuckles from a crowd of 5,000 when he

said that Kerry “woke up yesterday morning with yet another new position, and

this one is not even his own. It is that of his onetime rival Howard Dean.”

The president said Kerry “even used the same words Howard Dean used back when

he supposedly disagreed with him.” Bush said invading Iraq was the right

thing to do “no matter how many times Sen. Kerry flip-flops.”

Kerry said this week that Iraq is “the wrong war in the wrong place at the

wrong time.” Dean made a similar remark in February 2003, a month before the

invasion.

In May 2003, Kerry was asked whether it was the right move at the right time.

“I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but

I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein,” he said,

reflecting the belief at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Kerry voted to authorize the war in 2002 but urged Bush to proceed slowly and

give diplomacy a chance to work. On Tuesday he claimed that Bush's wrong

decisions at every step have cost American lives and, so far, $200 billion. “He

chose the date of the start of this war,” Kerry told several hundred fans at the

Greensboro town meeting. “And he chose for America to go it alone. And today

all of America is paying this price.”

If anybody saw Farenheit, they know that we were warned that this would be the next step. When I heard this Trash this morning it made me wonder if Bush and Cheney had actually seen the movie and are playing into it hoping that the rest of us are JUST THAT STUPID. My question is in another 4 years if this fool is re-elected, are we going to be at risk of an attak or is that just now?

If this fool is re-elected...I will seriously consider moving to Canada for a few years. The only thing George "Dubya" is good at is being the DUMBEST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD...EVER.

There...I said it.

USA Today in today's issue has an article on Bush and his non-service. i do hope folks will heed all the new info out on him. this isn't that Swift Boat stuff, this is real...

Guard commander's memos criticize Bush
By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — President Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard concluded that Bush was failing to meet standards for fighter pilots, but the commander felt pressure from superiors to "sugar coat" his judgments, according to newly disclosed documents.George W. Bush in the cockpit of an F-102 during his service in the Texas Air National Guard.
Austin-American Statesman
The memos, obtained by USA TODAY and also reported Wednesday on the CBS program 60 Minutes, reveal that Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, was critical of Bush's performance as a pilot in the latter years of his Vietnam-era Guard career. Killian cited Bush for "failure to perform" to Air Force and Air National Guard standards and called for him to be replaced "with a more seasoned pilot."
The conclusions by Killian, who died in 1984, show Bush's performance declining between his 1971 pilot evaluation, which was glowing, and the time in 1972 when records show he began failing to show up for duty and failed to take a medical exam that was required for him to keep flying.

click on link or cut and paste to read more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...rd-memos_x.htm

pretty much!

You should. It's wonderful here. I'm trying to get more of "us" to move to Vancouver - we need to make it to 1% of the population one of these days! :D

For those looking for facts and not just something to boost their own viewpoint:

Bush Piloted Guard Trainers Before He Quit

Friday, September 10, 2004



WASHINGTON — George W. Bush (search) began flying a two-seat training jet more frequently and twice required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter in the weeks just before he quit flying for the Texas Air National Guard (search) in 1972, his pilot logs show.

The logs show Bush flew nine times in T-33 trainers in February and March 1972, including eight times in one week and four of those only as a co-pilot. Bush, then a first lieutenant, flew in T-33s only twice in the previous six months and three times in the year ending July 31, 1971.

The records also show Bush required two passes to land an F-102A fighter on March 12 and April 10, 1972. His last flight as an Air National Guard pilot was on April 16.

Meanwhile, questions were raised Thursday about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos purporting to have been written by one of Bush's commanders in 1972 and 1973. The memos, which were publicized by CBS News on its "60 Minutes" program, say Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer and lost his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.

The network defended the memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian (search).

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

The Defense Department released Bush's pilot logs this week under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press. The logs do not explain why Bush was flying T-33s or why he twice needed multiple approaches to make landings.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Thursday said he had no information on the reasons behind the multiple-approach landings or the surge in training-jet flights.

"He did his training and was honorably discharged," Duffy said.

Read rest here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131961,00.html

Am I to understand that this article does not boost your viewpoint? :rolleyes:

The article is full of OPINIONS on whether or not the memos are authentic. Or are there some facts to prove that he did not ignore a direct order from a superior officer and lose his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam? Because I think I missed the facts in this one. Words like 'doubt' and phrases like 'virtually certain' do not constitute fact, or do they? :confused:

No, what you are to understand is that its not only about looking at 1 side of an issue which is what many people do. Its not my viewpoint I didnt serve in the National Guard or Vietnam...but the point is there are always 2 sides to an issue..and its ignorant to only seek out things that line up with what you believe in. I'm not singling you out..just speaking generally...

If you read the article you'd see that its likely that the documents written in 1972 were written using Microsoft programs..because typewriters back then could not type in superscript. Its likely a forgery.

I read the article already. But I've not seen the memo. Ramsey Lines could say whatever she wants, it doesn't prove anything as fact. How do I know that there is a superscript in the memo? The fact is we don't know what's true and what's not based on what we're fed by the media. We don't know that the 60 Minutes story is any more false than this story that you posted. All any of us know is what someone else chooses to tell us and then we choose what to believe. None of this stuff is 'fact.' Ask Jayson Blair.

Because the memo was shown on TV during the broadcast and its posted on the Internet.

My point is and has been that people should be more concerned with all vantage points of an issue instead of quickly feeding into what they want to believe the truth to be...or some convenient conspiracy theory...

The assumption is that I first learned of this from either the broadcast or the internet? Some of us read the newspaper, which unfortunately did not provide a copy of this memo. Can you please post the link for the memo?

Doesn't everyone post things that quickly feed into what they want to believe or "convenient conspiracy theories?" :rolleyes: I'm trying to remember when anyone has ever posted something that supported the opposite of what they believed. :confused: The assumption that since they don't they must not take into account all vantage points is a fallacy. What it translates to me is if someone believes a certain thing, they couldn't have possibly considered all sides. That's just a crock.

After I look at this memo, I'm sure I'll believe that everything in that last article is true. Otherwise, once again, I'll just be flying on the coattails of my "convenient conspiracy theories."

so folks looking for facts should consult Fox News, a clearly right-leaning media outlet? i'll have to remember that next time...
seriously:p anyone looking for the facts should look at BOTH sides before forming an opinion. it helps to be informed and i'm just doing my part to help the general public. it's my community service, shall we say:D

great point!

The truth comes out..
 

Just as I suggested..the documents were fake...just decided to let folk know :cool:

PS - Had this been FOX news..people would be up in arms saying the President needed to be impeached..

WASHINGTON - CBS News and its venerable anchor Dan Rather have suffered a major blow to their credibility, admitting they were duped by the source of a story purporting to show George W. Bush was given favoured treatment in avoiding the Vietnam War in the 1970s.

Rather apologized to viewers last night on his network newscast after airing an interview with the source, West Texas rancher Bill Burkett, a former Guard officer with a history of trying to discredit Bush.

Burkett admitted he lied to CBS about the origin of documents, which were said to have been written by the young Bush's unit commander, Lt.-Col. Jerry Killian.

"The failure to properly scrutinize the documents and its source led to our airing the documents when we should not have done so," Rather said.

"I want to say personally and directly, I'm sorry.

"This was an error made in good faith as we tried to carry on the CBS News tradition of asking tough questions and investigative reports. But it was a mistake."

The original report, which aired Sept. 8, relied on four memos the network said it had obtained showing Killian felt under pressure to "sugar coat" the young pilot's military record, and that Bush had refused an order to take a physical exam.

In a statement from CBS earlier in the day, the network that pioneered the television newsmagazine did not concede the documents were forgeries, as alleged by a number of experts and Killian's former secretary.

"Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report," said CBS News president Andrew Heyward.

"We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188854