CBS Affiliates Pre-Empting 60 Minutes?

[michaeledward]

I have a feeling that if we listened to the interview (which I did not get a chance to do), and examine any evidence offered (I would be surprised if the 60 Minutes team did NOT ask him to address what he said earlier), we can try to decide which is true.

Without being able to see the show, the evidence remains hidden, and we are left more in the dark.

Feisty .... you should be able to see the interview at the web site ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60II/main3475.shtml

Check the link under 'Bush's Service Questioned' right above the picture of that good lookin' young man (what animal is it that eats their young?) This is not the actual story from Wednesday evening (although that should be available somewhere). This video does include one of the video clips of Ben Barnes.

 

[MisterMike]

Kerry, served in Vietnam.
Bush, served in the ANG.

Clinton, ducked it all.

Now that's funny.

 

[Tgace]

Kerry, served in Vietnam.
Bush, served in the ANG.

Clinton, ducked it all.

Now that's funny.

 

[Makalakumu]

Too bad Clinton is not running. He would win.

 

[Tgace]

Too bad Clinton is not running. He would win.

Too bad he didnt do a little more running over the last few years...heart disease is no joke, like the guy or not.

 

[Tgace]

Key Democrats say it's now President Bush's turn to face renewed questions about his military service. That insistence, though, could backfire.

By RON FOURNIER
Associated Press
9/10/2004

WASHINGTON - Seizing on 30-year-old memos and memories, Sen. John F. Kerry's operatives are painting an unflattering portrait of President Bush as the "fortunate son" who used family connections to dodge the Vietnam War and then lied about it.
But even some sympathetic Democrats say voters won't be easily swayed, and they fear that the controversy will deflect attention from Bush's biggest vulnerabilities: the Iraq war and the economy.

The challenge for Kerry is to talk about issues that matter to voters today - health care, education, jobs and the war - while his allies at the Democratic National Committee do the dirty work. The DNC's goal: convince voters that Bush string-pulling in the Texas Air National Guard is part of a pattern of elitism, lies and lack of credibility that stretches to the White House.

"Two things: One, he didn't tell the truth, and that's not going to go away," said Howard Wolfson, a strategist dispatched to the DNC by Kerry's campaign to go negative on Bush. "Second, it begins to paint a picture of a very fortunate son who uses connections and pulls strings for special favors. That is a theme running through the man's life."

The DNC has nicknamed its effort "Operation Fortunate Son," after a Creedence Clearwater Revival anti-war anthem from the 1960s. The song speaks of the privileged few, "born silver spoon in hand," who send others to war.

Bush is not the "senator's son" written about in the song, but he's the son of a former president who served in the House during the Vietnam War.

Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, a Kerry supporter, says he helped Bush and the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam.

As a young lieutenant, Bush was "talking to someone upstairs" and trying to "get out of coming to drill," according to newly unearthed memos by the late Col. Jerry B. Killian, squadron commander for Bush in Texas.

Democrats said the documents prove that Bush lied as president when he said that he did his Guard duty. White House communications director Dan Bartlett accused Democrats of reading too much into the memos "of a dead man," and said the bottom line is that the president was honorably discharged.

Killian died in 1984.

The authenticity of the newly unearthed Killian memos was questioned Thursday by Killian's son, wife and even several handwriting experts who said they contained typographical features suggesting that they were generated by a computer or word processor rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter.

"I am upset, because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian.

Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."

Kerry focused on health care Thursday, declining to address the controversy, both in an interview with the Associated Press and when a crowd member mentioned her military service number. "That's something you never forget," Kerry said, prompting another audience member to shout, "George did!"

"Well," Kerry said, "moving on."

Some Democrats wish he would do just that - move on to Iraq, the economy and domestic issues that traditionally favor Democrats. Polls show Bush opening a lead over Kerry nationally and in key states, causing a rash of second-guessing.

"I'm not interested in Bush's military service or what he did back when," said Cara Easterly, a 37-year-old health care worker in Everett, Wash. The undecided voter said, "I only want to know how they're going to take care of us."

 

[Makalakumu]

Too bad he didnt do a little more running over the last few years...heart disease is no joke, like the guy or not.

True dat! Fast Food Nation, what can I say.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Clinton had a college deferment, attempted to avoid wars.

Bush ducked out on serving, sent others into at least one unnecessary war.

Kerrey served, returned home to oppose that war, reluctantly supported his President, runs on a platform respecting soldiers and questioning pointless war.

There's something to be said for moral consistency, n'est pas?

 

[deadhand31]

Ok, I read the interview. I'm kind of confused.... so he said that he didn't help Bush get into the guard in 1999, but now he's saying he did? Why the change in story? Does he not realize that if he's saying his testimony was false, that he can now be jailed for purgery? Or was it purgery to begin with? I find situations like these troublesome, because we know one concrete fact: Barnes is a liar. But which one is he lying about? If what he is saying now is true, then it's pretty damning for dubya(i like the sound of that). But if it's not, then what? How do we procede?

Even his own daughter doubts his current credibility:
http://www.wbap.com/listingsentryheadline.asp?ID=239369&PT=wbaptopstories

Now, here's what he have: A guy who in 1999 testified that he never ever helped Bush get into the national guard. Flash forward 5 years later, where he's now a fundraiser for Bush's opponent. Suddenly, his story changes. I just want to know, why is it that people find it so hard to realize why I don't give this guy much credibility? He's a confirmed liar, we know that now.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Here's an interesting article discussing the potential forgery of the Killian docs:

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000764.html

A more thorough debunking of the common pro-forgery memes:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/10/34914/1603

 

[michaeledward]

Ok, I read the interview. I'm kind of confused.... so he said that he didn't help Bush get into the guard in 1999, but now he's saying he did? Why the change in story? Does he not realize that if he's saying his testimony was false, that he can now be jailed for purgery? Or was it purgery to begin with? I find situations like these troublesome, because we know one concrete fact: Barnes is a liar. But which one is he lying about? If what he is saying now is true, then it's pretty damning for dubya(i like the sound of that). But if it's not, then what? How do we procede?

Did I miss your post with the link to Ben Barnes statements in 1999? Help me out and post that again.

Also, you do realize that "perjury" would require the speaker be under oath ... 60 minutes is not a legal preceeding.

To help you understand perjury a little better ... let me refer you to this document.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

You see, the President knew that Iraq was not one of those 'nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.' And the letter he sent to Congress was a legal requirement. This would be perjury, at least as defined by my dictionary: "the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue"

 

[rmcrobertson]

I gotta say I LOVE to see folks working so hard to cover up realities--like a cat trying to cover up on a linoleum floor.

 

[deadhand31]

You see, the President knew that Iraq was not one of those 'nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.' And the letter he sent to Congress was a legal requirement. This would be perjury, at least as defined by my dictionary: "the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue"

Hmm, let's read that quote of yours shall we? Does it say that Iraq was a country that caused 9/11? Let's read it:

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

No, it does not. However, it does say that action against Iraq is consistent with the action that was taken against organizations that set up 9/11. Now, Saddam had an al Qaeda operative in the Republican guard. There have been links with Saddam and al Qaeda. Can you honestly say, in 100% certainty, that Iraq had no terrorist ties, never made plans against any of our citizens, and Saddam was a poor, misunderstood man?

 

[PeachMonkey]

No, it does not. However, it does say that action against Iraq is consistent with the action that was taken against organizations that set up 9/11. Now, Saddam had an al Qaeda operative in the Republican guard. There have been links with Saddam and al Qaeda. Can you honestly say, in 100% certainty, that Iraq had no terrorist ties, never made plans against any of our citizens, and Saddam was a poor, misunderstood man?

Try:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911/

Of course, the fact that even the milquetoast 9/11 commission found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not likely enough in the bizarro right-wing world where facts are unfacts, Iraq was involved in 9/11, had WMDs, and deserved to be invaded.

 

[michaeledward]

Hmm, let's read that quote of yours shall we? Does it say that Iraq was a country that caused 9/11? Let's read it:

I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

No, it does not. However, it does say that action against Iraq is consistent with the action that was taken against organizations that set up 9/11. Now, Saddam had an al Qaeda operative in the Republican guard. There have been links with Saddam and al Qaeda. Can you honestly say, in 100% certainty, that Iraq had no terrorist ties, never made plans against any of our citizens, and Saddam was a poor, misunderstood man?

Wow ... this is cool, we are in agreement. We agree the statement does not say Iraq caused 9/11.

The United States Congress granted to the President authority to use military force against "international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".

The Authorization does not say the use of military force may be 'consistent with'; it says 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided'. By law, President Bush would need to validate the use of U.S. military force, with a comminication to Congress within 48 hours of that use of foce. By ordering a military invasion of Iraq, the President was required to send that letter to Congress.

So, let's try this little puzzle. Yes or No.

Did Saddam Hussein plan the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?
Did Saddam Hussein authorize the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?
Did Saddam Hussein commit the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?
Did Saddam Hussein aid the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001?

The President knew the answer to each of those questions was NO. The President knew, therefore, his actions were unlawful.

Next, there are no known established ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Please make yourself available to some facts.

I don't need to say with 100% certainty that Iraq had no ties, never made any terrorist plans against United States citizens. You see, our government established a commission to answer this question for us (a commission that President Bush opposed, by the way). And they, with far more resources than I have answered that question. Iraq has no ties with al Qaeda. Iraq was not invovled in terrorist activities against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001. What I believe is irrelevant. There are facts in evidence, perhaps you should expose yourself to them.

And, about that last clause in your sentence ..."Saddam was a poor, misunderstood man?" ... Don't be a jerk. OK? Statements like that are thrown out to question citizenship and patriotism. Normally, I would ignore it. But you know I said no such thing. No one is arguing that Saddam Hussein was Mother Theresa. That crap may work for Sean Hannity ... but it is rude and disprespectful to your fellow citizens.

 

[Tgace]

But he still stands a good chance of re-election......

 

[michaeledward]

But he still stands a good chance of re-election......

I agree ... Why do you suppose that is Tgace?

In the intereste of full disclosure, I did predict a landslide for the opponent back in late January, early February.

 

[Tgace]

Kerry isnt "selling" himself. Hes caught in the mudslinging trap. Known vs. unknown. Lack of "personality" (Al Gore "flat")

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. I agree. Kerry remains a lummox. Problem seems to be that everybody really interesting in the Democratic party has been either a member of an ethnic minority, or somebody like Mario Cuomo.

2. Ah. The old, "How do you KNOW that the sun is NOT a great fiery dragon!!! Were you there?" argument. Hey, how do you KNOW that the Evil Dr. Fu Manchu isn't running the Bush family? You don't, do you!! AHA!!! You're in cahoots with him!!! Prove it's not true!!!!!

3. I just love it when folks edit the recent historical record. Now I know: Bush never claimed the Iraquis already had WMDs, that Hussein was directly tied to Al Quaida, that the citizens of Iraq would welcome us, that we should not get engaged in nation-building, etc. etc. Nope. Never happened.

4. What truly amazes me is this: here's what we know FOR SURE. Bush got elected on very shaky terms, immediately chased after tax breaks for the very wealthy, immediately started hacking away at environmental regulation, and has now proceeded to get us into an unnecessary and unjustified war that's cost over a thousand American troops their lives, as well as a helluva lot of money with no end in sight. And, he's run up a 500 billion deficit with no end in sight there either. And, some of his closest friends, contributors and advisors have got caught stealing and swindling.

One would think that, at the very least, it might be appropriate to hold him responsible for some pretty serious screw-ups.

 

[Makalakumu]

One would think that, at the very least, it might be appropriate to hold him responsible for some pretty serious screw-ups.

Which is why the RNC needs to turn this election into a referendum on Kerry, not on Bush.