Authenticity of Bush Guard Docs in Question

The documents are likely fakes, in my opinion. CBS's so-called "experts" are now in the minority of those who are giving them any credibility whatsoever. The guy's son wasn't even contacted before CBS ran the story on the memos?! Doesn't sound like typical, corroborative journalism to me.

Getting back to Kerry for a second. Wow, what won't this guy say to get elected?! Does he not realize that cameras/microphones are recording everything he says? You can confuse some in private, flipping positons like that, but when they've been documented, it's over. Isn't he on his 8th position on Iraq right now? There is so much ammo to go after Kerry on his flip-flops alone that no one should even have to bring up how he smeared the Veterans when he got home. It would be hard to blame them though (swiftvets), after all, it's a fact that he smeared them. The medals I don't really give a hoot (I'm no soldier, though), but broadly accusing his fellow soldiers (whom the majority of Americans revere) of war-crimes while they were still fighting just scratches my a$$ the wrong way.

I'm an Independant, but is it any wonder Bush got such a big "bounce". John Kerry doesn't have the guts to fight this war on terror, and every poll since this last year, concerning questions in this reguard, reflects that. The majority of people think Bush can fight this war better and that Bush will keep them safer. Kerry's own words indict him, or should I say, "flip-flops".

When was the last time National Security has ranked above the Economy as the most important issue among likely voters? Hasn't been since Vietnam, if I'm not mistaken. I can only speak for myself, but National Security/War on terrorism is the most important issue to me this year. Zell has a point.

I went to bls.gov, and from what I can tell (not an expert), Bush is in a fairly different position than his father was in 92, concerning the economy. Perhaps this is/in combination with post 9/11, why Bush is holding up so well? Subjectivity is sure to reign supreme on this one....

I will be casting my vote for Bush this year.

although i think this whole thing is irrelevent, everyones talking like these are original docs...they're photocopies of faxed photocopies of copies, etc. these wouldnt mean **** in any court in the land as evidence for or against anything. simply because you could cut and past IRT or using ms-word, john handcock's original sig onto/into anything. then photocopy fax etc...dammed, it looks real to me...definitly JH's signiture. its not like 226 man are testifying against him...conviently the author is dead and the original docs appear to be, well, non-existant.

user_batch i couldn]t agree more. the ONLY issue this election is national security and the war on terror.

do a poor job on the war on terror and what happened to our economy after 911 would look like high times. wether or not one creates allot of high paying jobs wont mean anything at all if the buildings we work in get blown up and i dont think we need to go into education after what happened in russia.

The sad thing for the Democrats is that they appear to
have shot themselves in the foot. I would bet that most people would probably
agree with them that there is something suspicious about Bush's
National Guard service, but if this is a sloppy phoney hatchet job,
people will sympathize with Bush, figuring that his imperfections aren't
bad enough to throw him out of office, the same way they sympathized with
Bill Clinton over the Monica business.

On the other hand, if they could produce genuine original docs...
:cool:

Quote:

---

do a poor job on the war on terror and what happened to our economy after 911 would look like high times. wether or not one creates allot of high paying jobs wont mean anything at all if the buildings we work in get blown up and i dont think we need to go into education after what happened in russia.

---

One thing that people confuse the most: Presidents do not create jobs. I don't know why people even think that. If the government does not interfere too much into the private market, business owners will create jobs. Unfortunately for me, and my employees, I had to let go over 20 employees, but its not because of Bush...AT&T decided to take a **** and screw indirect dealers. Anyways....thats the way the cookie crumbles ;).

Quote:

---

The sad thing for the Democrats is that they appear to
have shot themselves in the foot.

---

Thank you :)...very intelligent observation. Now I just want to see some dumbass liberals argue that here so I can get a good laugh first thing in the morning tomorrow. Good night. :D

User_batch - I too am independent, but leaning very heavily towards Bush - playing devil's advocate here though, How can one effectively fight and win a war on a concept?


Cybr1d - Sure Presidents create jobs - the republican philosophy is to give the money to the corporations and business world, and that it will 'trickle down' to the masses, in the form of higher wages, lower prices, and more jobs. the democrat philosophy is to give it to the common guy in the form of social programs. After seeing firsthand the results of these philosophies all the way back to Nixon, I tend to agree with the Republicans method more. When a republican is in office, we get recession because we're busy 'cleaning up the mess' left from the last democrat. Comes the 2nd term of the republican, or the first term of the next democrat, we get an economic boom. Go figure. One exception to that rule was the 2nd Clinton term, but even then the astronomical growth of the economy was grinding down. Now we look at figures a bit - what were the unemployment rates during the 2nd Clinton administration? Now what are they? I'd say that's a pretty sure statement that the President created (or in some cases destroyed) jobs.

also, to get us out of the great depression.. im fairly sure fdr created millions of jobs..

The unemployment rate is at around 5.4 percent right NOW. In 1996 when Clinton ran for office it was around 5.6 or so. He used that. There was this woman on TV the other day, the same one I SAW in 1996 tout how GREAT the rate was and how awesome the mighty president Clinton was. He dodged the draft too but he never even showed up ANYHERE, his strings landed him in England inhaling marijuana oh wait he didn't inhale - defense from the left that time, contempt this time around. At least Bushy showed up once in a while and went to manage and election in the South. So I saw this SAME lady talking about how absolutely devastating this 5.4 percent unemployment rate economy is. Devastating, on and on and I thought what I fckling little azz wiping puppeteer she is. (that is another example negative)

The same damn person.

Just for curiosity's sake what was the unemployment rate during Reagon's rein, and just before the election for GWB during Clinton's rein?

aellison,

When I qoute rates they either come from GOV or the Stock Market

Reagan
1980 Reagan elected (6.3)
1982 Spike (10.8)
1988 Reagans Term ended (6.6)

Daddy Bush
1989 (5.0) Some argue Reaganomics started working?
*You will see the rate go UP again under Bush, note he was not re-elected he did a liberal thing, raise taxes after PROMISING not too. He did not get my vote. Note that we started a war and our financial epicenter was NOT yet destroyed.*
1990 (6.3)
1992 End of term (7.4)

Enter the mighty infallable Clinton.
1993 Year end (7.4) fist year not so good, it's hard to fix inherited problems unlike those who expect them to fix everything the first day (case and point the present asministration)

1994 Year End (5.5) nice the market is also making alot of Democrats and Republicans money. Defense spending was almost eliminated, wonder if Moore entertained that idea, not at all.

1996 Clinton runs on his great undoing of the unemployment rate (5.4 with a few spikes at 5.6) It then goes up and down staying at a very very low rate. Clinton did do well at the economy at the expense of defense.

Baby Bush
2001 1st Quarter (4.4)

2001 August (4.9) not bad a typical swing even under clinton if would sway whole points at a time.

2001 Sept (5.0) and then the economy stopped dead for days, arilines grounded, entire corporations obliterated in a fire. Also companies cooking the books for a decade are catcing up with their overspending. In addition the tech market is having trouble making sales after the run-up of the Y2k scare. Hmm that was a lot of sales in the 90s.

2002 Year end (6.0) all that and only a point? Sure that's alot but there was such doom and gloom all over the spectrum.

2003 Year end (5.7) full on war, horrible things afoot and it's falls again

2004 NOW (5.4) the same as in 1996 when that rate was a godsend by the same party and the same people filling the chairs.

Thank you RoadClosed,

I am presently too busy to look up these things. What I see that stands out the most is the numbers of 7.4 to 4.4 in 8 years of the Clinton administration. thats 3 whole points! Not bad at all. I can tell you from a personal standpoint that I lived a whole lot better while Clinton was in office than I do now or before him. I am not so sure why, or if it had anything to do with Clinton's policies. But I can barely make ends meet now. I suppose that is why I will vote the Dem ticket this year. Not so much becase of who is running, but more to see if my financial status will rise again under a Dem administration. During the 12 years of Reagon/Bush I was about in the same shape I am in now (barely employed) During the 8 years of Clinton I was able to pay off my home and start to put money away for retirement. Since Bush 2, I have lost every bit of my savings and am now wondering if I will ever have a retirement at all. I could elaborate on this forever but rather than cry on everyones shoulder, I have chosen to vote for Kerry.