In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

These ads that do little but lie are going to destroy Bush by
portraying
Bush as an immoral slanderer.


Why would that be? Bush has nothing to do with those ads.

Bush _himself_, perhaps. Bush's _organization_ had plenty to
do with them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/po...n/20swift.html


There's nothing on that page that demonstrates Bush's _organization_ had
anything to do with those ads.

No, just lots of Bush friends were involved.


And lots of kerry's friends are involved with anti Bush ads. Do you see kerry
condemning them?



What's being condemned here is not soft money ads and not negative
ads...and Bush is not being asked to condemn ads just because they are
negative or financed by partisan supporters.

What Bush is being asked to condemn is an ad which is demonstrably false
and obviously deliberately so. The fact that it came from a soft money
group is not relavant.

Got it?


--Mike