John Keeney wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
John Keeney wrote:
"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...
In article ,
362436 (Ron) wrote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
"Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.

With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
was one, said Garry Trudeau.

"You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
would almost certainly have surfaced by now."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush.doonesbury
reut/index.html


In other words, I can not prove my assertion, so I will just take the easy
route, and ask others to disprove it.

With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.

Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?

The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....

Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
on the editorial pages. Hell, he was so ****ed that Reagan
was President he quit drawing his cartoon and ran off to
France until the term was up.

yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

How many people are going to have movies (stills are
too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
can be dated and placed sufficiently? How about any other
member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
somebody happens to have some local news film shot
on the base where the individual shows up in the background.

Hmmmmm

Hmmmm yourself.

I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.

Oh yea, it also says: "If you personally witnessed George W. Bush
reporting for drills at Dannelly Air National Guard Base between
the months of May and November of 1972 we want to hear about it."
But they really don't care since they follow that up a little later with:
"Q: What if I saw Bush, but I can't prove it? Can I get some of the money?
A: No, but if your story's entertaining enough, you may qualify for our
consolation prize, an original Doonesbury strip personally signed by a
top studio intern."

RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!

George, that's one of the dumbest things you've ever said here.
There was no attack on Wise. I was pointing out the assumptions
he was working on were false: that someone could claim $10,000
and that it could be easily done if Bush showed up at the Alabama
ANG.
There was no attack on Trudeau, unless calling some one a
democrat is an attack. OK, calling someone a democrat is like
saying they're a retard, but some people are ya' know.

Of 29 lines of text response from me:
2 lines addressed the wide spread knowledge of the award,
5 lines addressed Trudeau's likely impartiality to judge,
6 lines examined the likely hood of photographic evidence,
1 line was in imitation of the past message at the "discovery"
that was to follow in the rest of the message,
2 line correctly located the "contest",
5 lines were used to point out the award doesn't exist
and
the final 8 lines showed that eye witness testimony would
be insufficient. Insufficient, just as was assumed in discussing
Trudeau's judgment in this case.

In balance, of 29 lines you might make some case for
5 lines addressing Trudeau's judgment being an "attack".
14 (5+6) lines directly addressed the difficulty in passing
Trudeau's test.
And 5 line point out there is no actual reward for jumping
through Trudeau's hoops.
At even at the irrational biased worse, only 18% of the
message was "attack" as opposed to 48% being addressed
to why evidence was unlikely to exist.

So, it appears the "RNC play book" calls for the attack to
be out weighed by the substance by at least 2.5 times.

My one line comment generates 28 lines of response and/or disclaimer from you,
and you said I was stupid! I think I'll just rest my case while I'm ahead.

George Z.


Your message?
One line, 100% dismissal of what you don't want to see.