Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?

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

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

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?


An ad which is demonstrably false and obviously deliberately so would be
easily refuted and the group behind it discredited. Kerry is not even
attempting to do that. Why not?

From: Michael Wise
Date: 8/24/2004 2:41 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

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

You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations against
Bush?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations against
Bush?


If such ads existed and were shown by the vast majority of the evidence
to be false, then yes. However, we haven't seen such ads yet.


--Mike

From: Michael Wise
Date: 8/24/2004 7:37 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

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

You mean like kerry should condemn the ads that make wild accusations
against
Bush?


If such ads existed and were shown by the vast majority of the evidence
to be false, then yes. However, we haven't seen such ads yet.


--Mike

You haven't been looking. I saw one last night where they accused Bush of
spending money on Iraq and Afghanistan instead of on schools here. He isn't the
one who disburses those funds, Congress is.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry?
From: forge
Date: 8/24/2004 12:22 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
"Osprey" wrote:

Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
them.

No he bloody has not. All he keeps saying is "we need to get control of
all these hyear 527 groups" without ever specifically referring to Swift
Butt Veterans. It's like he has some kind of bizarre mental block, or
something, and can't know they exist.

Has kerry made any attempt to reign in the 527s and similar activities that
take his side?

Unless and until you call on both candidates to denounce such activities please
don't act as if one side is the agrieved party and the other side is a bully.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

Bush has come out and asked who ever is responsible for those ads to pull
them.

No he bloody has not. All he keeps saying is "we need to get control of
all these hyear 527 groups" without ever specifically referring to Swift
Butt Veterans. It's like he has some kind of bizarre mental block, or
something, and can't know they exist.

Has kerry made any attempt to reign in the 527s and similar activities that
take his side?

Unless and until you call on both candidates to denounce such activities
please
don't act as if one side is the agrieved party and the other side is a bully.


Again, although the Bush campaign and its sycophants keep trying to turn
this as a 527 issue, it is not. The issue is the president refusing to
denounce an ad in which the overwhelming evidence shows as lies.

When they starting fabricating things to a political end, Bush should do
the honorable thing and denounce it...just like John McCain asked him to.


Was John McCain wrong to say Bush was wrong and should denounce the ad?



--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Again, although the Bush campaign and its sycophants keep trying to turn
this as a 527 issue, it is not. The issue is the president refusing to
denounce an ad in which the overwhelming evidence shows as lies.


What evidence shows it to be lies?

In article ,
Fijian watermelon wrote:

For what? I asked for evidence of a smear campaign by Bush, you've
provided
none.

Because... because... oh waaaaaahhh! Quit picking on us!

No.

Nice quote editing. What're you in, 8th grade?

In article ,
Fijian watermelon wrote:

But what you don't understand is that did not happen.

--
Huh?

At least your truthful about yourself with your sig.

Eighth grade, right?