Originally posted by -=Archer=-
Redford you need to finish reading the first source you posted. Larry Thurlow admits what is in his citiation is not what happened that day. According to Mr Thurlow his own citation is a fabrication. If that is true then Mr Thurlow is correct when he accuses Kerry of being a liar.
So, he calls Kerry a liar, by admitting his own liar-dom? I'd trust him to dictate our nations policy.
This is a subject that we may never know the truth, I'd be happy if it were to fade away. It wont though as both sides have touted thier "war experience" to the hilt.
Although when a guy that wasn't even in Kerry's boat makes discretditing remarks, I'd question that. When a guy that Kerry pulled out of the water recalls receiving gunfire when Kerry pulled him out, it seems to me I'd think is genuine.
For more info on persons of this ilk, read the following.
Now you KNOW I have to use the Slinger-word on that one. Quoting Kerry's accusation today won't count. Link me to one legitimate source of the President attacking Kerry's war record. One.
No source needed. There is no doubt the "conservative movement" and what were once called "Right wing extremists" are blurring together. Conservative today, is what the GOP is touting today, not the values which I held for the better part of my life. Conservatives today only know who to blame (anti-american liberals) for just about every problem that arises, they don't care about fixing them.
The mainstream conservative movement, driven by the popularity of Clinton, became more ideologically ridgid and fanatical.
This is where any thoughts contrary to the policy of this administration is touted as being "liberal" even though it may have been a conservative value a decade ago.
This ideology has spawned a new brand of fanatical supporter to whom no level of invective can be too vicious. The summation resulted in Clintons impeachment, which I have no problem with.
Man people who a decade ago were happy watching Nascar or playing armchair quarterback during NFL season are now proud and loud adamant Bush supporters.
The far right has become a resonant chamber to test right wing (often times following christian theology) ideas to find out which ones could stick with more mainstream conservatives. This is how the Clinton (insert liberal) viritrol came to be. If the ideas they spread stuck, they made it into the mainstream through Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc. for the masses to semi-cogitate and share amongst their cohorts.
Look at Pat Robertson, Fallwell, Sullivan, Ann Coulter, Paul Weyrich, and others who actively convey anti-leftist and at times extremist material into the mainstream.
Even FreeRepublic.com have engaged in acts of dissention and detestable acts against "liberal" targets.
These people are the reason Bush doesn't need to run negative ads against Kerry. He already has a mass of rich right-wingers doing it for him.
Rich Texans (or insert pundits name here) ante up the cash for a TV ad showing how Kerry is a coward, liar, liberal, chose your poison which often times are outright lies, fabrication, or distortions.
Even if the opponent actively discredits those lies, that's what sticks in peoples minds, not the fact someone lied to discredit opponent.
Either way, it is certain to me that Bush and his family are not the type who would actively underwrite any of these far-right organizations today as the discovery of such would spell certain doom for his family. (besides, they already did thier part making money from the Nazi war machine)
What is clear is that Bush and CO. have not the least amount of compunction about allying themselves with the thuggish and potentially violent component of extreme elements that have been taken in by the Republican party.
This is why you will never see Bush denounce a negative (or outright fabricated) television, radio, or newpaper ad.
I'm the Redford Renegade and I approved this message.