A wired Bush

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html

[johnb]

October 11, 2004
Object Under Bush Jacket Identified: 'It's a Spine'

(2004-10-11) -- A forensic scientist studying photographic evidence has identified an object which caused a bump on the back of a suit jacket worn by President George Bush during his first debate with John Forbes Kerry.

"It's a spine," said the unnamed scientist. "The president's backbone, in a sense, was showing during his debate with Mr. Kerry."

Similar images of Mr. Kerry showed "no comparable spinal features."

When asked about the new evidence, Mr. Kerry said, "I had a spine when I defended this country as a young man, and I will have one again when I defend her as president of the United States."

[dhyatt]

October 11, 2004
Object Under Bush Jacket Identified: 'It's a Spine'

(2004-10-11) -- A forensic scientist studying photographic evidence has identified an object which caused a bump on the back of a suit jacket worn by President George Bush during his first debate with John Forbes Kerry.

"It's a spine," said the unnamed scientist. "The president's backbone, in a sense, was showing during his debate with Mr. Kerry."

Similar images of Mr. Kerry showed "no comparable spinal features."

When asked about the new evidence, Mr. Kerry said, "I had a spine when I defended this country as a young man, and I will have one again when I defend her as president of the United States."


I like it :-) However, the most obvious explanation is simply that he was wearing a bullet proof vest. A sensible precaution, yet, if acknowledged, one the kook leftists would jump all over as showing that Bush himself didn't feel safe thereby implying we are somehow less safe than we were before. And to think Hillary once made accusations of a "vast right wing conspiracy"...

BTW - I don't know whether to laugh at the supidity or cringe at the outright hypocisy of 12 Dem Senators and the DNC attempting to block the Sinclair Group's anti-Kerry film. I guess free speech is only supported by leftists when it comes from the worthless likes of Michael Moore (or less) and/or it supports only their side of the story.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041011/D85LDJ680.html

[hollyL]

White house has confirmed no vest. Think they are going with the wrinkle theory. Personally I'm going with the wrinkle/Photoshop theory.

[Anonymous]

looks like a snake crawling up his right shoulder....spine, snake, same difference!...and for those who don't remember the early 80's and the "bone fone" ( a portable stereo speaker system that you wore around your neck and can hear sound when speakers are placed against your collar bone) there is no need for an "ear piece" Don't forget, daddy was the CIA director!

[Mark]

BTW - I don't know whether to laugh at the supidity or cringe at the outright hypocisy of 12 Dem Senators and the DNC attempting to block the Sinclair Group's anti-Kerry film. I guess free speech is only supported by leftists when it comes from the worthless likes of Michael Moore (or less) and/or it supports only their side of the story.

I'm not in total disagreement with your basic premise here Don, but there are several differences in the two cases. First, Moore has been and always will be openly partisan. He made quite clear that he hopes F/911 will help elect Kerry. The producers of the anti-Kerry film aren't being open about their RNC ties and certainly aren't coming out and saying that they hope people will vote for Bush after seeing the piece.

So, there is a difference in the creators and their designs. There is also a difference in broadcast outlet. Sinclair, as we all know, famously refused to air the reading of the names of fallen U.S. soldiers from the current conflict. I don't have the language of their explanation for doing so right in front of me but, suffice it to say, it held that the piece was openly partisan and designed to influence how people felt about this highly relevant topic in the national campaign. If that's their policy they should stick to it. CBS has stated its intention not to air highly controversial political topics for the duration of the campaign, and I would find fault with them if they aired either F/911 or Stolen Honor. Sinclair manages some CBS affiliates.

There is probably a question of whether both films run afoul of campaign finance law. I don't know enough about Stolen Honor to judge, but I could make a pretty good case why F/911 is, for lack a better term, clean.

[johnb]

Stolen Honor examines the question of Kerry's statements and actions upon his return from Vietnam. These are a matter of public record. The fact that he doesn't want people to know what he was doing during that time frame says quite a bit about Kerry and his allies in the media. Frankly, I want to know why he didn't contact the FBI after he heard people conspiring to assasinate 6 pro-Vietnam War Senators. He was a commmissioned officer in the Naval Reserves at that time. That matters and says a lot about his character. Frankly, I think the public should hear Kerry's statements to the North Vietnamese condemning American soldiers in Vietnam. John McCain and other POW's were beaten mercilessly to try and compel them to say the things Kerry willing and gleefully said.

[Mark]

From the film's info sheet.

*****
"That single act earned for Kerry the lasting enmity of Vietnam veterans, especially those who had borne the brunt of his accusations, that small percentage of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who actually served on the frontlines. Many of these combat veterans would carry the scars of their service for life. Kerry's repudiation of their sacrifice represented yet another war wound, one that would never heal. As compelling as Kerry's Senate testimony was, these men knew it was lacking in one key element ... truth. They knew from their own combat experiences virtually all his allegations were lies; the U.S. military would never countenance such brutality. And, they also knew his actions were a deliberate betrayal of all of them, especially the more than 58,000 who lost their lives in the Vietnam War.

"But, perhaps, more than any living group of combat veterans, it was America's POWs who suffered most, forced to endure the immediate consequences of Kerry's treacherous falsehoods. In 1971, some 700 of these men were reported as captured or missing in action, most presumed held prisoner by the North Vietnamese Communists in such places as the notorious Hanoi Hilton. Already subjected to years of torture, solitary confinement and unspeakable psychological and physical abuse, their lives were literally hanging by a thread when Kerry issued his damning testimony. In mere moments, Kerry had willingly given the Vietnamese Communists what they had spent years of torture and blood-letting to drag out of their American hostages, an unqualified 'confession' they were all war criminals."

"Stolen Honor" is being produced by Red, White and Blue Productions, Inc., an independent producer of documentaries based in Harrisburg, Pa. Carlton Sherwood, president of Red, White and Blue Productions, is a longtime newspaper and TV investigative reporter. A Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award winner, Sherwood has investigated how the behavior of John Kerry as a leader of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era impacted American POWs.

The results are shocking and no doubt will ignite a new wave of controversy in this year's already overheated political race.
*****

This is just so full of rubbish that it's difficult to digest. First, U.S. servicemen committed war crimes in Vietnam. Second, they often did so with the knowledge of command levels that are higher than most people care to believe. Third the suggestion that the North Vietnamese were primarily torturing people so that they would call the U.S. war criminals, or were tortured more because of Kerry's testimony is actually entertaining. Forth, the last paragraph of this press release is probably evidence enough why this film falls into the prohibited category. Fifth, assuming Kerry's post-war actions are worthy of merit, it is not at all clear why this "news" should be dressed up in the film format, why a broadcaster would compel its outlets to air it, and why it was not presented at a different time.

Sinclair is already losing market share, investor confidence, and advertisers. I hope, in the end, it's their investors that get to them. It is a serious breach of fiduciary duty to plow ahead in a venture destined to loose money.

Anyway SBG statements are illuminating.

"To those who would accuse Sinclair of censorship [regarding the nightline broadcast of the U.S. military deaths], we ask that they consider the daily decisions of network shows like "Nightline" as to what issues to cover and how they are to be presented, decisions that necessarily involve ignoring other issues and points of view that the networks choose not to present to the American public." Like, for example, the fact that U.S. soldiers die in Iraq. Or, that Iraqis die in Iraq. That George Bush might be the most dishonest executive in the history of civilized society.

"We do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content." Remember, the political statement was acknowledging that U.S. soldiers die in Iraq. For Sinclair, facts may be politically adverse content. Is it possible to reconcile this quoted statement with their decision to air Stolen Honor?

I should add, that none other than John McCain wrote to SBG during the Nightline episode to convey that their actions represent "a gross disservice to the public" further adding "It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves." Playing politics with TV doesn't play well.

[johnb]

This is just so full of rubbish that it's difficult to digest.

Why? Because you say it is? So what. That's the public record Mark. Kerry was very willing to step in front of a microphone and camera and make some rather odious statements at that time. He, in fact, has backed off some of the more extreme statements he has made referring to them as '"over the top". His public statements on topics of national interest are legitimate fodder for discussion and investigation. The fact that he did things and said things that can be taken as reckless and possibly even crimminal does not mean anyone else has an obligation to pretend it didn't happen.

First, U.S. servicemen committed war crimes in Vietnam.

Kerry made specific accusations about his superiors and about US policy, that "war crimes" were encouraged and hidden as a matter of policy on the part of higher ranking officers. That is a false statement and one he needs to substantiate or repudiate. He assaulted the honor of a lot of men far more honorable and decent than himself. People like Lt Calley were court martialed Mark. The only "war crimminal" I know of who was not punished was Lt Kerry.

Second, they often did so with the knowledge of command levels that are higher than most people care to believe.

Prove it. I'll be the first to call you a liar for that statement. No one has ever said no US soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine ever did anything wrong. That would be unreasonable and unrealistic. What you and Kerry are saying is that the men and officers of the US military willfully violated their oaths in a conspiracy to commit "war crimes".

Third the suggestion that the North Vietnamese were primarily torturing people so that they would call the U.S. war criminals, or were tortured more because of Kerry's testimony is actually entertaining.

What's entertaining Mark? That US troops were tortured or that the North Vietnamese used torture as a means to extract "confessions" for use in their propoganda? I fail to see the humor. Admiral Stockdale was beaten like a crash test dummy for years and he refused to "confess" war crimes, "crimes" he didn't commit. Yet Kerry runs to Paris to "confess" these things to the Vietnamese Communist leaders. Nice comparison. War Hero vs. War Crimminal.

Forth, the last paragraph of this press release is probably evidence enough why this film falls into the prohibited category.

The fact that CBS and now ABC are on an anti-Bush, anti-GOP jihad fails to elicit any care or concern about the "sanctity" of the public airwaves from you, yet, you find a program repeating Kerry's outrageous and near treasonous comments verboten. Nice work Mark, of course, someone who "welcomes" Hezbollah's endorsement of John Kerry really can't be held up as a paragon of reason now can he?

Fifth, assuming Kerry's post-war actions are worthy of merit, it is not at all clear why this "news" should be dressed up in the film format, why a broadcaster would compel its outlets to air it, and why it was not presented at a different time.

It is worthy of being broadcast because it involves the public statements and actions of a candidate for President of the US. Integral to that role is the title and power of Commander in Chief of the US military. Kerry has exhibited, through his public statements and actions after Vietnam and his voting record in the Senate a clear and undeniable hatred for that military he would supposedly lead. The public has a right to know all the facts, not just the pro-Kerry stories humped by ABC, CBS, etc...

Sinclair is already losing market share, investor confidence, and advertisers.

Then you have no worry. Capitalism works. We'll see how much market share Sinclair "looses". I doubt any, unlike the CBS News. :)

I hope, in the end, it's their investors that get to them. It is a serious breach of fiduciary duty to plow ahead in a venture destined to loose money.

You would have had SOME credibility if you'd found it within yourself to make a statment like that about CBS prior to discussing Sinclair. However, you reveal yourself to be rather nakedly partisan. That's why people like you can never be trusted with political power.

Playing politics with TV doesn't play well.

That's a false statement of your sentiments. Playing politics with TV does play well, when your political opponents are the victims. You proved that .