New Questions Raised on Bush Military Record

[Krimson Klaw]

And we are right back at finger pointing at who is the dirtiest. Does this whole cycle not get tiresome to you guys at some point? I thought the I'm rubber and you're glue argument died out when I was a child. Don't play their game people.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And we are right back at finger pointing at who is the dirtiest. Does this whole cycle not get tiresome to you guys at some point? I thought the I'm rubber and you're glue argument died out when I was a child. Don't play their game people.

Yes it does especially when what people call dirty play by Reps has been telling the facts about Kerry's 4 months that he is basing his career on and Dems are actually making shit up, falsifying documents, getting Dem cronies to lieto smear Bush about something that happened 35 years ago about something he isn't basing his campaign on. Funny as hell how strong perception is and how it can fool the dumb witted ones.

[Kelshara]

Indeed, explains why so many people support Bush.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Indeed, explains why so many people support Bush.

You are such a complex being. I had no idea this would be your response.

[Forthe]

And we are right back at finger pointing at who is the dirtiest. Does this whole cycle not get tiresome to you guys at some point? I thought the I'm rubber and you're glue argument died out when I was a child. Don't play their game people.

Unfortunately the tactics seems to work, at least as far as polls go. Kerry took a beating when the Swift Boat ads hammered him. Now Bush is taking a beating with this new dirt shoveling about him going awol. With the results so far I wouldn't expect the tactics to get better, I expect it will get worse.

IMO Kerry needs to be careful here. With all the mudslinging he risks alienating those typical anti-bush non voters that would have been motivated to vote this year. At the same time if he doesn't respond in kind to these attacks he is portrayed as weak by republicans.

[Forthe]

Indeed, explains why so many people support Bush.

You are such a complex being. I had no idea this would be your response.

lol Midnyte when was the last time you posted more than a one line response that wasn't simply quoting of republican talking points or a point of view you heard on a right wing talk show. It's been quite a while since I've seen you write anything that could be construed as an original thought.

Polly wants a fucking cracker.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Indeed, explains why so many people support Bush.

You are such a complex being. I had no idea this would be your response.

lol Midnyte when was the last time you posted more than a one line response that wasn't simply quoting of republican talking points or a point of view you heard on a right wing talk show. It's been quite a while since I've seen you write anything that could be construed as an original thought.

Polly wants a fucking cracker.

Well, I guess that's the quandry we are all in at this time of severe division. I also think much of what comes out of your mouth as well as many others on this board is nothing more than leftist propaganda being puked up over and over. /shrug

Here's an original thought for you....Penis plants filled with chloroplasts often appear green when stimulated.

[Siji]

Here's an original thought for you....Penis plants filled with chloroplasts often appear green when stimulated.

His intelligence simply knows no bounds!

[Thess]

Indeed, explains why so many people support Bush.

You are such a complex being. I had no idea this would be your response.

lol Midnyte when was the last time you posted more than a one line response that wasn't simply quoting of republican talking points or a point of view you heard on a right wing talk show. It's been quite a while since I've seen you write anything that could be construed as an original thought.

Polly wants a fucking cracker.

Well, I guess that's the quandry we are all in at this time of severe division. I also think much of what comes out of your mouth as well as many others on this board is nothing more than leftist propaganda being puked up over and over. /shrug

Here's an original thought for you....Penis plants filled with chloroplasts often appear green when stimulated.

Can I get a source for that information?

[Siji]

if they cared more about our country and the people in it and their future, than about gaining political power and just being negative.

You just defined your current president to a T you ignorant motherfucker.

[Brotha]

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Indeed, explains why so many people support Bush.

You are such a complex being. I had no idea this would be your response.

lol Midnyte when was the last time you posted more than a one line response that wasn't simply quoting of republican talking points or a point of view you heard on a right wing talk show. It's been quite a while since I've seen you write anything that could be construed as an original thought.

Polly wants a fucking cracker.

Well, I guess that's the quandry we are all in at this time of severe division. I also think much of what comes out of your mouth as well as many others on this board is nothing more than leftist propaganda being puked up over and over. /shrug

Here's an original thought for you....Penis plants filled with chloroplasts often appear green when stimulated.

Can I get a source for that information?

Yes. The Swift Boat Vets told me this.

[Metanis]

Talking dirt about your opponent is as old as mankind. It's not going to stop. It also gives those blithering blond idiots like Dan Rather something simple to report since they couldn't read a financial or science report if it bit them in the ass.

So guess what? Both campaigns are going to beat this horse to death because otherwise we would have to look at how screwed up the world really is...

[Voronwë]

blowback

[Marbus]

Guess what? It looks like all credible sources are now claiming that the documents ARE real. The White House hasn't tried to discredit them because they KNOW THEY ARE REAL! Instead they let all you guys smokin' the Bush crack pipe do it for him.

Marb

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Guess what? It looks like all credible sources are now claiming that the documents ARE real. The White House hasn't tried to discredit them because they KNOW THEY ARE REAL! Instead they let all you guys smokin' the Bush crack pipe do it for him.

Marb

What is this late breaking news. All reports are they are fake.

[Marbus]

Well Dan brought a bunch of people on to discuss, it's on their site now as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ ... 1481.shtml

Marb

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Well Dan brought a bunch of people on to discuss, it's on their site now as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ ... 1481.shtml

Marb

It's Dan and CBS trying to save face.

[Winnow]

CBS has ties to the mafia. Reasonable doubt has been introduced.

This font was not available in the 70's:

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

CBS has ties to the mafia. Reasonable doubt has been introduced.

This font was not available in the 70's:

Please tell me the memos weren't done in Camic Sans. Tell me this was a joke Winnow, please.

[Forthe]

Well Dan brought a bunch of people on to discuss, it's on their site now as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ ... 1481.shtml

Marb

It's Dan and CBS trying to save face.

Please tell me the memos weren't done in Camic Sans. Tell me this was a joke Winnow, please.

FFS man try reading the material before you try rebuking it. The answer to your question was in the story Marbus linked.

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.

[Hesten]

[quote="Midnyte_Ragebringer"]
Well, I guess that's the quandry we are all in at this time of severe division. I also think much of what comes out of your mouth as well as many others on this board is nothing more than leftist propaganda being puked up over and over. /shrug[quote]

Hmmm, i dont live in the US, i cant vote there, so i cant really do much leftist propaganda crap, i just use common sense when posting on these boards, and i STILL dont hear anything remotely resembling intelligence from your posts.
Oh, and before you start saying that im a leftist in another country, the currect party leading Denmark are called "Venstre", which means Left in english, and i did NOT vote for those morons, i would be happy to see them voted out again. So cant really call me leftist

[Kaldaur]

Forthe 1, Midnyte 0.

[Raistin]

....

[Winnow]

CBS News Anchor Dan Rather says many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript – including one from 1968.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style says it has been available since 1931.

The document also has proportional spacing between the letters which didn't exist back then and is something word processors are capable of nowadays. Dan's extremely weak response to that was that we were looking at a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the document and so can't be sure of that. Oh ok. Perhaps he can show the experts a copy that is less than 4 generations removed from photocopiers.

As for the Time New Roman being invented in 1931, that doesn't mean it was in wide use. How many people used Microsoft software in 1979? How many use it now?

It's some nice dirty politics by the democrats. Afterall, it doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as it gets some press.

From CNN:

CBS, which reported on the memos on its "60 Minutes" program, said its experts who examined the documents concluded that they were authentic.

They ostensibly were written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, one of Bush's commanders in 1972 and 1973.

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

The news anchor said "partisan political operatives" are behind much of the criticism, but did not mention that the widow and son of the author of the documents both think some or all of the papers are fraudulent

Asked if he was troubled by the handwriting and document analysts who say some of the typography and spacing did not exist in the early 1970s, Rather said he could not rule out the possibility of a hoax but sees no need for an internal inquiry. "Experts regularly disagree on these kinds of issues every day," he said.

Some CBS employees, who asked not to be identified while questioning their bosses, expressed concern that the network had issued only a terse statement Thursday, when the authenticity of the documents was first questioned and until yesterday had refused to name any of the experts it had consulted or provide an on-the-record spokesman. One staff member, who has examined the documents but did not work on the "60 Minutes" piece, saw potential problems with them. "There's a lot of sentiment that we should do an internal investigation," this person said.

[Thess]

Didn't they have superscript in 1931 and Times new roman in 1939?

[Winnow]

Didn't they have superscript in 1931 and Times new roman in 1939?

Edit: Initial example was Red X'd!

[Kelshara]

t's some nice dirty politics by the democrats. Afterall, it doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as it gets some press.

Coming from a Republican.. and you in particular.. makes that a hillarious statement.

[Forthe]

The document also has proportional spacing between the letters which didn't exist back then and is something word processors are capable of nowadays.

Yes this seems to be as accurate as Fox's claim that superscript was "impossible" for typewriters in the 70's when IBM had introduced a superscript capable typewriter in 1961.

Actually it seems this is less acurate. IBM's first typewriter with proportional spacing was introduced in 1941. Richard Nixon's letter of resignation used proportional spacing for you history buffs.

As to the other silly thing I've seen pointed out as "proof" the documents are forgeries, curled apostraphe were available since at least 1953. Notice the nice curving apostraphe in the add featuring proportional spacing

[Winnow]

The document also has proportional spacing between the letters which didn't exist back then and is something word processors are capable of nowadays.

Yes this seems to be as accurate as Fox's claim that superscript was "impossible" for typewriters in the 70's when IBM had introduced a superscript capable typewriter in 1961.

Actually it seems this is less acurate. IBM's first typewriter with proportional spacing was introduced in 1941. Richard Nixon's letter of resignation used proportional spacing for you history buffs.

As to the other silly thing I've seen pointed out as "proof" the documents are forgeries, curled apostraphe were available since at least 1953. Notice the nice curving apostraphe in the add featuring proportional spacing

Just because something has been introduced doesn't mean it was widespread. Care to dig up some stats on how many people used these at the time and if they were standard issue?

That's like saying we had computers back in the 70's. While true, about one in 20,000,000 had them.

Perhaps with the originals (conveniently unsigned) experts could analyze the paper, ink etc to further determine if they are at least the proper age.

[Marbus]

On the actual news program tonight they showed their docuemnts and documents released from the White House from Bush's record. Both had the same type, both had the same "th" etc...

Marb

[Winnow]

On the actual news program tonight they showed their docuemnts and documents released from the White House from Bush's record. Both had the same type, both had the same "th" etc...

Marb

Nice examples for the evil doers to base the forgeries on.

A handwriting expert says the two signatures on purported Texas National Guard memos aired by CBS News this week are not those of President Bush's squadron commander, as asserted by "60 Minutes."
Until now, press scrutiny of the memos supposedly written by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian focused on the finding that the documents were, in the opinion of experts, produced by computers not yet in use in the early 1970s.
Eugene P. Hussey, a certified forensic document examiner in Washington state, said yesterday there is another flaw in the CBS memos. Mr. Hussey studied the known signatures of Col. Killian on Air Force documents, and two signatures on documents dated 1972 and 1973 that aired on "60 Minutes" Wednesday night.

"It is my limited opinion that Killian did not sign those documents," Mr. Hussey told The Washington Times. He said he uses the phrase "limited opinion" because he does not have the original documents. He, like other experts interviewed by the press, relied on copies of originals first obtained by CBS. The White House then distributed copies of the memos in what is said was the interest of full disclosure.

The Times noticed differences in the two sets of signatures and asked Mr. Hussey to do an evaluation.
The Times provided Mr. Hussey with copies of the CBS documents, which he dubbed Q-1-3, and records known to have been signed by Col. Killian, (K-1-3).
"It is my opinion based on the examination of the Q-1 through Q-3 and K-1 through K-3, that Jerry B. Killian probably did not sign his name to Q-1 and his initial to Q-3," Mr. Hussey said in a signed letter to The Times. "As to the authenticity of the CBS documents, that is Q-1 through Q-3, [they] appear to be product of a computer, rather than a typewriter."

A Washington Times computer expert retyped one of the CBS memos in Microsoft Word. He then superimposed the two documents, which appeared to make a perfect match, character by character.

The "60 Minutes" broadcast Wednesday did not produce any witness who had seen the documents around the time Col. Killian supposedly wrote them. It interviewed one former Guardsman, a college professor, who seemed to back the contention that Col. Killian was not happy with Mr. Bush for failing take an annual physical. CBS did not produce any of the experts on which it said it relied to authenticate the memos, nor did it say whether it had the originals.
Defense Department records show that in 1973 Col. Killian praised Mr. Bush's performance and approved his honorable discharge.

Col. Killian's widow and his son, who served in the Texas Guard, both rebut the CBS report. They told ABC News they knew of no such "personal file" and did not provide the memos to "60 Minutes II."
There is another problem with the "60 Minutes" broadcast. Mr. Rather showcased Ben Barnes, a longtime Texas Democrat and a major fund-raiser for John F. Kerry, Mr. Bush's opponent in the presidential race.

Mr. Barnes, who Republicans say has told conflicting stories about Mr. Bush and the Guard, said he made a phone call to the now-deceased Texas National Guard commander in 1968 to help the Yale graduate avoid the draft by getting in the Guard.
On Thursday, Mr. Barnes' daughter, Amy Barnes Stites, called WBAP, a Texas news talk radio station, to say her father had told her a different story in 2000.
"I love my father very much, but he's doing this for purely political reasons," Mrs. Stites said. "He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And the [Bush story] is what he's leading the book off with. ... He denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out [of the draft]. Now he's saying he did."
Asked by host Monica Crowley if she believes her father lied on "60 Minutes ," Mrs. Stites answered, "Yes, I do. I absolutely do."

[Aruman]

The document also has proportional spacing between the letters which didn't exist back then and is something word processors are capable of nowadays.

Yes this seems to be as accurate as Fox's claim that superscript was "impossible" for typewriters in the 70's when IBM had introduced a superscript capable typewriter in 1961.

Actually it seems this is less acurate. IBM's first typewriter with proportional spacing was introduced in 1941. Richard Nixon's letter of resignation used proportional spacing for you history buffs.

As to the other silly thing I've seen pointed out as "proof" the documents are forgeries, curled apostraphe were available since at least 1953. Notice the nice curving apostraphe in the add featuring proportional spacing

That's all well and good Forth, but I seriously doubt the military went to the trouble and expense of making this kind of typewriter standard throughout the military, and certainly not for the National Guard.

I'm still sitting in the fence on this issue, but starting to tip over in favor of the Republicans here.

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this. If these documents are proved to be false... Kerry may as well just forget any possibilty of being elected. Now, or in the future.

I'd be interested in comparing memo's completed by his commander from the same time frame that are not related to Bush.

Compare the type etc from those to these recent documents related to Bush's service.

If they don't match, obviously something is wrong.

[Kelshara]

Just because something has been introduced doesn't mean it was widespread.

haha so first it was impossible to be true because it didn't exist.. erh proven wrong! And then it suddenly isn't widespread! Flip-flopper! This sounds exactly like the flip-flopping about reason for the war!

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this. If these documents are proved to be false... Kerry may as well just forget any possibilty of being elected. Now, or in the future

Most likely, although it didn't stop Bush from going to war on forged papers (Hi nuclear sales paper!). But I guess once again it is worse if a Democrat does something.. I mean, it's not like Bush didn't send men to die for his ones!

[Aruman]

Just because something has been introduced doesn't mean it was widespread.

haha so first it was impossible to be true because it didn't exist.. erh proven wrong! And then it suddenly isn't widespread! Flip-flopper! This sounds exactly like the flip-flopping about reason for the war!

Something just doesn't sit right with me about this. If these documents are proved to be false... Kerry may as well just forget any possibilty of being elected. Now, or in the future

Most likely, although it didn't stop Bush from going to war on forged papers (Hi nuclear sales paper!). But I guess once again it is worse if a Democrat does something.. I mean, it's not like Bush didn't send men to die for his ones!

All I am saying is it seems the Democrats are way too eager to jump on any little thing to try to discredit Bush.

I don't recall the thread, but it was relating how the Democrats were handling the currrent situation. In other words, the Kerry campaign is being reactive instead of proactive. It may be too late for the Kerry campaign to recover.

President Bush to my knowledge has not said anything negative about Kerry's Vietnam service, in fact has praised Kerry for his service.

Kerry on the other hand seems to be focused on bad-mouthing Bush for his service. I half expect to see Kerry on national television sucking his thumb and holding a security blanket every time I see Kerry saying things like this. Not really, but I think you get the idea.

Kerry's campaign is being hurt by his bad-mouthing President Bush's service record.

[Kylere]

The first guy to call the legitimacy of the documents into question was a lifelong Democrat and Kerry supporter, some loser with thte largest collection of typewriters in the world or something, you can easily google it.

[Siji]

The first guy to call the legitimacy of the documents into question was a lifelong Democrat and Kerry supporter, some loser with thte largest collection of typewriters in the world or something, you can easily google it.

I'd have a problem with trusting the sanity of someone who collects.. typewriters.

[Kelshara]

Kerry on the other hand seems to be focused on bad-mouthing Bush for his service.

You know, I saw quite a bit of the speeches made around here in Ohio lately and I didn't see anything about him badmouthing Bush' service. I saw him badmouthing Bush' political decissions though, which is fine. I think media on both sides blow up the whole military deal more than the candidates themself do.

[Metanis]

They keep trying to find dirt on Bush...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... itsreports

CBS News again defended its reporting Sunday, even as other media raised doubts about the authenticity of memos the network uncovered about President Bush (news - web sites)'s service in the Texas Air National Guard.

IMHO

CBS and Dan Rather really look bad. Meanwhile, the problem with the credibility of the documents blunts any negative impact to Bush.

The average person probably just rolls their eyes and sighs.

And once again we see the bias... the New York Times took days to publish a story about Swift Boats Vets but they jumped on this anti-Bush story in a heartbeat. Front page news the day it broke... LOL.

I think there is a winner in this all... Fox News probably gained a few more viewers from CBS.

[Markulas]

Anyone else feel that most networks tend to shift a little to the left and then Fox leans way to the right to gain all the Republican popularity; therefore all the other networks just really split up the Democratic vote(kinda like Nader).

[Marbus]

If it's fake why hasn't the White House come out and said it's fake? They would know right? I mean if it wasn't true then they SHOULD have no problems saying so... so why haven't they?

Marb

PS - Because it IS true

[Thess]

They keep trying to find dirt on Bush...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... itsreports

CBS News again defended its reporting Sunday, even as other media raised doubts about the authenticity of memos the network uncovered about President Bush (news - web sites)'s service in the Texas Air National Guard.

And once again we see the bias... the New York Times took days to publish a story about Swift Boats Vets but they jumped on this anti-Bush story in a heartbeat. Front page news the day it broke... LOL.

Funny, I remember the NYTimes 'breaking' the story of white water and for about a year (until both Bill and Hillary were cleared) having front page articles about it pointing to their guilt in the matter.

The NYTimes is more liberal then most newspaper, but trust me it's far from liberal.

[Metanis]

... the New York Times took days to publish a story about Swift Boats Vets but they jumped on this anti-Bush story in a heartbeat. Front page news the day it broke... LOL.

Funny, I remember the NYTimes 'breaking' the story of white water and for about a year (until both Bill and Hillary were cleared) having front page articles about it pointing to their guilt in the matter.

The NYTimes is more liberal then most newspaper, but trust me it's far from liberal.

Whitewater is so totally NOT germane to this situation. LOL. For one thing the NYT had no use for the Clintons in 1992. He wasn't one of "theirs".

Since you concede the NYT is biased doesn't that cast a pall over the objectivity of it's news reporting for YOU? Knowing it's biased is one thing, but do you recognize you are being spoonfed an agenda?

[Acies]

Unlike Bush's agendas?

Unlike him illegally taking office?

Unlike Fox news reporting false information about florida during the 2000 election because Bush had the l33t contacts?

Unlike him sending people to their death in Iraq to depose someone harmless to us under the guise of "freedom and life", when there is fucking GENOCIDE going on in Sudan?

Unlike him destroying our foregin policy?

Unlike him putting our national forests up for logging?

Unlike him getting fantastically wealthy, while Americans get dead to get him there?

Frankly, I say let's see what Kerry can do. I am unwilling to watch this redneck dipshit destroy my country.

[Thess]

... the New York Times took days to publish a story about Swift Boats Vets but they jumped on this anti-Bush story in a heartbeat. Front page news the day it broke... LOL.

Funny, I remember the NYTimes 'breaking' the story of white water and for about a year (until both Bill and Hillary were cleared) having front page articles about it pointing to their guilt in the matter.

The NYTimes is more liberal then most newspaper, but trust me it's far from liberal.

Whitewater is so totally NOT germane to this situation. LOL. For one thing the NYT had no use for the Clintons in 1992. He wasn't one of "theirs".

Since you concede the NYT is biased doesn't that cast a pall over the objectivity of it's news reporting for YOU? Knowing it's biased is one thing, but do you recognize you are being spoonfed an agenda?

While I'm a big believer in the news being in a terrible state atm - I don't think a newspaper having a mixture of liberals and conservatives writing for it (like the NYTimes has) is a bad thing.

Don't you find Fox news having an agenda a bad thing? Saying things like, 'some people say.' and having a ratio of 5-1 republican to democrat guests. Also any liberal who shows they aren't easily pushed over - never gets an invite back.

And don't tell me, 'they have Colmes' - sticking the black hole of charisma next to a very charismatic man, doesn't exactly get the liberal point across.

[Tenuvil]

The documents are clearly forgeries.

No fucking way did a piss-ant Air Force Reserve office in Texas have typewriters with variable spacing technology in 1972. The biggest corporations in the world didn't use them at that time. Nor was the whole WYSIWYG word processing thing a twinkle in someone's eye then. The only way those documents could have been produced that way in 1972 is if they were typeset using metal type and printed in a print shop, which again wouldn't happen.

These were crude and quick forgeries plain and simple. I do however think it's highly amusing that people forget that computers haven't been around forever and try to pass something like this off as authentic without having a clue about the technological context of the time they were to have been from.

I think it's sad that both sides are resorting to this shit. Forged memos to discredit Bush, the "Swift Boat Veterans" thing being bankrolled by Bush, all the dirty tricks and political intrigue, it just makes me ill. Fuck em all.

[Metanis]

Don't you find Fox news

Did I even mention Fox News?

We don't get Fox where I live. I watch Fox News maybe 4 times a year when I have traveled to somewhere else.

[Tenuvil]

Unlike him illegally taking office?

Oh my fucking Christ go back to your Civics class or brush up on your American election law. Because of the electoral system used to elect Presidents in the US, it is possible for a candidate to have a popular majority yet lose based on electoral votes. As we all know this happened in 2000. It happened one other time in the 19th century if I recall.

Let me repeat this reaaallly slow for you. IT WASN'T ILLEGAL. The process followed the law to the letter. Sorry if you don't like the outcome.

PS: I think Bush is a fundie tool that can't tie his shoes without help and I blame the Dems for putting Bush into office in 2000 by running the damaged android called Gor(e) against him.

[Metanis]

Unlike him illegally taking office?

Oh my fucking Christ go back to your Civics class or brush up on your American election law. Because of the electoral system used to elect Presidents in the US, it is possible for a candidate to have a popular majority yet lose based on electoral votes. As we all know this happened in 2000. It happened one other time in the 19th century if I recall.

Let me repeat this reaaallly slow for you. IT WASN'T ILLEGAL. The process followed the law to the letter. Sorry if you don't like the outcome.

Not to mention that every single recount gave Bush the win. Reality is a tough thing for the pussy liberal crybabies.

[Thess]

Unlike him illegally taking office?

Oh my fucking Christ go back to your Civics class or brush up on your American election law. Because of the electoral system used to elect Presidents in the US, it is possible for a candidate to have a popular majority yet lose based on electoral votes. As we all know this happened in 2000. It happened one other time in the 19th century if I recall.

Let me repeat this reaaallly slow for you. IT WASN'T ILLEGAL. The process followed the law to the letter. Sorry if you don't like the outcome.

PS: I think Bush is a fundie tool that can't tie his shoes without help and I blame the Dems for putting Bush into office in 2000 by running the damaged android called Gor(e) against him.

Actually you are wrong. The united states supreme court declared who our president was - going around florida state law and stopping the recount.