Pickens throws the gaunlet down

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sadly, if everything the swiftboaters said about Kerry were true, he would still have vastly outshone Bush as a President. It might be the difference, say, between a bum and a worthless piece of slime.

Yay! Only took 2 posts to start bashing Bush!

Yeah, how could Bush possibly be relevant in a discussion about the 2004 election? Was he in it or something?

YEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWW! <-- Dean scream.

Hey, he was in the '04 primaries along with Kerry. I guess that makes him a topic of discussion as well.

:roll:

Fuggin BDS afflicted tools in this place. Ridiculous.

Speaking of tools, you need your blades sharpened as you are getting rather dull.

BTW what's with bringing up Kerry's War Record now that he's not even revelant regarding the Presidential Race? Must be a bad case of KDS or DDS.

 

[Gaard]

He should just release everything. Same goes for Bush.

There was a big deal over both of their service records. All they had to do was be honest and release everything. Both of them.

Maybe releasing your service records shouldn't be a requirement if you're running for POTUS, but honesty should.

 

[Pabster]

Let's bring out ALL the records. Hillary's too. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sadly, if everything the swiftboaters said about Kerry were true, he would still have vastly outshone Bush as a President. It might be the difference, say, between a bum and a worthless piece of slime.

Yay! Only took 2 posts to start bashing Bush!

Yeah, how could Bush possibly be relevant in a discussion about the 2004 election? Was he in it or something?

YEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWW! <-- Dean scream.

Hey, he was in the '04 primaries along with Kerry. I guess that makes him a topic of discussion as well.

:roll:

Fuggin BDS afflicted tools in this place. Ridiculous.

Speaking of tools, you need your blades sharpened as you are getting rather dull.

BTW what's with bringing up Kerry's War Record now that he's not even revelant regarding the Presidential Race? Must be a bad case of KDS or DDS.

If he's not relevant then why is the term "swiftboating" used here in P&N on occassion?

Or maybe every time someone uses that term I should exclaim that Kerry is no longer relevant so the term is not valid? Isn't that how it works?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The funniest thing is that Kerry still hasn't released his records, the only assumption one can make is that he's covering up a dishonorable discharge for his anti-war efforts.

Did someone forget their < sarcasm > < /sarcasm > tags? If he'd been dishonorably discharged, don't you think everyone would know about it? :roll:

Well Harvey, then I can't think of a reason he didn't/won't release his records then.

The charge is he was dishonorably discharged & that Carter fixed it for him, releasing the records would go a long way towards disproving that allegation.

Anyway, it's a moot point, he didn't and he lost Kinda suck to have lost to Bush, huh?

When I lost all respect for the fool (Kerry) was that staged goose hunt. Text

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If he's not relevant then why is the term "swiftboating" used here in P&N on occassion?

Nixon is no longer relevant yet people still put the -gate suffix on everything.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Let's bring out ALL the records. Hillary's too. :laugh:

That's funny?

 

[jman19]

With this "challenge" offered so late after the fact, this just seems like a lame stunt.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sadly, if everything the swiftboaters said about Kerry were true, he would still have vastly outshone Bush as a President. It might be the difference, say, between a bum and a worthless piece of slime.

Yay! Only took 2 posts to start bashing Bush!

Yeah, how could Bush possibly be relevant in a discussion about the 2004 election? Was he in it or something?

YEEEEOOOOOOOOWWWWW! <-- Dean scream.

Hey, he was in the '04 primaries along with Kerry. I guess that makes him a topic of discussion as well.

:roll:

Fuggin BDS afflicted tools in this place. Ridiculous.

Only if you are an idiot it does.

Dean didn't have anything to do with the election when this happened. Bush certainly did, and likely had at least some cursory connections with the swift boat people. Don't be dense.

Nice "hurf blurf BDS" post though.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Pabster
Let's bring out ALL the records. Hillary's too. :laugh:

That's funny?

Yep, because you know as well as I do that they'll never appear.

 

[Gaard]

First of all, I'm not sure what records we're talking about. What records does Hillary have?

Second of all, if she does indeed have any sort of sealed records, IMO they should be available to the public if she's seeking to be our leader.

And finally, if she does refuse to make public any sort of records (again, I have no idea what records you're referring to), I would tend to be more puzzled and suspicious, not humored.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
First of all, I'm not sure what records we're talking about. What records does Hillary have?

Second of all, if she does indeed have any sort of sealed records, IMO they should be available to the public if she's seeking to be our leader.

And finally, if she does refuse to make public any sort of records (again, I have no idea what records you're referring to), I would tend to be more puzzled and suspicious, not humored.

The rant about Hillary's records deals primarily with the 1,000+ pages of transcripts, emails, memos, et al. from her "Health Care Task Force" circa 1993. None of that has been made available, and Bill has it all locked up until (conveniently) well after the '08 Election.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Pabster
Let's bring out ALL the records. Hillary's too. :laugh:

That's funny?

Angelman syndrome.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
First of all, I'm not sure what records we're talking about. What records does Hillary have?

Second of all, if she does indeed have any sort of sealed records, IMO they should be available to the public if she's seeking to be our leader.

And finally, if she does refuse to make public any sort of records (again, I have no idea what records you're referring to), I would tend to be more puzzled and suspicious, not humored.

The rant about Hillary's records deals primarily with the 1,000+ pages of transcripts, emails, memos, et al. from her "Health Care Task Force" circa 1993. None of that has been made available, and Bill has it all locked up until (conveniently) well after the '08 Election.

Sounds like someone's been reading too many right wing blogs/RNC announcements.

You just have no idea how this stuff works do you? Those records are not the property of the Clintons, they are subject to the presidential records act, are the property of the US government and held by the National Archives. Bill couldn't block their release even if he wanted to, he has zero control over them.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
First of all, I'm not sure what records we're talking about. What records does Hillary have?

Second of all, if she does indeed have any sort of sealed records, IMO they should be available to the public if she's seeking to be our leader.

And finally, if she does refuse to make public any sort of records (again, I have no idea what records you're referring to), I would tend to be more puzzled and suspicious, not humored.

The rant about Hillary's records deals primarily with the 1,000+ pages of transcripts, emails, memos, et al. from her "Health Care Task Force" circa 1993. None of that has been made available, and Bill has it all locked up until (conveniently) well after the '08 Election.

Sounds like someone's been reading too many right wing blogs/RNC announcements.

You just have no idea how this stuff works do you? Those records are not the property of the Clintons, they are subject to the presidential records act, are the property of the US government and held by the National Archives. Bill couldn't block their release even if he wanted to, he has zero control over them.

The National Archives may control the records; however, the opinions of a president has a major influence in the handling.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
First of all, I'm not sure what records we're talking about. What records does Hillary have?

Second of all, if she does indeed have any sort of sealed records, IMO they should be available to the public if she's seeking to be our leader.

And finally, if she does refuse to make public any sort of records (again, I have no idea what records you're referring to), I would tend to be more puzzled and suspicious, not humored.

The rant about Hillary's records deals primarily with the 1,000+ pages of transcripts, emails, memos, et al. from her "Health Care Task Force" circa 1993. None of that has been made available, and Bill has it all locked up until (conveniently) well after the '08 Election.

Sounds like someone's been reading too many right wing blogs/RNC announcements.

You just have no idea how this stuff works do you? Those records are not the property of the Clintons, they are subject to the presidential records act, are the property of the US government and held by the National Archives. Bill couldn't block their release even if he wanted to, he has zero control over them.

The National Archives may control the records; however, the opinions of a president has a major influence in the handling.

Did you read the letter he sent? Man you guys are reaching this time. Should I start spouting off "HURR HURR CDS" or something every time something like this comes up? They have not blocked the release of a single document.

 

[Stoneburner]

So, once again we have conservative trash, and bisexual freaks like chickenboy, attacking john kerry's service despite the fact the the swiftboat people were proven to be FALSE. The same bunch of deviants that attacked anybody who mentioned Bush being drunk and MIA when he was protecting tejas from the mexican airforce.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You just have no idea how this stuff works do you? Those records are not the property of the Clintons, they are subject to the presidential records act, are the property of the US government and held by the National Archives. Bill couldn't block their release even if he wanted to, he has zero control over them.

And you're either misinformed, naive, or a Clinton apologist. I'm gonna guess all of the above.

The Presidential Records Act gives him until 2012 to release anything. But it doesn't force him to wait until 2012. He can start to release things immediately. And some of it has been released, but nothing related to the 1993 Health Care Task Force.

Perhaps you missed the debate before Las Vegas the other night where Tim Russert was holding the letter in his hand, signed by Bill Clinton, ordering the National Archives to hold many records until 2012.

The look on Hillary's face when Russert held up the letter pretty much told it all.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: kage69
Smells like a stunt, but regardless I think Kerry should do it with the caveat that he shouldn't let his critics take possession of his memoirs and keepsakes. We've already seen what political opponents and critics will stoop to in order to malign his service.

Speaking of cash induced historical validation, did anyone ever collect that prize money offered for validation that Bush ever set foot on the Alabama base he was transfered to from the TANG? Or has everyone accepted the notion that our chickenhawk in chief went AWOL and they just don't care?

I guess it would just be refreshing to see, just once, Bush fans hold him to the same standard they do Kerry.

But they don't hold Bush remotely to the same standard. The Swiftboaters malign Kerry's medals - which Kerry had no control over the awarding of. In other words, the Swiftboaters are saying that Kerry's superiors overstated his heroism, as if that's a slam against Kerry. No one disputes that Kerry was regularly in harms way during the Viet Nam war.

But the issue with Bush is whether he even bothered to show up for his totally risk-free stateside service.

How can anyone remotely compare the records of the two?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You just have no idea how this stuff works do you? Those records are not the property of the Clintons, they are subject to the presidential records act, are the property of the US government and held by the National Archives. Bill couldn't block their release even if he wanted to, he has zero control over them.

And you're either misinformed, naive, or a Clinton apologist. I'm gonna guess all of the above.

The Presidential Records Act gives him until 2012 to release anything. But it doesn't force him to wait until 2012. He can start to release things immediately. And some of it has been released, but nothing related to the 1993 Health Care Task Force.

Perhaps you missed the debate before Las Vegas the other night where Tim Russert was holding the letter in his hand, signed by Bill Clinton, ordering the National Archives to hold many records until 2012.

The look on Hillary's face when Russert held up the letter pretty much told it all.

Poor poor pabster, reading too many right wing blogs again I see. I'll quote the relevant part from Factcheck.org. What's interesting is that there were plenty of other things to bash Hillary about from this debate, as mentioned in this article... you guys were just dumb enough to pick the one she's actually right on.

These statements prompted us to dive back into Bill Clinton?s 2002 letter to the Archives and similar letters from his two immediate predecessors, and to talk to some more experts in this small crevice of the law. We realized that the area of confusion for us ? and perhaps for other journalists ? was the wording of this sentence: ?nformation should generally be considered for withholding only if it contains?..? The section goes on to list eight categories, one of which involves his communications with his wife as well as with his family and his wife?s.

We originally read the sentence as putting a lock on the documents. That isn?t the case, as we note in our revised section in the body of the article above. The bottleneck is at the lightly staffed Archives. It of course remains possible that Bill Clinton could yet block the release of any or all communications between himself and the First Lady, but that hasn?t happened yet It remains to be seen whether any of this material will surface before the election.
But Russert was wrong, and so were we Bill Clinton, in Redmond, called Russert?s question ?breathtakingly misleading,? and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment.

Thanks for playing. I'm sure you're now going to call factcheck.org biased or something though.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Gaard
First of all, I'm not sure what records we're talking about. What records does Hillary have?

Second of all, if she does indeed have any sort of sealed records, IMO they should be available to the public if she's seeking to be our leader.

And finally, if she does refuse to make public any sort of records (again, I have no idea what records you're referring to), I would tend to be more puzzled and suspicious, not humored.

The rant about Hillary's records deals primarily with the 1,000+ pages of transcripts, emails, memos, et al. from her "Health Care Task Force" circa 1993. None of that has been made available, and Bill has it all locked up until (conveniently) well after the '08 Election.

Let's have Cheney release all the records from the Energy task force he's been so adamant about keeping secret.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: kage69
Smells like a stunt, but regardless I think Kerry should do it with the caveat that he shouldn't let his critics take possession of his memoirs and keepsakes. We've already seen what political opponents and critics will stoop to in order to malign his service.

Speaking of cash induced historical validation, did anyone ever collect that prize money offered for validation that Bush ever set foot on the Alabama base he was transfered to from the TANG? Or has everyone accepted the notion that our chickenhawk in chief went AWOL and they just don't care?

I guess it would just be refreshing to see, just once, Bush fans hold him to the same standard they do Kerry.

But they don't hold Bush remotely to the same standard. The Swiftboaters malign Kerry's medals - which Kerry had no control over the awarding of. In other words, the Swiftboaters are saying that Kerry's superiors overstated his heroism, as if that's a slam against Kerry. No one disputes that Kerry was regularly in harms way during the Viet Nam war.

But the issue with Bush is whether he even bothered to show up for his totally risk-free stateside service.

How can anyone remotely compare the records of the two?

You do realize, of course, that because you have to ask a question of such simple, elementary and obvious logic, that you are in fact addressing it to imbeciles.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: shira
Let's have Cheney release all the records from the Energy task force he's been so adamant about keeping secret.

Cheney is still in office. Bill and Hillary aren't. See the difference? :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Poor poor pabster, reading too many right wing blogs again I see. I'll quote the relevant part from Factcheck.org. What's interesting is that there were plenty of other things to bash Hillary about from this debate, as mentioned in this article... you guys were just dumb enough to pick the one she's actually right on.

These statements prompted us to dive back into Bill Clinton?s 2002 letter to the Archives and similar letters from his two immediate predecessors, and to talk to some more experts in this small crevice of the law. We realized that the area of confusion for us ? and perhaps for other journalists ? was the wording of this sentence: ?nformation should generally be considered for withholding only if it contains?..? The section goes on to list eight categories, one of which involves his communications with his wife as well as with his family and his wife?s.

We originally read the sentence as putting a lock on the documents. That isn?t the case, as we note in our revised section in the body of the article above. The bottleneck is at the lightly staffed Archives. It of course remains possible that Bill Clinton could yet block the release of any or all communications between himself and the First Lady, but that hasn?t happened yet It remains to be seen whether any of this material will surface before the election.
But Russert was wrong, and so were we Bill Clinton, in Redmond, called Russert?s question ?breathtakingly misleading,? and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment.

Thanks for playing. I'm sure you're now going to call factcheck.org biased or something though.

So what's the hold up? If FactCheck is right here in their interpretation of Slick's letter, where are the records? 2002 was a long time ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Poor poor pabster, reading too many right wing blogs again I see. I'll quote the relevant part from Factcheck.org. What's interesting is that there were plenty of other things to bash Hillary about from this debate, as mentioned in this article... you guys were just dumb enough to pick the one she's actually right on.

These statements prompted us to dive back into Bill Clinton?s 2002 letter to the Archives and similar letters from his two immediate predecessors, and to talk to some more experts in this small crevice of the law. We realized that the area of confusion for us ? and perhaps for other journalists ? was the wording of this sentence: ?nformation should generally be considered for withholding only if it contains?..? The section goes on to list eight categories, one of which involves his communications with his wife as well as with his family and his wife?s.

We originally read the sentence as putting a lock on the documents. That isn?t the case, as we note in our revised section in the body of the article above. The bottleneck is at the lightly staffed Archives. It of course remains possible that Bill Clinton could yet block the release of any or all communications between himself and the First Lady, but that hasn?t happened yet It remains to be seen whether any of this material will surface before the election.
But Russert was wrong, and so were we Bill Clinton, in Redmond, called Russert?s question ?breathtakingly misleading,? and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment.

Thanks for playing. I'm sure you're now going to call factcheck.org biased or something though.

So what's the hold up? If FactCheck is right here in their interpretation of Slick's letter, where are the records? 2002 was a long time ago.

The quote I just gave you already told you that.