Easy One

Kerry needs to ask this Austin-based site to take down this video. Even though Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes has every right to speak his mind about this, the official Kerry campaign should not be promoting his statements.

The timing here is also particularly transparent.

Comments

[rilkefan]

I kinda thought so too - mostly because it might confuse the issue of who's going negative on war records - but do you have a more reasoned, high-toned objection?

[EDG]

Edward, I'm getting timeouts when I try to go to http://www.austin4kerry.org/. Any thoughts?

[Bernard Yomtov]

It doesn't seem so easy to me. Could we have reasons, or at least the explanation rilkefan wants as to whether your objection is tactical or ethical?

[Blue]

"mostly because it might confuse the issue of who's going negative on war records "

Is that a serious comment? I can't believe that it is after years of having to hear about Bush's NG record.

[wilfred]

edward, it says right on the site they are not affiliated with the Kerry campaign, they are independent citizens speaking their minds. it's what bloggers do, especially wonderful austinites (i'm partial, i went to college there).

[Chuchundra]

Kerry should ask them to take his likenesses off the site and to name their group something without his name in it. Then he could mention, at every opportunity, how what their doing is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

In the mean time, the group might want to invest in better servers.

[Blue]

Chu,

Do you support the Swift Boats?

Just checking

[Blue]

Chu,

Do you support the Swift Boats ads?

Just checking...

[Chuchundra]

Well, I haven't sent them any money...if that's what you mean.

I'd certainly prefer that this election be about issues and not nasty, partisan, smear campaigns. Since that's out the window now, you can't expect the Kerry supporters to unilaterally disarm. I mean, you can expect it, but it's not going to happen.

It's all a big kabuki dance. The smear merchants will do their dirty work and Kerry will condemn it in the strongest possible terms. But the story will still be out there, winding it's way through the media, doing whatever damage it can. Hey man, gotta love the first ammendment.

For the anti-Kerry forces to bring the not-so-swifties into the limelight was stupid, stupid, stupid. There's absolutely nothing there and now it's open season on the Bush TANG imbroglio, in the interest of "fairness"

[JadeGold]

What's the fuss? Barnes' assistance in getting the young Bush into the TANG has been a matter of public record for a number of years. IIRC, Barnes provided that fact in a deposition several years back.

[Blue]

Chu,

That's a good one...

"now it's open season on the Bush TANG imbroglio"

Where have you been for the last few years?

Or maybe now it's open season on Cheney/Halliburton...

[Edward]

Edward, I'm getting timeouts when I try to go to http://www.austin4kerry.org/. Any thoughts?

I am now too...try this one: http://69.59.167.160/

I kinda thought so too - mostly because it might confuse the issue of who's going negative on war records - but do you have a more reasoned, high-toned objection?

It weakens Kerry's argument that attacks on his record are inappropriate.

Way back during the "Bush was AWOL" hoopla, I argued again and again that, as he's served as commander-in-chief for the past 4 years or so, looking back to his service during Vietnam to determine whether he was qualified was silly. Face it, that horse has left the stable. He's been doing the job. The question now is not whether he's qualified on paper, but how he's been performing in the job.

I believe he's an awful commander-in-chief, and perhaps his lack of having faced combat informs why that is partly (but even that's a stretch)*, but folks aren't framing the debate on that subtlety, and, again, to suggest a man who's been doing the job for nearly 4 years doesn't have the resume to do the job makes anyone arguing that look silly.

*I believe it's because he's over his head and taking advice from ideologues who jumped on 9/11 to provide cover for a plan they've wanted any excuse to implement for years.

[Blue]

Edward,

While I disagree with the conclusion you reach that would have been a far better strategy to gain the undecided vote. Good post, I hope no one from the Kerry camp is looking in... ; -)

I do think that one reason that Bush is successful in defeating his opponents is that they underestimate his intelligence. I would say that assumption has already cost the Dem's in a big way and it will do so in the coming election.

Remember, how Gore was supposed to crush Bush in the debates because he was so much better informed "smarter" than Bush. Remember, how that never happened.

[JadeGold]

Edward: The issue of how Bush got into the TANG is immaterial to the issue of whether or not he is qualified to be CinC. And I don't believe that's the argument being made by those who question Bush's spotty NG record.

It is material, however, to a pattern throughout Bush's life: that he's been given opportunities, unavailable to most, based on his family's name. And, without exception, he's failed to succeed despite these advantages. Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard once neatly summed it up: " And this, basically, is the story of the spectacular unfairness with which moneymaking opportunities are lavished on the politically connected. It is the story of a man who has been rewarded for repeated failures by having money shot at him through a fire hose. It is the story of a man who talks with a straight face about having "earned" a fortune of tens of millions of dollars, without having ever done an honest day’s work in his life."

[Haven]

Now, did the military say something about Bush's mental state when he is placed under pressure?

(Those 7 minutes in the kindergarten class where he looks like a scared doe and his fear of being directly questioned)

Bush’s missing year and the military reports about it might reveal another type of man who enjoys playing warrior.

[Bernard Yomtov]

It weakens Kerry's argument that attacks on his record are inappropriate.

BFD.

Inappropriate does not mean ineffective. Do you want a nice polite high-minded campaign, or a winning one?

Look, Kerry's Swift Boat strategy isn't working. Instead of aggressively refuting the charges and calling these scumbags the liars they are, he's asking Bush to denounce them, and complaining about campaign finance issues. Nobody cares.

Barnes' statement is truthful and heartfelt. It ought to be used, not disavowed. Why should a phoney attack cause Kerry to avoid using a legitimate counter-attack?

[carsick]

The Swift Boat attacks on Kerry are inappropriate because they mislead (lie) people in a large number of ways that thankfully some of the mainstream press have illustrated.
Many want the comparisons between Kerry and perfect. The comparison is between Kerry and Bush.
If the formr Lt.Gov. is telling the truth then I don't see the comparison to the SBV.

Let's get back to reality and squash the deceivers quick so the issues can come to the front. If they can't be squashed quick then let's review BOTH candidate's histories.

[Blue]

Jade,

You analysis is an excellent example of Edwards point.

I can see how this is a huge material issue for you, but do you really think making that point is going to win Kerry the election? Do you really think that most people in the middle ar going to buy that line of assault?

Even if what you are saying was 100% true... that dog won't hunt.

Edward is talking about how Kerry can win the election... you however are bashing Bush... I don't think that will be enough to win Kerry the election.

Jade, I encourage you keep going in that direction... that will give us 4 more years of Bush. And I really want him as president to fight this WOT. And maybe to rewrite the tax code.

I read somewhere else, but I can't remember who said it... when those protesters freak out in NYC and are plastered on the front pages and the WWW middle America willl associate them with the Dem's and Kerry is toast.

I'm certain the radical protest in NYC is a plot by Karl Rove. ; -)

[carsick]

JadeGold
"he's failed to succeed despite these advantages"

I disagree. The man did become a governor and President.
Certainly not a good one in my eyes but we've only had 43 presidents in America.

[carsick]

Blue
Going after a candidate's strength is working for Bush and co.
So if Bush's strength is that people see him as a good ol' boy reg'lar American then pointing out how that is a myth may help Kerry.

[Blue]

Carsick,

I don't know where you have been, but they are not getting quashed. It is exactly that logic in the Kerry camp that has made the Swifts so damaging.

What got quashed... the Kerry in Cambodia story, the first Kerry PH by enemy fire story, his testimony when he came back from Vietnam?

Hey, you don't have to believe the stories are true or even relavent, but when you say things like it has all gotten quashed... that is just inaccurate and hurts your own cause.

[carsick]

Blue
Please reread my post. Then tell me that the Switers ad didn't have intentionally misleading statements.
"I served with John Kerry..." OOps. Didn't really.
"I treated John Kerry..." OOps. Didn't really.

And again if you keep repeating those claims then I assume it is because you think it refers to a character issue.
A president who supported Viet NAm but pulled strings to avoid serving in it then refused to live up to the minimal responsabilities that allowed him to avoid being sent overseas looks like a character issue to me.

[carsick]

The sheer amount of print that has gone into reviewing the minutae of Kerry's service is astounding but Bush, during an election cycle, is getting no review of his "service". Amzing.

A little debunking for you Blue. (though I know we will never agree on this issue)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040830-686045,00.html

[JadeGold]

I disagree. The man did become a governor and President.

Only if one defines success as independent of outcome.

but do you really think making that point is going to win Kerry the election? Do you really think that most people in the middle ar going to buy that line of assault?

Absolutely. There's an enormous pattern of failure throughout Bush's life and during his residency in the WH. From "Mission Accomplished" to "We've Turned The Corner," it's a solid record of failure punctuated by grand slogans divorced from reality. This should be--and is--Kerry's campaign theme: Bush's record is one of a long pattern failure. To expect a 180 is, well, foolish.

[carsick]

JadeGold
One is qualitative (how good or bad etc.) and the other quantitative (winning the position of the presidency = success).

I agree with your post otherwise though. I believe history will show that Bush's tenure will be one of the worst in the last 100 years of our democracy from the loss of international standing to irresponsible fiscal policy.

[Blue]

Carsick,

"The sheer amount of print that has gone into reviewing the minutae of Kerry's service is astounding but Bush, during an election cycle, is getting no review of his "service". Amzing."

I agree, but it's not amazing given that Bush's NG record has been under the gun far longer. It actually makes sense.

I read the Time article. It sufficiently muddies the issue, doesn't it? You aren't going to get me to say that I am a Swiftie supporter. I'm not. The only thing the Swifts have validated for me is that Kerry is a shameless opportunist. I imagine he served as well as anyone in Vietnam given the conditions.

But, he used his service and continues to use it in politics. That just doesn't sit well with many.

Jade,

Keep up the good work! ; -)

Kerry can win, but only if his campaign starts following Edwards advice.

[carsick]

Kerry is an opportunist. Yes he had an opportunity to die for our country in a combat zone. The weasel took it. Not only that he was twice decorated for bravery. Teacher's pet.
Bush? He wasn't so ambitious.

[carsick]

Here's an appropraite quote: American's ADMIRE ambition, they also tend to LIKE a goof-off."

Unfortunately I don't want a goof-off-in-chief. November will decide how many others don't either.

[Blue]

Carsick,

I guess the below statement confused you:

"I imagine he served as well as anyone in Vietnam given the conditions."

I wasn't there, but I would think that about all Vietnan Vets.

But, serving in Vietnam or any war for that matter doesn't negate the possibility that he could be a shameless opportunist. We could talk about his wealthy wives if we really wanted to. We could talk about Cambodia seared into his memory speach on the floor. His voting for before voting against... for that matter most of his Congressional record. The fact that we won't give up his seat in Congress to run for President. All these things lend credence to him being too much of an opportunist in my opinion to be president.

[Blue]

Quashed??? Not according to the Post.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/27741.htm

Could it all be wrong... who knows... but quashed I think not.

[carsick]

You seem to think wealthy women are like something you can chose at a car dealership. "Hmm, I'll take a wealthy woman please."
You totally negate that the women were choosing as well and being wealthy they probably had a heck of a lot more choices than the average-income dynamic woman.
(hilzoy can pop in here and attest better than I that woman are living, breathing and discerning human beings themselves.)

His voting for/against the $87m? He was making a point about fiscal responsability (he wanted countering budget cuts to pay for it added to the legislation - if you forgot). Fiscal responsibility seems to no longer be a conservative value though so I guess you're off the hook on that one.

He's always been a moderate liberal and I haven't seen him denying that fact.

Giving up his seat? Dole did it but he was shooting for all or nothing. Dole didn't do it when he ran with Ford against an unknown peanut farmer. Name others who have given up their seat.
Bush didn't resign as governor of Texas.

And Cambodia. Who knows. Lots of folks in swift boats ran missions there whether on Xmas or not. They were illegal and clandestine and unacknowledged. Their record keeping probably reflects that status.

[Blue]

Carsick,

I agree there is always a night and a day.

But, to make my poing again.

"All these things lend credence to him being too much of an opportunist in my opinion to be president."

"You seem to think wealthy women are like something you can chose at a car dealership"

Personally, I picked up mine from a new car dealership... seems Kerry got his used. : -P

[JadeGold]

Blue: Why do I remain unconvinced that Kerry can only win if he follows your advice and basically pretends Bush has done a wonderful job?

Seriously, though, the entire SwiftBoat Smear is desperation on the part of the Bush campaign. As Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard said: ""...Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place."

[Blue]

Jade,

"Why do I remain unconvinced that Kerry can only win if he follows your advice and basically pretends Bush has done a wonderful job?"

Where did I say that? All I said was they would have more luck following Edward's advice... focus on job performance.

I'm voting for Bush because I think the WOT well be fought better by his administration than a Kerry administration. I really don't give a crap what Kerry did in Vietnam.

But, in support of Edwards comments about why Kerry should regroup. He should try to move beyond his own and Bush's NG service if he wants to win.

For reasons like this:

Swift boat ads — An article in Section A on Aug. 20 about Sen. John F. Kerry's response to a veterans group critical of his military record stated that none of the members of the group served on Kerry's patrol boat in Vietnam. Steve Gardner, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was a Kerry crewmate. He was not on Kerry's boat during the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals.

When the Kerry camp makes a mistake like that and the LAT is forced to report it. He needs to move on for his own good.

I admit that I am not "in love" with Bush. I just prefer him to continue fighting the WOT. I could go on and on about where we go our different directions. I can't imagine you agree with Kerry on every issue either.

Edwards post was good this morning because he came at it fom an unemotional perspective and looked at what needs to be done to win... that doesn't seem to be happening alot on the left these days. Most likely, because it is the far left that has gained control and the fringes tend to me more emotional on either side.

[carsick]

An unattributed Op-ed from the Post is your refutation of my statement, they "mislead (lie) people in a large number of ways that thankfully some of the mainstream press have illustrated."
Ha ha ha
Do you think Kerry was so all-powerful that he was able to manipulate the military into decorating him with awards? Particularly something like the Silver Star? If that were the case, we have greater things to worry about in our military than we thought.
And the first PH? Curious how no one else remembers the "witness" being on the boat during that exchange. If they were firing I'm guessing they thought they were under attack or about to be. And by the way, if Schachte supposed claims are true he would have chastised Kerry a bit more than just telling him "you could have poked someone's eye out" when Kerry supposedly used a grenade launcher. If there was no enemy fire as Schachte claims there would also be no military reason to discharge a M-79 grenade launcher.

[carsick]

Blue
Bush and the WoT?
I would have been happier if we had spent $187 billion and counting on the WoT. And utilized our intelligence gathering services and other soldiers when necessary on the WoT. Instead...Iraq.

[JadeGold]

I'm voting for Bush because I think the WOT well be fought better by his administration than a Kerry administration.

What gives you that impression? Certainly not Bush's track record to date.

Therein lies the point; like it or not, when voters elect a President they do so on the totality of that man's record (the exception, of course, are the single issue voters). Bush's life, his tenure in the WH has been a long pattern of failure; whatever position he's held, he's left it in worse shape than when he started.

Edward's point was slightly off; he thinks the Bush/TANG issue is referendum on Bush's qualifications as CinC. And some may believe it is. However, the issue isn't so narrow; it goes to demonstrating the fact Bush receives unearned advantages and doesn't finish, loses interest in, or mismanages those opportunities.

[Blue]

Carsick,

And finally, in your last post you are beginning to do what Edward implied in his post and I have been trying to get you to see.

Argue tactics and stuff all day long... that is the only way Kerry can defeat Bush.

But start talking about the Swifts and it getting quashed and he won't.

[carsick]

Blue
From my very first post in this thread:

"Let's get back to reality and squash the deceivers quick so the issues can come to the front. If they can't be squashed quick then let's review BOTH candidate's histories."

[hilzoy]

"hilzoy can pop in here..."
Nah -- it's a nice lazy afternoon here at Cars R Us, and I can't muster the energy to climb up to those lofty intellectual heights where the financial status of someone's spouse is grounds for an attack on his character, and pointing out that that spouse has been married before counts as a cutting riposte. Why bother?

Vroom vroom.

[carsick]

If you remember it was only a week or so ago that the press was saying Kerry was talking about issues on the campaign trail and "avoiding" the Swifter's allegations. As though it were a bad thing.

If the Bush camgaign is allowed by the press to take pot shots at Kerry until November, the issues will never come to the front. Squash 'em early. And if you can't get the press to pay attention to the issues? Fight fire with fire.

[carsick]

Vroom vroom.

That's what I like about hilzoy: sharp details; drives like she knows the road; and horsepower to spare.

[blue]

Hilzoy... mabye you can have a talk with Jade...

(I just can't imagine how it ever occured to me to talk about him having a wealthy wife)

From Jadegold:
It is the story of a man who has been rewarded for repeated failures by having money shot at him through a fire hose. It is the story of a man who talks with a straight face about having "earned" a fortune of tens of millions of dollars, without having ever done an honest day’s work in his life."

My point in this whole thread has been that these attacks are worthless. I have consistently stated that Edward has a good take on what needs to happen for Kerry to win.

Carsick,

You said:
"Let's get back to reality and squash the deceivers quick so the issues can come to the front. If they can't be squashed quick then let's review BOTH candidate's histories."

It seems I misinterpreted your statement and I apologize for that. (I'm actually working today, if that is any grounds for an excuse.)

But on this comment:

"If the Bush camgaign is allowed by the press to take pot shots at Kerry until November"

Is this opposed to the 60 million already spent at taking pot shots on Bush.

[carsick]

Blue
The "60 million already spent at taking pot shots on Bush" that I have seen have been attacking Bush on POLICY ISSUES. Just as you claim you want to see more of.

I live in a battleground state so I'm pretty sure I've seen a fair amount of ads already.
I never did see a Bush/Hitler tv ad but I heard a lot about one from right wing websites and FOX TV. Could that be because there never was a Bush/Hitler tv ad? Probably.

[Blue]

It didn't make it to T.V.

But Bush has been smeared for about 4 years. Being accused of lieing when one have never been shown to lie is a smear. The list goes on and on...

[carsick]

Blue
So BUSH is allowed to smear because you feel he's been smeared for 4 years.
And, YOU are allowed to trash Kerry's choice in wives because JadeGold paints Bush as unsuccessful inspite of all the money that's been pushed his way.

But...
you think KERRY should remain above the fray and not respond to aspersions cast his way.
A bit "do as I say and not as I do" - don't you think?

[Blue]

Carsick,

After, I take the time to apologize to you for incorrectly intepreting a comment you make how can you come back at me like that?

"So BUSH is allowed to smear because you feel he's been smeared for 4 years."

No!!!!! I have consistently said ALL smearing is bad and should stop! How much clearer can I be? That has been my point in most of my posts today.

But, many in the Kerry camp and this site are acting like the smearing just started. My point is it may have just started for him, but it has been going on quite awhile for Bush.

Again, it should all stop!

"YOU are allowed to trash Kerry's choice in wives because JadeGold paints Bush as unsuccessful inspite of all the money that's been pushed his way."

No, but that really strikes home to the point. How can Jadegold expect his canidate to get a fair shake after he throws things like that out? Do you really believe it is fair to treat Bush that way? If you do then you better expect someone to say, "Kerry has quite a knack for marrying rich women." That kind of behaviour is what is hurting your canidate.

I think you are forgetting what Edward's original post was about. He was critcising smear tactics. As am I.

I feel our real difference here is that as long as it a smear against Bush, which doesn't exist for you, it is okay. My perspective is that a smear against either canidate, and both can exist for me, is bad.

[hilzoy]

"Being accused of lieing when one have never been shown to lie is a smear. The list goes on and on..."

I spent about five minute with google and found a few: ""And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."" link

"Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." ... The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective." Also: "Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. ... Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech." link

A few more lies can be found here:

'For Bush, Facts are Malleable'

'Making Bush tell the truth about Iraq'

[Tom O'Bedlam]

As a Bush supporter I don't have any particular problem with the site. Of course, it's pretty content free -- or at least, new content free. That Bush was in the TANG is not news, and that people were contacted and "helped" him get in was pretty easily inferrable, and therefore obvious too.

At least the SBVT allegations were factual allegations, capable (in principle, anyway, if perhaps not in a practical sense, some 30+ years later) of confirmation or disconfirmation. This is just some guy saying he's ashamed of himself.

[Blue]

Hilzoy,

Then I guess your post could also make someone consider you a liar... I personally don't really believe that but if I point out some possible flaws in your assertions would that be okay for one to conclude about you?

Seems to Kay and the U.N. doesn't think Bush was lieing:

"Kay, who heads the CIA's 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group, said the team had "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment" that Iraq had hidden"

"Kay said his search was hindered by what appeared to be the destruction and looting of laboratories and archival records areas, including the destruction of selective computer hard drives as late as May. Inspectors found "small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed," he said.

The team, Kay said, found evidence of new research on biological weapons agents, one biological organism concealed in a scientist's home that could be used to produce biological weapons, and labs with the capability to "surge the production of (biological) agents" quickly."

"Kay said his team's major discoveries were in the area of missile development. It found plans for building missiles that could travel up to 1, 000 kilometers, far more than the 150 kilometers allowed under United Nations restrictions."

And the U.N. says:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,122311,00.html

U.N. weapons experts have found 20 engines used in banned Iraqi missiles in a Jordan scrapyard along with other equipment that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction, an official said Wednesday.
The discoveries were revealed to the U.N. Security Council by acting chief U.N. inspector Demetrius Perricos during in a closed-door briefing. The text was obtained by The Associated Press.

The U.N. team was following up on an earlier discovery of a similar Al Samoud 2 engine in a scrapyard in the Dutch port of Rotterdam. Perricos said inspectors also want to check in Turkey, which has also received scrap metal from Iraq.

Perricos told the Security Council said U.N. inspectors do not know how much material that they had monitored orginated in Iraq.

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has sent a letter ordering the Iraqi government to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which weapons experts have determined violate a range limit imposed by the Security Council, by March 1.

Also, I know they showed pictures of a device used to make nuclear weapons.

Am I trying to say that they found everything they thought they would. No! But, that doesn't make them liars. This seems like a real smear job to me. But for you to call Bush a liar when Hussein was a known killer and user of WMD and knowingly mislead the Weapons inspectors and most likely moved or hid any WMD that he did have I think that is a big time smear job.

Fortunately, in my world being wrong doesn't make you a liar.

[The Blogspirator]

I just wrote a 2-piece article about the claims Ben Barnes is making
that he got Bush into the Air National Guard and now wants to
apologize for it (boo hoo), which is now receiving wide press
coverage.

Essentially -
Ben Barnes is one of Kerry's top 8 fundraisers, having raised over $500,000
Barnes is considered a "gatekeeper" for access to a potential Kerry
administration
Barnes has a very shady past in Texas politics, and has been involved
in various fraudulent schemes.
Barnes says he did it when he was Lt. Governor, but he didn't become
Lt. Gov until a year after Bush was already in the guard.
The video is being hosted by a blog site, one of whose bloggers was a
DNC accredited blogger
This story was well covered in 1999 and Bush addressed it then, but the very media that covered
it back then seem to have forgotten the details they previously printed.

Here are the stories

The Dirt on Ben Barnes Claims about Bush and the Air National Guard
http://blogspirator.blogspot.com/2004/08/exclusive-dirt-on-ben-barnes-claims.html

The Dirt on Ben Barnes Claims about Bush and the Air National Guard (Part 2)
http://blogspirator.blogspot.com/2004/08/exclusive-dirt-on-ben-barnes-claims_29.html

[Anarch]

I have neither the time nor the energy to go through this in inordinate detail yet again, but since no-one else has responded I guess I'll tackle a couple:

discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities...

Say it with me kids:

Not "Weapons of Mass Destruction", itself a slippery term.

Not "WMD programs".

That's right: weapons of mass destruction-program related activities.

Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, does it? Not exactly what invaded Iraq for, was it? I can only imagine what the march to war would have been like had the Bush Administration urged the world to prevent the horrible specter of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction-program related activities"...

[BTW, if memory serves, when asked how many countries are in possession WMDPRA, David Kay responded with an uncomfortable "Fifty". I think he was underestimating.]

one biological organism concealed in a scientist's home that could be used to produce biological weapons...

That "biological organism"?

Mold.

More specifically, it was a variant of the botulism bacteria (can't remember which offhand) which can be found in almost moldy refrigerator near you. What makes this particular important is that although the organism itself is related to the botulism toxin beloved of WMD experts everywhere, the substance found in the scientist's fridge was in its "natural" state, i.e. unweaponized, same as can be found almost anywhere in the world. The "WMD" aspect of botulinim was completely lacking.

Also, I know they showed pictures of a device used to make nuclear weapons.

I assume you're referring to the centrifuge part found in the rose garden that Iraqi scientist no-one's heard from since, well, the centrifuge part was found to not correlate with anything else? [I think that's actually literally true: he hasn't been heard from in public since then.] If so, well, yes, they found a part. One part amongst thousands (that weren't there) for a program Saddam couldn't have been operating for any of a number of reasons.

All of this, Blue, was debunked within days of its recounting. It's available online at any major liberal blog near you (Calpundit/WashMo, Atrios, Josh Marshall &c) and quite possibly many conservative ones as well; I recommend you check out their archives, as I'm doing this from memory.

Bluntly -- and this is not a comment on you, only the quality of the information -- it's crap.

And with that, I'm done.

[Blue]

Anarch,

You have debunked nothing... but what has truly been debunked is that we only invaded Iraq for WMD. So many on the left pretend as if that was the only justification given for war with Iraq. It's a fantasy that the left has made up to justify their positions for opposing Bush.

"That's right: weapons of mass destruction-program related activities.
Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, does it? Not exactly what invaded Iraq for, was it?"

No your right, it wasn't. Many reasons were given for the invasion of Iraq. You chose to only focus on one.

"All of this, Blue, was debunked within days of its recounting. It's available online at any major liberal blog near you (Calpundit/WashMo, Atrios, Josh Marshall &c"

Oh, great... no bias with those guys.

I can think of no worse examples for unbiased/accurate information than Calpundit, Atrios and Josh Marshall.

""That's right: weapons of mass destruction-program related activities."

But, it is nice to know that you acknowledge that he was a gathering threat.