Well, some believe that Biblical prophecy predicts when the U.S. ends it will the end of the world as well.

Any references to back this up jimjim?

If anyone would know, you would. An interpretation of a verse in Daniel, I believe. I'll ask my theo friend trained in my former denomination's interpretation of the Word.

That's why I asked jimjim. The only verses I can think of are in Daniel 2+ where Nebuchadnezzar's image has the feet made of a mix of clay and Iron dashed to pieces by the rock cut out of the mountain (without hands). But this is clearly identified as a mix of nations, say the Anglo-American Alliance (could be others!?!) That said the 'rock' is clearly refering to 'Jesus' second advent (I think this is the only obvious part of the prophecy) so that said, I would not be in the least bit worried as to the interpretation of what the feet represent.

Verse 44 of Daniel 2 is the most important verse: "In the time of those kings, (those mentioned in the feet) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed... It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

So I don't think it could be referring exclusively to the USA!

As outrageous as I thought the Russian professor's article when I first read it, my second thoughts were cause for pause. I am from New York, and I know I have thought many times of secession, even as a half joke. But, during this last election, there was much more of a very serious split and I know I would've left the Country for good if McCain/Palin won. Many who had never left the Country felt the same way.

There has been a lid on very real discontent and outrage over the last 8 years concerning the first Bush election and the 2004 election concerning Ohio, with credible reports and evidence pointing to two stolen elections, and the facist takeover and subversion of the Department of Justice by Cheney and Karl Rove. I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut. Look up the 2004 report by attorneys Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman. There is some very serious stuff going on right now, and people want to see prosecutions once the new administration takes over. However, there are so many unprecedented crisises at the moment, that anything can send the Country over the breaking point. And, there are many possibilities that can not only go wrong, but are actively seeking to do wrong.

The National Guard started preparing for exercises inside the Country with the aim of controlling the American population back in September. That is a departure from a military law which stipulates that the armed forces cannot be used against the citizenry. Entire states are trying to sell off major infrastructure to private investors because they have run out of money.

I am not saying this because I am bashing America, or because I am one of those Americans that tries to set themselves apart by bad-mouthing the States. I am not a conspiracy nut that only sees the paranoid side of things. I just try to call it as I see it and things look very bad.

But, I did chuckle about some of those divsions: the "California Republic" going to China and the northern states falling under Canada's influence - yeah right! Although, I like Canada and wouldn't mind their healthcare, but I doubt they'd want us.

As a New Yorker, I wouldn't mind being part of France though as some sort of commonwealth with open borders and tariff-free wine!

Edit added:

And I know I'm going to get flak for my comments about the National Guard and military above. I am somewhat off-the-cuff at the moment, but I know that recently an aspect of military law was revised so that the armed forces could start training exercises for scenes of unrest on American soil. This was also recently reported in a major newspaper, but I can't remember which now.

Well, some believe that Biblical prophecy predicts when the U.S. ends it will the end of the world as well.

Any references to back this up jimjim?

If anyone would know, you would. An interpretation of a verse in Daniel, I believe. I'll ask my theo friend trained in my former denomination's interpretation of the Word.

That's why I asked jimjim. The only verses I can think of are in Daniel 2+ where Nebuchadnezzar's image has the feet made of a mix of clay and Iron dashed to pieces by the rock cut out of the mountain (without hands). But this is clearly identified as a mix of nations, say the Anglo-American Alliance (could be others!?!) That said the 'rock' is clearly refering to 'Jesus' second advent (I think this is the only obvious part of the prophecy) so that said, I would not be in the least bit worried as to the interpretation of what the feet represent.

Verse 44 of Daniel 2 is the most important verse: "In the time of those kings, (those mentioned in the feet) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed... It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

So I don't think it could be referring exclusively to the USA!

A little prophecy analysis here.

http://bibleprophecy.net/dan8-us.htm

But, during this last election, there was much more of a very serious split and I know I would've left the Country for good if McCain/Palin won. Many who had never left the Country felt the same way.

There has been a lid on very real discontent and outrage over the last 8 years concerning the first Bush election and the 2004 election concerning Ohio, with credible reports and evidence pointing to two stolen elections, and the facist takeover and subversion of the Department of Justice by Cheney and Karl Rove. I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.

The National Guard started preparing for exercises inside the Country with the aim of controlling the American population back in September.

I am not saying this because I am bashing America, or because I am one of those Americans that tries to set themselves apart by bad-mouthing the States. I am not a conspiracy nut that only sees the paranoid side of things. I just try to call it as I see it and things look very bad.

Sorry, but anyone who seriously believes any of this malarkey is either a conspiracy nut or has a screw loose. The sad fact is that great numbers of supposedly educated people all over the world do, but a lot of them have the excuse of being brainwashed by living in a dictatorship and exposed to constant propaganda all of their life or educated by Islamic Fundamentalists. American citizens have no excuse.

It would seem that our Russian professor hasn't the slightest notion of America or Americans, and those who feel he may have a point, even less. Civil war? Never. Breakup? Never.(though it may expad). Revolution possible, but not for many years if ever. It's becoming Europeanized, which is ugly enough.

how that? all Europe is americanised, which is ugly enough

A little prophecy analysis here.

http://bibleprophecy.net/dan8-us.htm

I think this site, like so many, try to push the bounderies and fit their 'already held views' on the verses involved. I thought it was very interesting that they started with the tower of Siloam and tried to draw out a comparision with the twin towers of 9/11. The story of the tower was a simple one, Jesus was saying that those involved in an accident (or other event where people died) had nothing to do with their righteousness or otherwise, these things just happen. The learning point was and is that just because you didn't die in that way it doesn't make you any more or less righteous. The 'likewise' in the quote refers to our perishing, not the modus operandi of our perishing. We will all die whether or not we repent so don't think the method of your death has anything to do with your righteousness!

Still an interesting link though.

There was a theory that after the whole world goes to s_hit Australia wuld be the only place to go. This was supported by a NATO general who wrote "The Third World War" (Gen. Sir James (John?) Hackett). In his scenario Australia was left relatively unscathed. It's not called the lucky country for nothing.

But, during this last election, there was much more of a very serious split and I know I would've left the Country for good if McCain/Palin won. Many who had never left the Country felt the same way.

There has been a lid on very real discontent and outrage over the last 8 years concerning the first Bush election and the 2004 election concerning Ohio, with credible reports and evidence pointing to two stolen elections, and the facist takeover and subversion of the Department of Justice by Cheney and Karl Rove. I sincerely believe the Country was literally taken over by facist criminals who engineered it to make it look like democracy, and I am not a conspiracy nut.

The National Guard started preparing for exercises inside the Country with the aim of controlling the American population back in September.

I am not saying this because I am bashing America, or because I am one of those Americans that tries to set themselves apart by bad-mouthing the States. I am not a conspiracy nut that only sees the paranoid side of things. I just try to call it as I see it and things look very bad.

Sorry, but anyone who seriously believes any of this malarkey is either a conspiracy nut or has a screw loose. The sad fact is that great numbers of supposedly educated people all over the world do, but a lot of them have the excuse of being brainwashed by living in a dictatorship and exposed to constant propaganda all of their life or educated by Islamic Fundamentalists. American citizens have no excuse.

That's right, a great many of the educated do hold these views, because they don't embrace dogma by dismissing arguments of which they know nothing about, but gather evidence over a painstaking process of investigation and elimination and try to ascertain a pattern. You are right: there are very educated and very intelligent people working on some of the issues that I have mentioned, and they have been steamrolled because of the current administration. Hopefully, that will change. It is fine if you don't want to agree or have countering arguments, but you have nothing except to hurl insults that some of us have a screw loose. You are probably not even aware of the details of which you dismiss - typical of the educated and uneducated clueless alike.

Paul Weyrich, the late co-founder of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, the Christian Coalition and "father" of the modern right-wing conservative movement, has a couple of choice videos of his famous speeches on You Tube. One is called "I don't want everyone to vote" from a 1980 Republican Convention speech, and "Christians, It's time we finally rise up!" If you think this is coincidental to the Republican Party's new "Southern Strategy" of harnessing the religous right to reinvent itself after the Civil Rights Era, then you have really missed a lot of what's beeen happening over the last 20 years in American politics. But then again, you'll probably also dismiss the FACT that shortly after research surfaced on the defects of electronic voting machines, four different prominent republican operatives invested and pushed - you guessed it - electronic voting machines, with all 4 companies owned and connected by republican interests. This has been documented in the book I mentioned above by attorneys Fritrakis and Wasserman, and at least 3 other independent reports.

What was the source of the confusion of Ohio in the 2004 election, which has spawned legal suits that have been suppressed, and several high-ranking election officials in Ohio fired - a Diebold electronic voting machine.

Are you aware that the Republican party had an anonymous third source website in Tennesse that received voting tallies before redirecting it to the website of the Secretary of State in the White House?

Are you aware that Karl Rove was found to be instrumental in corrupting the DOJ by politically motivated terminations, has ignored a supeona by the House Judicial Committee, and his IT guy Mike Connell who designed the website programs for both the 2000 and 2004 elections and the Swiftboat Veterans and worked for Karl Rove recently died in a plane crash after he was supeoned to testify, most likely taking the whereabouts of hundreds of missing White House emails with him, considered to be the smoking gun?

I guess there is a sizeable contingent in the Country that thinks they are entitled to steal elections and corrupt democracy because their moral mission of ending abortion and "saving the babies" trumps the law. They are the religous right, and the current bunch of criminal neo-facists in office have harnessed that source to make unprecedented assaults on the Constitution, including dragging the world into a fictional premise for war and the gutting of habeus corpus.

But hey, have another beer and go chase another bar girl, because you obviously have all the answers. If the mainstream media hasn't called it as such, I guess it ain't so.

There is so much more, but I'm not going to waste my time with the dogma of the clueless anymore. I guess I'll err on the side of the educated with a screw loose like Stephen Spoonamore, one of the top experts in the world on IT security and fraud, a republican, who has said in no uncertain terms that the election was stolen via electronic voting machines and "man-in-the-middle (MIN) technology.

Segments 1-8

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyEfovA404

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=vTBLfgos5b8&...feature=related (how can a diebold machine be hacked from a remote location)

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=SzKbigGoMoo&...feature=related

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=9vNvweInGFs

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=rX8fRwsTpoQ

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Kq4dxPwY8

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=AsgY4_BB2lo

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy1sz-xBxf8 ("Americans do not want to believe there are people stealing elections in this Country") "This is not a democratic or republican issue, this is a democracy issue."

Democracy Now with Amy Goodman on 10/08, reporting on vote flipping and recent law suits to disenfranchise the populace, interview with Harvey Wasserman:

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=ysJ5IYVtIhQ

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=JGKoDm2CJoY&...feature=related

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=EpwqGprNSAo&...feature=related

Gutting Posse Comitatus: Making Martial Law Easier (New York Times, Feb. '07)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...3002217_pf.html (Washington Times: Pentagon to Detail Troops to bolster Domestic Security)

Domestic Militarization comes to San Bernardino County

http://bbvm.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/domes...nardino-county/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/ Brigade Homeland Tour Starts October 1st

http://www.prisonplanet.com/army-strategic...vil-unrest.html

edit: couple more, for good measure:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute%5Frove/ Rovecybergate

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008...e-phillips.html

AFFIDAVITS FROM SPOONAMORE, PHILLIPS

Here Stephen Spoonamore, under oath, describes the system that Bush/Cheney used to

steal the election in Ohio. He also talks about Mike Connell, who was Karl Rove's IT

guru, and whom the lawyers in Ohio, Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis, are moving to

depose.

The lawyers want also to depose Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell, Brett Rapp (whose family

--all raging Christianists--own Triad Government Services, which makes the central

tabulators used in the Ohio election), and a range of other GOP officials in the state.

Sorry, but the "mainstream media" would be all over this stuff if there were a shred of truth to it, or do you have some kind of conspiracy theory to tell us why they would not? Big Brother has not taken over yet.

Are you one of these people who think that the CIA destroyed the World Trade center and that Mossad told all the Jews to leave beforehand, so that they would not get blown up? I have seen plenty of supposed Internet evidence for these nutty "theories" too and I don't have any "proof" that they are not true except for being born with common sense. I have to work for a living, I can't devote my life to making up evidence for, or against, scenerios that don't even exist.

Sorry, but the "mainstream media" would be all over this stuff if there were a shred of truth to it, or do you have some kind of conspiracy theory to tell us why they would not? Big Brother has not taken over yet.

Are you one of these people who think that the CIA destroyed the World Trade center and that Mossad told all the Jews to leave beforehand, so that they would not get blown up? I have seen plenty of supposed Internet evidence for these nutty "theories" too and I don't have any "proof" that they are not true except for being born with common sense. I have to work for a living, I can't devote my life to making up evidence for scenerios that don't even exist.

"Sorry, but the "mainstream media" would be all over this stuff if there were a shred of truth to it, or do you have some kind of conspiracy theory to tell us why they would not?"

Really? Do you mean the way Dan Rather was all over the Bush military awol story and then was publically humiliated and forced to resign by CBS? Is the msm all over the illegal jailing of former Governor of Alabama Don Siegleman, engineered by Karl Rove, of whom more than 20 District Attorneys across the country have voiced their belief that it was unconstitutional?

Keep dreaming.

"Are you one of these people who think that the CIA destroyed the World Trade center and that Mossad told all the Jews to leave beforehand, so that they would not get blown up?"

No. I base my arguments on research based on certifiable facts and corroborating evidence and patterns, not on internet conspiracy fantasies. I base my understanding of the Towers collapse from science and engineering, learned from a symposium of the best in both fields. But, I do believe Bush was warned beforehand by his intelligence staff and did not treat it urgently enough.

Your problem is that you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, and obviously don't work too hard to discern the two. Therefore, everything that threatens your preconceived and unquestioned notions with cognitive dissonance is just dismissed as conspiracy craziness. Didn't take you long to write your response, did it?

Time for you to go back to sleep.

edit typo

No. I base my arguments on research based on certifiable facts and corroborating evidence and patterns, not on internet conspiracy fantasies. I base my understanding of the Towers collapse from science and engineering, learned from a symposium of the best in both fields.

You sound just like the proponents of those "theories", except, of course, they are the ones who are supposed to be right.

Didn't take you long to write your response, did it?

I gave your theories all the time that they deserve.

Did George W. Bush go AWOL during his time in the National Guard?

April 11, 2003

Dear Cecil:

Since you've already covered the Bush family's relationship to the Nazis (thank you), I thought maybe you'd also cover another timely topic. I've heard many times and in many places (but none mainstream that I can think of): that George W. Bush was AWOL for at least a year from the National Guard during Vietnam, after "jumping the line" to get a slot in the guard in the first place. For some reason (I'm not sure why), I have trust in the Straight Dope. Can you tell me/us if the person sending others to war in Iraq was really derelict in his military duties? How serious an offense would that behavior have been considered, generally, during the Vietnam war? Lastly, if George was actually AWOL, and that would have been the equivalent of a felony for most people, why haven't we been hearing about this issue?

— Kerry J. Johnson, Bellingham, Washington

Dear Kerry:

Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record.

Why the disparity? We'll get to that. First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an extended period — 17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test — on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list — a year and a half long, by some estimates — and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but after a while his enthusiasm seems to have cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months.

In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test — the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a later piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge — eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly — and it probably will — it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this dam_n fool war.

— Cecil Adams

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...-national-guard

Why would Dan Rather be fired over this non-story unless what he said was a lie?

Why did Dan Rather get fired?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BungeeAZ

Dan Rather reported on the President's days in the Air National Guard of the United States using documents that weren't valid and information that could not be properly vetted. Despite the fact that the information that Rather used was not truthful, Rather reported the story anyway. CBS chose not to "fire" Rather, but urged him to "retire."

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question79371.html

Apr 23 07, 10:06 PM

Many sources say pretty much the same thing. Another nutty conspiracy theory!

No. I base my arguments on research based on certifiable facts and corroborating evidence and patterns, not on internet conspiracy fantasies. I base my understanding of the Towers collapse from science and engineering, learned from a symposium of the best in both fields.

You sound just like the proponents of those "theories", except, of course, they are the ones who are supposed to be right.

Didn't take you long to write your response, did it?

No, I'm much different, at least from you. I go through their arguments and theories and discount them only after I can disqualify them with countering facts or their own lack of factual evidence and logic.

Did George W. Bush go AWOL during his time in the National Guard?

April 11, 2003

Dear Cecil:

Since you've already covered the Bush family's relationship to the Nazis (thank you), I thought maybe you'd also cover another timely topic. I've heard many times and in many places (but none mainstream that I can think of): that George W. Bush was AWOL for at least a year from the National Guard during Vietnam, after "jumping the line" to get a slot in the guard in the first place. For some reason (I'm not sure why), I have trust in the Straight Dope. Can you tell me/us if the person sending others to war in Iraq was really derelict in his military duties? How serious an offense would that behavior have been considered, generally, during the Vietnam war? Lastly, if George was actually AWOL, and that would have been the equivalent of a felony for most people, why haven't we been hearing about this issue?

— Kerry J. Johnson, Bellingham, Washington

Dear Kerry:

Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record.

Why the disparity? We'll get to that. First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an extended period — 17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test — on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list — a year and a half long, by some estimates — and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but after a while his enthusiasm seems to have cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months.

In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test — the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a later piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge — eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly — and it probably will — it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this dam_n fool war.

— Cecil Adams

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2...-national-guard

Why would Dan Rather be fired over this non-story?

Oh, congratulations on trying to muster up some other opinion other than your own. As your own article states, the AWOL story didn't become an issue until the 2004 re-election, when Bush was running against a real Vietnam Vet, John Kerry. It was also during that time that the GOP fabricated the whole "Swiftboat Vets" controversy, whose website was created and hosted by the now deceased Karl Rove IT guru Connell. That was the context in which the CBS story and Dan Rather became a scapegoat, 4 years later from the first election and at least a year after the letter to the straight dope Cecil. The fake "Swiftboat" vets were all over the MSM, though.

Why did Dan Rather get fired?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BungeeAZ

Dan Rather reported on the President's days in the Air National Guard of the United States using documents that weren't valid and information that could not be properly vetted. Despite the fact that the information that Rather used was not truthful, Rather reported the story anyway. CBS chose not to "fire" Rather, but urged him to "retire."

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question79371.html

Apr 23 07, 10:06 PM

Many sources say pretty much the same thing. Another nutty conspiracy theory!

OK, so your source here is "funtrivia"? Anyway, there is a whole lot more to this story that is still evolving because Rather has brought a lawsuit forward that is still being deliberated. He definitely made a mistake by rushing the story, but the issue being investigated is whether they were set up with fake documents intentionally to take the fall.

Is this your one trick pony on this argument?

Most sources all said the same thing, but funtrivia was very concise and accurate.

Rather was fired because he is a well known nut who probably believes everything you have to say, but also is reputed to believe that the US Government blew up the World Trade Center. You two can fight that one out.

"What is the frequency Kenneth?

Rather was fired because of inept journalism. No other reason.

His smear attempt was too amateurish to ever have any legs.

First of all, this issue isn't over yet because the Rather's law suit is still working it's way through. Secondly, and most importantly, the essential details of W.'s derelict duty to the Texas Air National Guard and missing records are true by all accounts, regardless of your personal opinons about Dan Rather.

But most amazingly, you have chosen to harp on one single point in this thread, amongst many, which are duly substantiated here. Talk about one-trick-ponys.

You mean mentioned, not "substantiated" and anyone who was in the military and examined the case knows that Bush was not AWOL.

I just don't want to waste my time looking up evidence to refute a million nutty Internet conspiracy theories and Rather's case interested me. As I said before, I have to work for a living; I can't devote my life to making up evidence for, or against, scenarios that don't even exist, but there is "proof" all over the Internet for both sides of every argument if you insist.

The funny thing is that you seem to have known that Rather was found out for lying, but you did not bother to mention it until I did.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Where has it been stated that Rather is lying? Again, the issue here was not the facts of the story, but contested documents. And as I said, the verdict is still out on the full story, so it amazes me how you reach conclusions and issue judgments based on character assaination. The most important aspect of that whole episode is that the basic facts of W.'s derelict service were true, full stop.

And then you go on to attempt to smear me by your knee-jerk insults, without admitting that you have absolutely no clue of the other points I listed here. I have listed a variety of sources here, from both respected and award-winning media sources, and mainstream media, as well as original sources such as the Army Times. We are having a discussion on the internet, so I can't very well hand you books and newspaper clippings.

And, uhm, the issue of Karl Rove's supoena to the House Judicial Committee, Alberto Gonzales, crucial missing White House emails, the 2000 and 2004 elections, the jailing of former Gov. Don Siegeleman and the outrage of more than 20 Attorney Generals, flimsy WMD excuse for going to war, Halliburton corruption and Cheney connections, the corruption of Posse Comitatus and flagrant destruction is a matter of public record, dearie.

Just because you are clueless, doesn't make those who ask questions crazy, it just makes you lazy and culpable, especially since you can't be bothered to understand arguments and details before you dismiss them with predicatible insults.

*edit - you edited your comments while I was still commenting. "Anyone who has been in the military" isn't good enough and isn't even accurate. There are missing records, so EVERYONE on this case including those who supervised him in the military, cannot account for missing time and records. Your own source says as much, so get your thinking straight.

I'm done harking on your single issue anyway, of which you can't even argue factually. You give me a source (that supports Bush's derelict duty) dated a full year before the point of your argument about Rather, which was in 2004, not the date of your source in 2003.

And then you go on to attempt to smear me by your knee-jerk insults, without admitting that you have absolutely no clue of the other points I listed here.

Do you really think that Rather would have quit if he had been correct? He was a big celebrity. Of course he was lying.

I have seen a lot of this silly nonsense before, but I did look up the few wacko theories that were even too far out to run into at non-kook sources. I was unimpressed.

You think that I have never heard of Karl Rove or the sissy John Kerry and the Swift Boat veterans who outed him for his lousy service record and the lies he told about other Vets? I don't mind investigating more about that if you would like.

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wift Vets and POWs for Truth official logoSwift Vets and POWs for Truth, formerly known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), was a political group (527 group) of American Swift boat veterans and former prisoners of war of the Vietnam War, formed during the 2004 presidential election campaign for the purpose of opposing John Kerry's candidacy for the presidency. As of 2008[update], the group has ceased operations.

SBVT asserted that Kerry was "unfit to serve" as President based upon his alleged "willful distortion of the conduct" of American servicemen during that war, and his alleged "withholding and/or distortion of material facts" as to his own conduct during that war.[1] This claim caused tremendous controversy during the election, particularly because some perceived the veterans as partisans who had not been in a place to assess Kerry,[2] while several other Vietnam veterans who served alongside Kerry or under his command disputed the criticisms and supported Kerry in his presidential aspirations.[3][4]

SBVT stated that "Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compel us to step forward."[5] The group challenged the legitimacy of each of the combat medals awarded to Kerry by the U.S. Navy and the disposition of his discharge. (See John Kerry military service controversy.) Further, SBVT said that Kerry's later criticism of the war was a "betrayal of trust" with other soldiers, and that by his activism he had caused direct "harm" to soldiers still at war. (See John Kerry VVAW controversy.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

Dan Rather did not quit but was dimissed from CBS (*forced to resign) over the disputed authenticity of the files he received from anonymous source. Again, get your facts straight before you go on to denigrate others.

Secondly, the whole "Swiftboat Veterans" was a poltical action committee that was set up by Karl Rove and his IT guy Connell, *and a host of wealthy Republican donors and Bush campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg, as a way to smear the real Vietnam Vet - Kerry - during the 2004 election, which is why W.'s derelict duty became a story in the first place.

It is laughable and utterly consistent with your myopic chest-rattling insults that you would provide a supportive EXCERPT of the Swiftboats, from Wikipedia.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...erans_for_Truth

http://www.twine.com/item/11qcw24zw-7l/the...election-issues

*edit/added:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/politics...p;partner=kmarx

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=2

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408260008

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/23/...in4684431.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business...3PqAmn06JFHbpbA

I didn't know this topic was about Dan Rathers. Cool.

Dan Rather: No One Likes Me Anymore

By Matthew Sheffield (Bio | Archive)

May 8, 2008 - 17:05 ET

The bloodletting from Dan Rather's ongoing lawsuit at CBS continues, although this time, Rather is going after himself saying that no one wants to hire him after his forged document scandal:

Dan Rather has filed an amended lawsuit against CBS that says other TV networks refused to hire him because of the damage executives at his former company did to his reputation after a disputed 2004 report on President Bush.

Rather’s lawyer, Martin R. Gold, said new papers were filed because a judge said in April the initial lawsuit did not specify how CBS injured Rather in his occupation. The judge said the veteran newsman could submit an amended complaint. [...]

Rather says he met with CNN, ABC, and NBC in 2006 to talk about employment after his departure from CBS, but they refused to hire him because he brought “too much baggage.”

The news anchor said that when he met CNN officials in 1997, they offered him $6 million a year to work for them. He said issues with his CBS contract, plus CBS’ proposed match of CNN’s offer, caused him to stay where he was.

In a spring 2006 meeting, court papers say, Rather met again with CNN executives and with ABC and NBC representatives. None would consider him, saying in various ways that the Bush story had generated too much controversy.

Rather and his agents also met later with Fox, A&E, History Channel, HBO, Discovery Channel and National Geographic television networks, court papers say, but all passed, saying he was “too hot to handle” or “words to that effect.”

Rather’s papers say he could have defended the Bush story, but, relying on CBS’ promises to defend him and extend his contract, he was “misled into remaining silent and unfairly taking the brunt of the blame for misconceptions about the broadcast.”

He left CBS on June 16, 2006, after more than 40 years at the network. He has since signed with HDNet, a cable network with limited distribution.

“Although now working, Mr. Rather’s (on air) exposure is dramatically limited and, accordingly, his reputation and standing in his trade and profession have not recovered from the damage caused by the defendants’ conduct,” court papers say.

Mr. Rather quit because he did not want to be fired for such a big screw-up, but still quit. He could have refused to resign and faced the consequences.

Kerry's Cambodia Whopper

By Joshua Muravchik

Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug23.html

More charges late.

I didn't know this topic was about Dan Rathers. Cool.

It's not, and I made put forth a multiple of points more than once from numerous and diverse sources, but this is called the art of the one-trick-pony issue avoidance and politcal smear, otherwise known as the Republican Party and right-wing politics in the U.S. No wonder the country is going to hel_l in a hand-basket.

Dan Rather: No One Likes Me Anymore

By Matthew Sheffield (Bio | Archive)

May 8, 2008 - 17:05 ET

The bloodletting from Dan Rather's ongoing lawsuit at CBS continues, although this time, Rather is going after himself saying that no one wants to hire him after his forged document scandal:

Dan Rather has filed an amended lawsuit against CBS that says other TV networks refused to hire him because of the damage executives at his former company did to his reputation after a disputed 2004 report on President Bush.

Rather’s lawyer, Martin R. Gold, said new papers were filed because a judge said in April the initial lawsuit did not specify how CBS injured Rather in his occupation. The judge said the veteran newsman could submit an amended complaint. [...]

Rather says he met with CNN, ABC, and NBC in 2006 to talk about employment after his departure from CBS, but they refused to hire him because he brought “too much baggage.”

The news anchor said that when he met CNN officials in 1997, they offered him $6 million a year to work for them. He said issues with his CBS contract, plus CBS’ proposed match of CNN’s offer, caused him to stay where he was.

In a spring 2006 meeting, court papers say, Rather met again with CNN executives and with ABC and NBC representatives. None would consider him, saying in various ways that the Bush story had generated too much controversy.

Rather and his agents also met later with Fox, A&E, History Channel, HBO, Discovery Channel and National Geographic television networks, court papers say, but all passed, saying he was “too hot to handle” or “words to that effect.”

Rather’s papers say he could have defended the Bush story, but, relying on CBS’ promises to defend him and extend his contract, he was “misled into remaining silent and unfairly taking the brunt of the blame for misconceptions about the broadcast.”

He left CBS on June 16, 2006, after more than 40 years at the network. He has since signed with HDNet, a cable network with limited distribution.

“Although now working, Mr. Rather’s (on air) exposure is dramatically limited and, accordingly, his reputation and standing in his trade and profession have not recovered from the damage caused by the defendants’ conduct,” court papers say.

Mr. Rather quit because he did not want to be fired for such a big screw-up, but still quit. He could have refused to resign and faced the consequences.

Kerry's Cambodia Whopper

By Joshua Muravchik

Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17

Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.

It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry's Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

However seared he was, Kerry's spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry's shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry's spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere "between" Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been "near Cambodia." But the point of Kerry's 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was "in Cambodia," as he had often said he was. If he was merely "near," then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.

Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty," a laudatory book on Kerry's military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he "went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions." Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry's activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry's crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.

Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry "on one occasion crossed into Cambodia," on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry's campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry's own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley's book says: "The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side." His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry's final mission.

After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks." Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such "crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug23.html

More charges late.

Lovely - you provide two sources of opinon pieces from neo-conservative bloggers and pundits. Here's a MSM newsflash for you: merely supporting your own partisan opinion with that of other partisan opinons is not corroborating or substantiating anything. Weren't you the one complaining about internet junk and conpiracy theories?

Anyway, I am not here to argue about the semantics of whether Rather was "forced to resign" or pressured to quit. I am here to discuss the points in my initial and follow-up posts, cited by a wide variety of media sources.

Care to respond to the issues and actual argument for a change?

This is boring. You two should argue in PMs or even better, in bed, as it's irrelevant to the OP about 10x over.

My first post and corresponding points are relevant, which is why I attempted to argue it here. Perhaps I set my sights too high on the "Should Thai women wear bras" crowd.

*edit added: By all means Jim Jim, if you have anything interesting to add on the topic don't hold back.

Anyway, I am not here to argue about the semantics of whether Rather was "forced to resign" or pressured to quit.

It doesn't really matter. He quit so he would not be fired for not doing his job right and it had nothing to do with any nutty conspiracies.

As far as sources go, it is my rightwing sources against your leftwing ones, except wikipedia and The Straight Dope are both supposed to be on your side.

Anyway, Jim Jim is right. I shouldn't have gotten dragged into a cut and paste, conspiracy theory showdown.

No, take a look at my sources and material - which you already have admitted you have not. They are from a variety of sources, including republican Stephen Spoonamore.

Here's a direct quote from the "father" of the modern, right-wing conservative movement, Paul Weyrich.

"I don't want everyone to vote"

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw&...feature=related

[i have seen a lot of this silly nonsense before, but I did look up the few wacko theories that were even too far out to run into at non-kook sources. I was unimpressed.

I looked at your material. I'm starting to think that you are more than just delusional.

Bye, bye.