"MoveOn.org is a seperate poitical entity. If you do your homework you will find that they do NOT have the same political agenda. They share the same goal as John Kerry...To get Bush 2.0 out of office. "

That is such a blind arguement. Of course moveon.org was around, BUSH WAS ALREADY AROUND. You expect a "Keep Kerry from being President" organization to have been around before he ran? Swiftboat vets and Bush also share the agenda of keeping kerry from winning. They don't advertise anything pro-Bush, do they?

So moveon.org slams Bush, swiftboat vets slams kerry.

I think it is pretty telling that the Kerry side here keeps ignoring my point about Joe WIlson's site being hosted by Kerry for President inc. Oddly, people seem to think that what Kerry is being accused of is somehow more inflammatory than lying to the nation and sending US troops into harms way needlessly. Oddly, after the Intelligence Committee report came out, Kerry quietly evicted Wilson, but you never heard a peep about the money his own campaign spent to smear the President THROUGH Wilson. This wasn't a 527, this site was hosted BY Kerry. I really wonder if it was even legal.

I think Kerry has waged a very, very dirty campaign, and without all the negativity he pretends he has nothing to do with he'd never have a chance. 60+ million dollars in 527 negativity and lies. This is still an "anyone but Bush" election, the Kerry's soft-money smear campaign keeps it that way, and his outrage over the swift boat vets is utterly hypocritical.

I think it is pretty telling that the Kerry side here keeps ignoring my point about Joe WIlson's site being hosted by Kerry for President inc. Oddly, people seem to think that what Kerry is being accused of is somehow more inflammatory than lying to the nation and sending US troops into harms way needlessly. Oddly, after the Intelligence Committee report came out, Kerry quietly evicted Wilson, but you never heard a peep about the money his own campaign spent to smear the President THROUGH Wilson. This wasn't a 527, this site was hosted BY Kerry. I really wonder if it was even legal.

it might help if you provided some information about wilson's site...evidence that it was hosted by kerry...kerry providing funds to wilson...some sorta connection between those funds and whatever you feel wilson did to bush.  im guessing if wilson was 'evicted' by kerry, the site no longer exists.   this is the first ive heard of it.  if you have some verified documentation, do a blog and put it out where others can see it.  i may be the only one outta the loop here but then again...

"im guessing if wilson was 'evicted' by kerry, the site no longer exists. this is the first ive heard of it. if you have some verified documentation, do a blog and put it out where others can see it. i may be the only one outta the loop here but then again..."

I've already done two blogs on it. No need for another. You guys seem to have no problem with posting third, fourth, and fifth-hand anti-Bush propaganda, but I suppose I am just lying. Do a google, I'm not the only one that noticed it.

I think if anti-Kerry people turned their paranoia and "skepticism" on him for 5 minutes he'd wither and blow away. Sadly, this election isn't about putting Kerry in office, it is about impeaching Bush. Regardless, Kerry will continue being allowed by the public to wage a negative election under-the-table, and Bush-haters will never allow themselves to see it.

**Actually** I just found a cached version of the site, took about ten seconds. -Link, comeplete with the "Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc." statement at the bottom. Fromwhat I understand Wilson even remains an "advisor". Between him and Sandy "Shove the documents in your shorts" Berger, he has quite a cabinet underway...

I think Kerry has waged a very, very dirty campaign, and without all the negativity he pretends he has nothing to do with he'd never have a chance. 60+ million dollars in 527 negativity and lies

if it was a 'very, very dirty' campaign--i've yet to hear any halfway objective political analyst suggest the kerry campaign is anything but pretty boring--and as negative as youre suggesting, kerry would be lucky to pull ratings in the 30s.  people are tired of the kinda crap that bush campaigns are associated with (going all the way back to his dads last campaign in which dubya and atwater created the modern dirty campaign) but they expect it from him.  on the other hand it wouldnt be tolerated from anyone else. 

moveon.org was in existence long before the kerry campaign began and i get the impression, they're not terribly happy about kerry's ambivalence towards them.  and as ive tried to point out several times already, moveon.org is proof  that what you sow, youre going to reap.

its a response to the karl rove/bush/cheney legacy.  that's how it billed itself and theres really no difference between the decade-old bush soft money machine and moveon.org except length of service and the fact that the imitator--having learned all they could from the master--is perhaps a little better at the game.   that's purely speculation on my part tho because ive yet to see a moveon.org ad

There's a reason it's an "anybody but Bush2.0" movement...He's a horrible president.

I've already done two blogs on it. No need for another. You guys seem to have no problem with posting third, fourth, and fifth-hand anti-Bush propaganda, but I suppose I am just lying

i remember seeing the first of your two articles about wilson now.  i dont remember the 2nd. sorry i didnt make the connection immediately .  

 i dont know to whom or what youre referring with the 'you guys' thing.   i make a considerable effort to validate anything i post that isnt published by reputable news source  (ap, reuters, major mainstream newspapers, cnn, abc, nbc, cbs national bureaus) and even then i try to find a confirming independent source.  ive never even suggested you were lying.  

im not sure how the wilson page relates to the issue here because it was clearly sponsored by kerry and so identified.   youre not suggesting that kerry told wilson what to say or suborned false testimony?  otherwise its all out in the open.

 as far as berger and wilson go--even looking at them in the worst possible light--they're lightweights compared to elliot abrams and john poindexter.

kerry and mccain have had no problem in condemning both the swiftboatvets tripe and the moveon.org tripe, calling both dishonorable' not because both are attack ads but because by smearing any veteran's service, they cheapen the service of every veteran.

Is that why Kerry doesn't condemn the negativity his own campaign shows toward Bush?

I think you are reading what you want to read here. MoveOn.org is a seperate poitical entity. If you do your homework you will find that they do NOT have the same political agenda. They share the same goal as John Kerry...To get Bush 2.0 out of office. They are definately connected by this issue.Soros has his agenda too but he believes that its worth his time to put his money into the campaign. He does not have a history of giving Kerry a lot of money, until now that is. Whereas the Swift boat guy has had Bush in his pocket for the last 10 years. If it wasn't for him Bush 2.0 wouldn't have got in the Governor's office. Where were the Swift Boat guys before the primaries ended? MoveOn.org was around. Soros was around. Those guys showed up out of the blue. By their statements, John Kerry didn't do anything except make it all up. You actually think that if it wasn't true, any of this would get past Admiral Zumwalt? who is quite possibly one of the greatest and smartest naval leaders ever in the Navy's history, and came down to personally pin the medals on Kerrys chest? I think not. It's just another example of how desperate the repubs are to keep 2.0 in office, And how afraid they are of John Kerry.

So, one of the Swift Boat veterans have supported Bush in the past. Nobody from MoveOn.org has any history with Kerry, is associated with him, and doesn't help fund his campaign for presidency?

Are you suggesting Bush told swiftboat vets "what to say or suborned false testimony"?

No, you are accusing Bush of rendering aid to someone that you believe is lying about Kerry. Kerry was a big supporter of J. WIlson, who was PROVEN to be lying. The main difference is the connection between Bush and swiftboat vets is murky at best, whereas Wilson was an ADVISER to Kerry and Kerry for President hosted his site.

I'm not seeing the confusion. Wilson tried to smear Bush, accused him of lying, was found to by lying himself, and was actively supported by Kerry's campaign. Isn't that what you are accusing Bush of?