Regnery too busy proving that Cindy Sheehan never served in Cambodia?

The question really is..

The documents were forgeries, to be sure, but was what they stated false?

Libel requires (and notice no libel case was filed), that the facts stated be in fact false, or more succinctly, it ain't libel, if it's true.

I find it Ironic with a capital I that Rove, who so quickly moves to file suit on so many fronts, didn't file a libel case against 60 Minutes... hmmmm.. wonder why.

Anyway, as to hate, already posted, so not much more to say than this.. when everyone who criticizes you is an extremist, when you can't ever admit your side makes mistakes, when you can't see your own hypocrisy, you get tiresome to deal with. Perhaps it is not your opposition which is extremist, and extremism in response to extremism only has ever lead to death, sometimes justified perhaps, but none-the-less death.

PB

"The documents were forgeries, to be sure, but was what they stated false?"

Yes, as documented over and over. And over.

"Libel requires (and notice no libel case was filed), that the facts stated be in fact false, or more succinctly, it ain't libel, if it's true."

It is also *incredibly* hard to pursue, especially on behalf of a public figure.

"I find it Ironic with a capital I that Rove, who so quickly moves to file suit on so many fronts, didn't file a libel case against 60 Minutes... hmmmm.. wonder why."

PB - are you channelling Eva Young? The old "ask why your opponent hasn't attempted something either improbable or preposterous, then ask 'hmmmmmm - I wonder why? Curious. Developing".

Where to start?
a) Bush is a *very* public figure.
b) The media has a HUGE "absence of
malice" shield that quashes most
attempts to file libel suits
(see Ariel Sharon v. NY Times)
c) It'd be politically stupid, for the
reasons above, plus the way the media
would depict it.
d) HE WON! Watching Dan Rathair getting
drummed out of Black Rock was worth
more than a billion dollar
settlement.

I wonder why?

"Anyway, as to hate, already posted, so not much more to say than this.. when everyone who criticizes you is an extremist, when you can't ever admit your side makes mistakes, when you can't see your own hypocrisy, you get tiresome to deal with."

Ah. So you mean like how the left-wing punditry refers to EVERY conservative opinion, no matter how innocuous (John Roberts?) as "extremist"?

"Perhaps it is not your opposition which is extremist, and extremism in response to extremism only has ever lead to death, sometimes justified perhaps, but none-the-less death."

Fortunately, I'm the baddest mofo in the valley.

Well, no. But it's fun to say.

Because it's a strawman. I am not an extremist, and neither is the vast majority of my movement.

First: They would have filed if the facts were provably false (after all it was proven over and over again so they certainly could have done so in court), the truth is they didn't because they were not provably false, he DID apparently fail to get his physical, and only a dead man can know if he was ordered for certain, though his widow claims the facts stated by 60 Minutes were true.

So, it was at least reasonable to assert that the opinion of the auther was factually recounted, thus, not libelous.

Further, if CBS erred so eggregeously, and oh by the way, I think they DID in that they failed to determine the authenticity of the documents, then they are not shielded because basic standards of journalism must be followed or you are at risk (go ask the Inquirer), so the case was more than provable needing only one thing, that being that it could not be shown the officer, Bush's CO, did not in fact feel Bush was derilict. It is not libel to recreate fact, it's crappy journalism, but libel. It is libel to assert falsehood. They didn't sue 60 Minutes or sick the FCC on them, because they knew there was sufficient other corroberation that the facts were accurate, even if the documents weren't. Your assertion that it was proven false over and over, is in fact, false. It was proven the documents were forgeries, and that's it. It has never been proven that the CO did not find Bush wanting, did not seek to reprimand him for his conduct, did not feel Bush was "weasling" (my words) out of his commitments. In fact, his wife has said he felt EXACTLY that way.

The reality is that this is EXACTLY why Rove and the lot don't file, they don't want the fact that they made the issue in the case about poor reporting to change it away from whether Bush really WAS AWOL, or at least, failed in his responsibility to adhere to orders. That's the reason, and NO other. They were cackling with glee as it allowed them to burry a pretty bad piece of reality.."oh that AWOL thing, well everyone knows it's not true, I mean the documents were forgeries." Well, everyone does not actually know the facts were untrue, they only know the documents were forgeries. If they could refute the facts sufficiently, they'd have done so.

Finally, on hate, I've seen MANY MANY liberal commentaries about Roberts being civil, being well reasoned, being the best that could be hoped for from a conservative president. You know this is true, yet you appear to desire to mislead your readership that it was every opinion >>Ah. So you mean like how the left-wing punditry refers to EVERY conservative opinion, no matter how innocuous (John Roberts?) as "extremist"?>> yet clearly, Roberts' opinions were NOT treated as extremist, so not EVERY opinion is treated as extremist, not by a darned site. Even more, so much of the "mainstream" media is so cowed, they present "facts" from the right wing spin machine as truth (such as when George Stupidolous recounted the story that there were 2000 buses available in New Orleans). The truth is that the left has embraced MANY comments and opinions from both this President and the right as sound. Yet you make extreme comments such as the one above. It was not they, but you who resorted to that extremism, you who preached contempt (or maybe it was simply exasperation) for left-wing punditry as being universally against every opinion, even when you know such is not true. The fact is the Strib wrote an article supporting Roberts, and you know it, as I know you read the Strib's editorial page religiously. Maybe you forgot, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, something your readers (not you, you would) would not do for me or anyone else who disagrees. They write toilet language responses, please tell me they are not full of hate.

As to being the biggest MOFO on the block, while you say it was a joke, I've heard it too often, "because we can", "but we won-get over it", "well he was smart enough to beat you twice", to believe it is fully a joke from most on the right. Those kinds of comments are both venal and gloating, but more, point to a willingness to abet bullying (not schoolhouse, national) abuse, and worse.

I've talked enough with you to know you are better, but that does not make your movement unextreme. Your movement loathes and ridicules, and much worse, those who oppose your positions. The left are either, a. elitist wimps b. criminals/corrupt d. common-sense challenged or my favorite c. Traitors who hate America.

Yes, you perceive that the left thinks rightwingers are a. greedy, b. corrupt c. stupid or at least ignorant. Not much difference right, well except that darned few lefties I know would muzzle you with comments like "aiding and abbetting the enemy" even though you opposed Clinton on Bosnia. And most lefties at least acknowledge some of their own weaknesses and mistakes, as well as some of your strong points. The right, on the other hand almost never do so (you being the collective, not you personally). I say almost because I have heard Babs criticize Bush, but it's usually immediately before he's tellling him to kneecap his opposition. THAT is the foundation of extremism, never comprimise, never admit defeat, never admit guilt, never admit wrong-doing. FEMA screws the pooch, blame the Democrats, the President runs a 2.7 Trillion dollar debt, blame the democrats (terrorists - but aren't they the same - oh, wait, they didn't blow up Alfred P. Murrah). I didn't love Clinton, he had some major warts (he was far to cozey with Telco's for one), I supported workfare, before Clinton did, and really before any Republican made it a rallying cry, I opposed NAFTA, why is it SOOOO hard to admit this man (Bush) is a dismal failure as a President, and worse, abjectly corrupt, even when the evidence is so starkly obvious? I never loved Reagan, but he had fundamental character that Bush doesn't have a thimble full of. His father was no saint, but he was FAR better than this one note charlie who is selling our treasury to his bo-bo's. It's the same question I asked you months ago, when, when will it be that you admit you tied your rope to a burro, not a horse. You got hoodwinked, so what, it happens to us all, I voted for Pawlenty.

Insanity is repeating the same act over again and expecting different results. Elect a blue-blood, frat boy phleeb who has the curiousity of a gnat, and you'll get a disinterested, lazy brat who panders to his friends and puts incompetent politicos in important places. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Eisenhower, all understood policy requires thought, the Presidency is not an office to be used to further political agendas to the expense of everything else. This is flat out THE MOST politically motivated, politcally directed administration in history. The facts are plain, but, against all of it, against the obviousness, including things like Brown actually NOT being fired, a clear indication that the Pres (Rove) through out a subterfuge intended to fool the people, while they circled the wagons and quietly floated BS like Nagin could have prevented it. It's working though, I guess you have to give him credit, this Stalwart man, this man of principles, who told us Brown was out, well not really, is using you and others like you to carry on the war behind the scenes to rehabilitate him, and at least with his base, blame everyone, and anyone, else. And you do it because, you're an extremist.

PB