Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Woody:

I think O’Reilly hit the nail on the head. I especially like this comment from his statement:

What should we, on the sidelines, make of all this? Well, it’s a judgment call. It is absolutely wrong for Americans to condemn Kerry’s war record because he demonstrated provable valor. However, those who distrust him do deserve to be heard although facts not emotion should be demanded.

The issue out of Viet Nam is character, I suppose. If one feels Kerry distorted his actions there, then one can see that as a mark against his character. If one feels that Bush distorted his actions in the National Guard, or that his mere presence there rather than in Viet Nam shows an absence of character, then so be it.

Bob Dole is a war hero, yet was not elected President over Bill Clinton. This shows that there are, and should be, other issues on which to base a vote.

I find it almost absurd that 30 years after the fact, so many armchair historians are now trying to say one side lied or the other side lied. As O’Reilly says, our opinions should be based in fact, not supposition or partisanship. Ahhh, what a utopia THAT would be.

Here are my Swiftvets talking points:

1. Kerry went to Viet Nam, at a minimum got shot at, and honorably served. Enough said.

2. That “enough said” should be adhered to by the Kerry Campaign as well.

3. People will have different recollections of events that happened 35 years ago; especially events that took place in the fog of war. There is no reason to believe that any of these men don’t believe what they are saying is the truth.

4. The Swiftvets for Truth are NOT a part of the “right-wing slime machine” as people (and Henri) are trying to paint them. I’ve been reading their site since late May and can guarantee you that Democrat/Republican politics are not their motivation. Their goal of preventing Kerry from achieving the Whitehouse does line up nicely with others who are politically motivated, and thus is attracting financial support, but it is a big mistake to try to characterize the O’Neill and Co. as political hacks.

5. As a group the Swiftvets do have the right to be heard.

6. How the Kerry campaign responds to this will be the real story here. Kerry has handled these types of accusations in the past so he knows what to do. It is the rest of the left, in my opinion, that are going about this in their standard, and in this case wrong, fashion. Impeach the Source, Character Assassinations, Legal Actions, Diversion (to Bush’s service), Victimhood, and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are tactics that will only give this story life and will confuse uninformed voters.

7. The book is far more damaging than the ad from what I’ve read of it (I’m still waiting on my copy). It will give the national press a “roadmap” to dig further into this story. That’s why I think it is very important for Kerry to quit hiding from this story, or letting Lanny Davis handle it, and address it now.

The trouble I see is that the Right in recent years has tried to assert ownership of the truth, a quantity that belongs to no person. They’ve plugged highly partisan publications and television shows as objective and fair and balanced, while dismissing out of hand barely partisan mainstream press reports when it doesn’t suit their purpose. When it’s positivity or negativity on the party is the main criteria for judging a news item or fact true or false, then the system is ripe for all kinds of abuse.

They would do themselves a lot of good to go back to working the same sources, instead of trying to create an alternate media in their image. For facts to be most important, sources must be judged on the reliability of their facts first before the reverse judgment is made.

Frankly, I don’t even prefer my own partisan sources. I find in blogs of both parties, echo chambers can develop where a certain set of putative facts is accepted and all other sets rejected out of hand. Journalistic sources when of good quality can break us free of that echo chamber. Problem is, the constant claims of bias have lead many in the mainstream media to avoid challenging Republican version of events, and Rupert Murdoch’s news venture has dramatically lowered the standard for what kind of spin is accepted.

I get the feeling that if your people didn’t have fox spinning for them, and the xenophobic avoidance of non-conservative sources, you would have never rallied behind Bush as much. It’s fact heavy sources that are most incriminating of Bush, and those are the ones, not the blogs or the Kerry Campaign that have made me so critical of Bush.

Stephen-

The trouble I see is that the Left in recent years has tried to assert ownership of the truth, a quantity that belongs to no person.

I get the feeling that if your people didn’t have the NY Times spinning for them, and the xenophobic avoidance of non-liberal sources, you would have never rallied behind Kerry as much.

Where does this get us? That’s what is wrong with blog on the next column: there is no end to this circular argument unless you are willing to advocate taking FNC off the air or putting an end to the NY Times.

And it has nothing to do with the Swiftvets.

O’Reilly is a fair minded guy as evidenced by that article. I don’t agree with everything he says on all topics, but he is fair, not the big time Republican supporter he is made out to be by the left. However, I love it when a liberal quotes or references him. Did you finally find something he said that you liked?

No side owns the truth, but there is one side that owns common sense when it comes to dealing with islamic terrorism, and it doesn’t involve “sensitivity”. The economy is not the number one issue facing this nation no matter how many morons you poll.

George:

Your seven points are very good ones. I’d also add that I liked how you pointed that everything that Stephen so ardently believes about the “right” can be equally applied to the “left” without even changing the language. Its simply a matter of opinion. I’d say its obvious that the media is biased—its really inherent.

What I find humorous is that the left for years denied this, while at the same time stating the Fox is a right wing network. So…..if the media is not biased, but Fox is a member of the media, and Fox is biased……well, I dont have a PHd in logic, but even I can see the fallacy in that.

Here’s a mental exercise to put John Kerry’s service record in perspective: For the sake of discussion, let’s switch the service records GWB and JFK. Let’s say that GWB volunteered for ‘Nam, commanded a swift boat, and had 3 purple hearts. Let’s say that JFK had an honorable discharge and a dental appointment to show for his National Guard service.

Do you think the Democrats would be questioning the circumstances behind (only one of) the purple hearts? And wouldn’t the Republicans be all over the no-show in Alabama?

Maybe Kerry has allowed his service record to have too much of an effect on his campaign…but anybody who impugns a man who volunteered to serve his country and faced combat is really low, especially when comparing the record of the other candidate.

All politics is opinion and propaganda. But, the the Republican’s, under Carl Rove, set new lows with every breath they take. The swift boat vets are the same group that trashed McCain and Cleland. Negative campaigning and big TV bucks works and Rove is the master trasher. They are completely discredited, but **** the country, just win.

The fallacy is that the Republicans as a party are the ones questioning Kerry’s service and making it an issue. Vietnam is only an issue because Kerry made it the centerpiece of his campaign. If you are going to say in effect, “look what I did in Vietnam” … therefore “I will be a good Commander-in-Chief”, you open yourself to some scrutiny by those who served with you. However, what he did or didn’t do over 35 years ago in a war is open to interpretation and therefore is really a non-issue to me. You can’t blame a party as a whole for the acts of a few fringe groups. (think of all the nutball leftist groups the Democrats would be apoligizing for)

Kerry went, served, and was discharged in almost record time. Good for him. Vietnam is a non-issue. I have many more reasons to not vote for him than what he did as a 22 yr old.

Bayviking:

Another stunning display of your intellect, apparently. You say the Swiftvets are the same people who went after McCain and Cleland….LOL

How misinformed can you be. The Swiftvets are a group of over 250 Viet Nam veterans who served with and around John Kerry. They have not had anything nor ever had anything to do with McCain or Cleland.

Yeah, I know they might have used the same advertising company to create their ads that others used to create negative McCain ads. But that would be like saying GM and Apple Computer are the same entity because they both use Saachi Saachi Dieterzhagen as part of their advertising.

If you want to be taken seriously, flaws in logic and fact like your last post will work against you.

“The fallacy is that the Republicans as a party are the ones questioning Kerry’s service and making it an issue. Vietnam is only an issue because Kerry made it the centerpiece of his campaign.”

This is like saying that rape is only an issue because rape victims come forward and make it an issue.

Kerry’s campaign has every right to call attention to his service, which is only a focal point of his campaign because the Bush campaign has worked so hard to paint him as weak on defense & security.

It’s perfectly legitimate to bring up both Kerry’s and Bush’s military backgrounds. Let’s just keep it all in perspective.

Joe:
I’ll take Kerry’s military record over Bush’s any day? Your use of the terms “with and around” are an interesting example of “logic”: “with” being another boat; “around” being the same country! 249 of your swiftvets never served on Kerry’s boat. How is it that one’s that did have a different story to tell? What you call the advertisers are also the author, organizers and funders, conveniently separated from the Bush campaign. And yes, the author did engineer a smear of McCain and Cleland. You are correct in asserting that the 250 so-called swiftvets had nothing to do with that, but what has that got to do with anything? This fake scandal has Rove’s stench all over it. The pigs are at the trough. The emperor has no clothes.

Bayviking:

You are correct in asserting that the 250 so-called swiftvets had nothing to do with that, but what has that got to do with anything?

It has to do with the accuracy of your post when you stated that the “swift boat vets are the same group that trashed McCain and Cleland.” As I said, if you are going to make statements, at least make correct ones. Thanks for recognizing that MY statement was accurate.

I never addressed either Kerry’s or Bush’s military record; rather, I addressed your assessment of the situation. Based ONLY on military records, I’d probably choose Kerry as well, but only the ignorant and pedantic would base their decisions on what a 61 year old man did for 4 months 35 years ago. I’m sure you’ll now admit to having voted for Bob Dole because of how his military record outshone that of Bill Clinton…..riiiight??

Thirdly, my logic is sound and even better….absolutely correct. Even you must admit that having every single officer that Kerry reported to saying he is unfit to be President is troubling at the least. And to have all but one of his peers (the other lieutenants who commanded Swift boats in his Mekong group) against him.

IFFF it is orchestrated, its still amazing to have such solidarity. That they were not in the same boat isnt such a big issue, though of course that opens up the question of why Kerry’s boat mates, outside of Gardner, DO like him. Many of these guys were in the same situation, the same firefights, the same waters as Kerry, which gives them a view of him that neither you nor I have.

Can’t you lose your rabid partisanship to even wonder how you could get 250 men with such vastly diverse backgrounds, careers, lives, families, religions, and politics to all agree on one thing?

No??? I didn’t think so.

Kerry today denounced a recent MoveOn.org ad criticizing Bush’s service record.

Bush has yet to do anything even remotely like this regarding the SBVT ad. In fact, he tacitly approves the ad and even allows his loyalty-oath-signing supporters to get away with repeating the slander to his face.

Q On behalf of Vietnam veterans — and I served six tours over there — we do support the President. I only have one concern, and that’s on the Purple Heart, and that is, is that there are over 200,000 Vietnam vets that died from Agent Orange and were never — no Purple Heart has ever been awarded to a Vietnam veteran because of Agent Orange because it’s never been changed in the regulations. Yet, we’ve got a candidate for President out here with two self-inflicted scratches, and I take that as an insult. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for your service. Six tours? Whew. That’s a lot of tours.

Remember when Wesley Clark got nailed for not condemning Michael Moore? Well, here’s this guy accusing Kerry of faking injuries right in the President’s face, and all Bush can say is “I appreciate that”?? What a jerk. Kerry’s got more integrity in his fingernail than Bush has in his whole body.

Joe wrote:
> And to have all but one of his peers (the other
> lieutenants who commanded Swift boats in his
> Mekong group) against him.

Not accurate. First of all, we’re just talking about the people in the SBVT photograph, which isn’t “all” of his peers - hell, it could be a photo from the day Kerry was hanging out with the politically-inclined assholes in his unit. We just don’t know. Secondly, although it’s true that only one person in the photo says he supports Kerry, two or three of them haven’t said anything at all on the matter and cannot thus be claimed to be “against him”.

> Can’t you lose your rabid partisanship to even
> wonder how you could get 250 men with such vastly
> diverse backgrounds, careers, lives, families,
> religions, and politics to all agree on one thing?

To find 250 veterans who agree that they want Bush to win and not Kerry? Hell, that’s child’s play. I don’t see why you’re impressed with the 250 at all. We don’t even know how many of them served at the same time as Kerry (given that Kerry only served 4 months, it’s likely that very few of them did). We don’t even know what proportion of Swift Boat veterans the number 250 is (is it 250 out of 300 who served? is it 250 out of 2,500?). The 250 number is no more meaningful than any other list of 250 people who dislike Kerry.

It takes rabid partisanship to look at that letter and think it means anything significant about Kerry’s character.

> Based ONLY on military records, I’d
> probably choose Kerry as well

Even though 250 veterans hate him? Are you flip-flopping?

-Cf

> 1. Kerry went to Viet Nam, at a minimum got
> shot at, and honorably served. Enough said.
> 2. That “enough said” should be adhered to
> by the Kerry Campaign as well.

Um, not quite enough said there. If you trust the Navy’s records, as I do, we can see that he also got three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star.

> 3. People will have different recollections of
> events that happened 35 years ago; especially
> events that took place in the fog of war. There
> is no reason to believe that any of these men
> don’t believe what they are saying is the truth.

I agree sorta. I think some of these people have been hearing the sleazy smears for so long and with such force that they actually beleive it themselves, even to the extent that these new “memories” replace the old memories. Elliot is a prime example. He approved Kerry’s medals, even signed off on them 35 years ago when his memory was presumably intact, then 35 years later he claimed Kerry didn’t deserve the medals, then a week after that claimed that he personally didn’t know Kerry didn’t deserve them but that other people told him Kerry didn’t deserve them. In other words, Elliot is a sadly confused guy. So I agree with you insofar as I think it’s possible that some of these vets’ memories are being exploited.

> 4. The Swiftvets for Truth are NOT a part of
> the “right-wing slime machine” as people (and
> Henri) are trying to paint them. I’ve been
> reading their site since late May and can
> guarantee you that Democrat/Republican
> politics are not their motivation.

You make it sound like the group started up when a bunch of bi-partisan vets got together and set it up, then the Republican money rolled in. The opposite is true. The Republican money people appeared first, they then rounded up sympathetic vets, created the group, and wrote the book.

Also, you obviously cannot “guarantee” anything about these people.

> 7. The book … will give the national press
> a “roadmap” to dig further into this story.

It’s been out for weeks now. I guess that’s been long enough. I hope they are reading it and checking up on every detail.

-Cf

“This is like saying that rape is only an issue because rape victims come forward and make it an issue.”

I don’t even know what that means.

I don’t care about Vietnam. It proves nothing to me. There are plenty of other reasons to not vote for Kerry.

“O’Reilly is a fair minded guy as evidenced by that article.”

Really? Is that why he yells at his guests and threatens to cut the microphone for people who dissent? I don’t consider that fair minded.

> The Swiftvets are a group of over 250 Viet Nam
> veterans who served with and around John Kerry.

Not necessarily. They merely served on Swift Boats in Vietnam, but didn’t necessarily ever lay eyes on John Kerry. Even their leader, John O’Neill, for example, didn’t serve “with” or even “around” Kerry. They weren’t even in Vietnam at the same time!!

My guess is that a great many if not most of those 250 weren’t in Vietnam during Kerry’s 4 months. It’s a reasonable common sense guess based on (a) John O’Neill’s situation and (b) the observation that the SBVT site doesn’t even claim that any of those 250 served at the same time Kerry.

> Yeah, I know they might have used the same
> advertising company to create their ads that
> others used to create negative McCain ads.

Actually they used the same agency John McCain himself used when he ran for President. That’s actually another reason he’s mad at them - he didn’t think that his agency would be so sleazy.

-Cf

Ha HA HA HAAAA!

See that! even O’reilly knows when Georgie’s holding the rifle backwards!

The thing is that John O’neil, Kerry’s lifelong adversary/arch nemesis is still pulling out of his hat the Nixonian manifest from ages past.

O’neil has this thorn in his heel from the spring of ‘72. The veterans against the war hit washington and the Nixon White House needed to defend itself from wartime criticism by it’s own troops. So what did they need? A military person who could contrast the claims of soldiers returning from Vietnam to protest.

Nixon found O’neil, invited him several times to the White House and well the rest is history, Dick Cavett et al.

This as O’reilly is well aware is not going to win any elections. Especially when George W. Bush not only didn’t go to vietnam but took several months off from duty to work for a man by the name of ‘Winton “Red” Blount’ who was running for governor on a segregationist ticket.

Bush has his rifle aimed backwards especially with the Veterans against Kerry movement that blew up in bush’s face when it was discovered that none of the persons in that ad actually served ‘with’ John Kerry, but instead in that general vicinity bytwo to three hundred miles difference atleast.

there’s an old saying: I can handle my enemies but god save me from my friends.

The republicans won’t let this Vietnam talk go and Bush wants to distance himself as much as he can from it while the repubs still persist. O’neil on pundit shows and various other columnists and commentators.

YOU WATCH Kerry will turn to teflon before our eyes, if this keeps up. The mantra being atleast he went to Vietnam, even when he didn’t have to.

And Gore didn’t play it up enough in his campaign. So let the republicans banter on this still. It’s perfect!

O’neil’s book will give way to others and hence negative momentum to swing the pendulum back to progressivism.

And sidenote:: The Max Cleland story is getting far more notoriety, so another boon. If all goes well the things that the Bush administration has done to military benefits will get equal notice and then Kapow! we’re the patriotic party too!

Give ‘em enough rope!

Not so fast, George, not so fast. Anybody can mad-lib words like that. The Democrats are guilty of prizing their own perspective, like every political party, and no more. The Republicans take this way more seriously. Do you see Liberals out there trying to buy up Christian stations and turn them into NPR stations? Do you hear Democratic candidates openly complaining about the Conservative media? Do you hear about hippies being given classes on how to wage stealth campaigns?

The Constituency of the Modern Republican party are not all like this, but some of their top people are absorbed in this society of cultural warfare, not merely arguing against Democrat positions, but trying to eradicate them altogether from the public forum. I don’t see Democrats out there trying to remove Creation from the churches- why are Republicans doing their damnedest to remove Evolution and the Big Bang from the Curriculum?

Which side was it that started claiming first that the other side was communist? Which side first claimed the other side in sympathy with terrorists?

I won’t claim the Democrats are incapable of nasty campaign tactics. Both sides are capable. However, the Republicans have made more of a policy of Scorched Earth tactics in recent times, shutting down the government forcing a lawsuit on the president during his tenure, a move that many agree distracted him from facing the growing threats and issues of our time, Impeaching a president for an offense that most Americans did not think merited such treatment. Who was it that used 9/11 as a cudgel to knock the opponent party from their seats? What president won a primary over his fellow party member by alleging an interracial love child in a former state of the confederacy. What party bussed in people to disrupt a recount?

If anybody needs to know why I’ve never fully reconciled with my old party, the reasons are obvious. Only recently have I seen anywhere near the aggression on the part of the Democrats concerning the political arena, and it’s about time. As bad as scorched earth politics are, not standing up to them is worse.

Frankly, I rarely dismiss mainstream sources on basis of bias. I usually rule out fringe and partisan sources, and that includes my own party most of the time. I find it an obnoxious, presumptious practice to rule out publications with no obvious political constituency on that basis. If the readership is just the general public, as with the New York Times, charges of bias are more ways of avoiding unpleasant or contradictory new without having to much about in the facts. While I wouldn’t blame a Republican for dismissing Mother Jones or the Progressive on first blush, I think a boycotting of the New York Times is just silly. Even if bias exists, I don’t see it as a good reason to dismiss facts outright. Perhaps you can be skeptical, but wouldn’t it be useful if you went and saw if other sources supported it before you went off and made yourself look irrational by opposing facts everybody else take as credible?

This whole Liberal Bias thing is just the party leadership keeping the party faithful from having to experience painful things like doubt, concession, guilt, and (gasp!) agreement with one’s opponents. The Left has had to deal with that for years, coming to terms with our internal resemblances to our red-state brethren. It is we who have moderated our stances on economic matters, on regulation, on fiscal responsibility, on even the military. We have gone in twelve years from a candidate who is a draft dodger, to one who enlisted.

It use to be that the Republican leadership allowed some flexibility in their ranks. Nowadays though, members are forced through ideological litmus tests. Loyalty to platform is allowed to trump loyalty to principle. It’s a shame really. I think conservatism, when allowed to take it’s natural course, can put the brakes on the excesses of liberalism and keep us honest. Unfortunately, it’s gotten to where few Republicans are willing to admit a mistake.

People who aren’t willing to admit error, can’t correct it that well in others.

I’ve read the Unfit for Command book, and Chapter 8 blew me away.

I read there’s now a call for an investigation into Kerry’s medals and anti-war actions.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kerryawards.htm

CF-

Man you are on a roll tonight! I can indeed guarantee what I said; of course a guarantee from me might not buy you very much :)

My word choice aside, I think that if you go to their site and breeze through their comments on all of their boards you will get a better picture of these people. They’re more like Mel Gibson from “Conspiracy Theory” than they are partisan. They do not like Kerry, that is certain, but their hatred is not because they are Republicans. Read the site and I think you will see.

The book has just made it out; Amazon.com delayed the shipment for some reason. I haven’t received mine yet, but from what I hear it is very detailed.

As for Kerry’s medals, if you trust the Navy on his honors then you need to trust the Navy on the people (the Swiftvets) that you are critical of. They have a treasure chest full of them, and the head of the outfit made Admiral. That’s why I think that using the character assassin technique might backfire and lead to more animosity among vets than there already is.

They served, they do not agree with my politics, and they have a different opinion of the events that happened. The paperwork backs Kerry’s version, so as long as Kerry doesn’t sign the 180 prior to the election he wins on this issue. He’s beaten this several times already.

errand boy…what benefits has bush cut for veterans?

Reactions to various comments

I love it when a liberal quotes or references [O’Reilly]. Did you finally find something he said that you liked?

Is it my fault if he finally had the good sense to agree with me? ;)

No side owns the truth, but there is one side that owns common sense when it comes to dealing with islamic terrorism, and it doesn’t involve “sensitivity”.

Bush himself made similar comments about being sensitive. (OK, so no one actually believed him…)

If you are going to say in effect, “look what I did in Vietnam” … therefore “I will be a good Commander-in-Chief”, you open yourself to some scrutiny by those who served with you.

I agree with you, and people who made similar comments, HOWEVER… There is never an excuse for telling lies about someone. Just because Bush says he loves his wife (at least I assume he would say so) doesn’t give me permission to spread rumors that he beats her.

The Swiftvets are a group of over 250 Viet Nam veterans who served with and around John Kerry.

According to their website, SBVFT “consists of and is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy ‘Swift Boats’ or in affiliated commands.”

In other words, the only thing that they all have in common with Kerry is they rode around in the same type of boat (or affiliated commands, whatever that means).

These guys have about as much authority to talk about Kerry as 250 random members of the Yale class of ‘68 would have to talk about Bush. Actually, that might be kind of fun… Yalies for Truth :)

I read there’s now a call for an investigation into Kerry’s medals and anti-war actions.

Wow, that sounds like fun, too. Bring back Ken Starr!

A question for those who’ve read the book:

How many of the veterans in the group actually questioned Kerry’s version of the events and how many simply expressed their anger at Kerry’s actions after he left Vietnam? In the ads and excerpts I’ve seen, the vast majority of complaints were about Kerry’s protests against the war. I’ve seen a few question his reporting of the events surrounding some of his medals, and I’ve seen the doctor questioning Kerry’s wound…(Editorial comment: How few soldiers did this doctor treat if he can vividly remember one soldier’s injury from 35 years ago?).

The rest seem to be questioning Kerry’s protest. Which would suggest that the Swiftboat Veterans’ issue isn’t that Kerry is unfit for command because of what he did while fighting in the Vietnam War, but rather because of what he did while fighting to end it.

I read there’s now a call for an investigation into Kerry’s medals and anti-war actions.

“>http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2004/kerryawards.htm

I would think that Senator Kerry would welcome this investigation if it ensured a speedy verdict (within one month before Election Day). The Swiftboat Veterans case is riddled with huge, gaping holes that an official investigation would only blow wider. I’ve considered how an interrogation of Louis Letson, the doctor who supposedly treated Kerry’s first wound, might go.

“Doctor, how many soldiers did you treat in Vietnam?”

“And you remember this single solitary soldier from among the hundreds of soldiers you treated in Vietnam? And you realize that was more than 30 years ago, Doctor, do you not?”

(Possibly followed by some questions about what else Dr. Letson’s remembers from 1971 to test his superhuman ability of recall.)

“If you treated Lt. Kerry for a ‘wound,’ how is it that you say he did not deserve the Purple Heart? Isn’t a Purple Heart awarded for ‘wounds’ suffered in combat? Was it a wound or was it not, Doctor?”

And don’t get me started on Elliott or Hoffmann…

The point Jerome just made is another damaging aspect of certain members of the SBV, who have dogged every campaign of John Kerry.

But Woody, this attempt at ‘fair and balance’ by O’Reilly is a blatant ploy by Fox News. Previous to the bad economic news and recent round of bad polling data for Bush, this SBV issue was relegated to the Factor and Hannity & Tool, on Fox News. However, this story has clearly been made a Top News priority. The SBV TV spot may not be running anymore in those battleground states, but I saw it three times within an hour, this morning.

Fox Commentator Fred Barnes alluded to several unnamed media outlets are launching investigations into the book’s claims. Plus, two Fox anchors mentioned that these allegations were having a negative effect on Kerry, among Swing voters. And, both instances were not followed up with proof.

This is somewhat unrelated to the original topic, but needs to be brought up if we’re discussing O’Reilly.

I just saw today that, once again, O’Reilly blatantly LIED. During his Russert-officiated debate with Paul Krugman, O’Reilly fabricated an argument about WMDs by citing a phantom interview with Hans Blix.

One blogger’s take on the exchange in question:

>>O’Reilly wasn’t simply dumb; he also seemed to make stuff up. When Krugman discussed the run-up to war in Iraq, O’Reilly cited a conversation—a conversation that doesn’t seem to have happened. Krugman argued that Bush rushed to war—that pre-war inspections should have continued. In reply, O’Reilly recalled what UN weapons inspector Hans Blix “flat-out” told him on his program:

KRUGMAN: Remember, we went to war when there was an effective inspections regime back in place. We did not have to actually go to war. We were doing, we were—we had Saddam pretty effectively caged.
O’REILLY: Well, not according to Hans Blix. He came on my program flat-out and said, “They’re not letting us interview the scientists,” which was a key.

From this statement, you might even think that Blix came on O’Reilly’s show and “flat-out” told him about the scientists. Just in case there was any doubt, O’Reilly described the occasion again:
O’REILLY: Blix came on the program and said to me flat-out, “They aren’t cooperating. We can’t interview the scientists, and we can’t go where we want to go.” They gave him all kinds of time, Saddam, to stop the nonsense. Seventeen violations of the Gulf War cease-fire, 17. The guy obviously was defiant.
For reasons that must be fairly obvious, this claim seemed to strike Krugman as odd. A back-and-forth battle ensued:
KRUGMAN: I’m gonna wager that Blix—I don’t have the record, but I’m gonna wager Blix told you that a number of months before the war.
O’REILLY: Yeah, he told me that before the war. That’s correct.

KRUGMAN: Well before the war. Before the—

O’REILLY: Well, it was a couple of months before.

KRUGMAN: Before Saddam opened up a lot more under pressure. And nobody disapproved of putting extra pressure on him.

But in fact, Blix doesn’t seem to have said that to O’Reilly, before or after the war. According to every record we can find, the blustering talker never had that discussion with the UN gumshoe. O’Reilly may have been thinking of Joseph Wilson, who appeared on The Factor on January 13, 2003—two months before the war began—and discussed the question of interviews with Iraqi scientists. On that occasion, it was O’Reilly who raised the topic, paraphrasing what Blix had told the UN Security Council on January 9, four days earlier.“Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein will not allow his inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists out of the country,” O’Reilly told Wilson. “Blix said flat-out, his guys, his inspectors, can’t talk to these scientists.”
So it seems that Blix didn’t flat-out say this to O’Reilly; according to the talker’s paraphrase, Blix flat-out said this to the UN. But we think you know how that can happen. You know: Someone says something to the UN—and you end up thinking he said it to you? According to all available records, Blix has appeared on The Factor once—on March 15, 2004, one year after the war in Iraq. The question of interviews didn’t come up. Bill did challenge Blix at the start of the session. “This is the no-spin zone,” the tail-gunner blustered, “so you’re going to give me it straight, all right?”

Did Blix appear with O’Reilly before the war? We can find no record of such a session, nor can we find any instance in which O’Reilly discussed such an event (although he often discussed Blix on his program). We’re certainly willing to be corrected, but it seems that Bill just made this one up. If so, why would Russert want more conversation with a man as “inventive” as this?

In defense of O’Reilly, I find that he can be objective. He’s a blowhard, yes, and his politics certainly lean Right. But I think he’s unfairly lumped in with the GOP suckups like Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh (and unfairly counterpoised to the likes of Carville, Moore and Franken).

For all you ‘swiftboat suckers for Bush’, it turns out Larry Thurlow is a liar. His citation for the bronze star he got at the same time as Kerry, states there was “enemy small arms and automatic fire” directed at “all units” of the five-boat flotilla.

Since Thurlow swore under oath in an affidavit that they were not taking fire, does he get arrested? Or do we just move on to the next attack on Bush’s “let’s make up horrible stuff to discredit Kerry” hit list?

BTW, I love this site: sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com

Brownstar(Dig the name btw),

Bush has cut veteran’s benefits considerably:

GI Bill has been cut,’family leave’(I believe it’s called which is monies to families of soldiers stationed overseas)and most notably, soldiers who earn more than 25k a year no longer qualify for medical treatment at VA hospitals or by VA physicians. If you go to google I’m sure you will find plenty of information on the topic.

Plus we have new cases coming in of Gulf War syndrome which is undoubtedly caused by depleted uranium weapons, which isn’t really depleted as the name suggests, unless you consider a mere 2% as depleted. So we will undoubtedly have new cases of Gulf War Syndrome coming in. And it does infect others who may have had no contact with the weapons themselves due to it’s storage and evaporation in the lungs. Such as you remember the family members of the soldiers getting sick after the Gulf War. Also G.W. syndrome causes birth defects and other oddities such as tumors and bizarre growths not to mention will stay in the air in Iraq (general area) for over twenty years as some radiological experts claim. Plenty of info on the web from reputable sources on D.U. weapons and infectious disease.

My point: Not a good time to cut benefits to veterans. This is the Agent Orange of the 21st century and this bout with it will be far more widespread than in 1991.

Chris:

First, my earlier post should have said that only 1 of the 20 officers pictured was FOR Kerry, rather than saying that 19 of the 20 were AGAINST Kerry….thanks for that clarification.

Second, here is a comment about who the SwiftVets are and who they are comprised of: ” it includes more than 220 Swift Boat vets, “virtually the entire chain of command Kerry reported to and a large majority of peers who served with him”.
But don’t believe me on this—-do your own homework. Go find out how many officers who Kerry reported to during his stint in Viet Nam are supporting him. Question why Kerry isnt supplying more supporters, IFFFF the 250 is only a small percentage as you suggest in your post.

Lastly, you try a vain and poorly planned out attack on me with the following:

> Based ONLY on military records, I’d
> probably choose Kerry as well

Even though 250 veterans hate him? Are you flip-flopping?

My logic is clear and I’ve pointed it out. Only one of the candidates served in actual combat duty, and despite the allegations (not proven yet) and the questions about Kerry’s service, I’d still give him a leg up on that sole issue. Its his career since then that shows nothing of validity to qualify him for President.

Chris, you do amuse me. I love how you use the old kindergarten tricks for your debate style.
Whenever your side is painted with a brush, you simply deny it and paint the other side with the same brush….Liberal media???? Uhn Uhhh…its a CONSERVATIVE media. Kerry a flip flopper??? Uhn Uhhh….BUSH is a flip flopper.

Now you are calling ME a flip flopper. Try to graduate from your kindergarten logic and catch up with the adults.

Jerome:

Which would suggest that the Swiftboat Veterans’ issue isn’t that Kerry is unfit for command because of what he did while fighting in the Vietnam War, but rather because of what he did while fighting to end it.

Posted by Jerome Guerra at August 19, 2004 12:02 AM

This is very insightful. It’s been my contention that if we ignore the allegations about the Purple Hearts and Bronze Star, we are still left with a group of Kerry’s contemporaries from Viet Nam who say he is unfit for the Presidency. Among this group is his entire chain of command, along with at least 18 of his fellow Swiftboat officers.

These guys are solidified in the belief that Kerry is not qualified to be President. They believe that his actions following Viet Nam were vile and repugnant, and a betrayal of his fellow soldiers. They believe this betrayal, reputed to have been used against prisoners of war, causes Kerry to be unfit for President of the U.S.

So there we have it. On one hand, you have a group of soldiers, well decorated, who agree with Kerry and like him. On the other hand, a group who disagrees with him and dislikes him.

I’ve said all along that the salient issues are his actions and his record in office. How better to determine a man’s qualifications than to review what he has accomplished. With regard to Kerry, I simply don’t see all that much there. I believe his convention speech was indicative of his strategy—-play up Viet Nam, play down his career. HIS choice of strategy, but one that seems horribly backwards to me.

They have a treasure chest full of them, and the head of the outfit made Admiral.

Including Larry Thurlow, who got a Bronze Star. For showing courage in a feirce firefight. A battle in which he now swears there was no shooting.

These guys are hatchet men, plain and simple. One by one the handful of them that are alleging Kerry’s frauds (as opposed to the ones who merely claim to hate Kerry) are going to fall apart as evidence comes out.

-Cf

Joe, if looking up the facts is a kindergarten debating technique, then I plead guilty. Calling you a flip-flopper was sarcasm regarding your seemingly disingenuous expression of “respect” for Kerry’s service— I thought it ironic that you would over and over again seem to give these 250 men serious credibility merely with regards to their disapproval of Kerry (combat service conspiracy theories notwithstanding), and yet you express admiration for Kerry’s service on the other.

In your last post you wrote: “It’s been my contention that if we ignore the allegations about the Purple Hearts and Bronze Star, we are still left with a group of Kerry’s contemporaries from Viet Nam who say he is unfit for the Presidency. Among this group is his entire chain of command, along with at least 18 of his fellow Swiftboat officers.”

You say this, and you mock my suggestion that the 250 might not be a truly representative sample, and yet you also expect us to believe that, all other things being equal, you’d rather vote for a guy who volunteered for service and was vigorously detested by all his colleagues rather than a guy who didn’t volunteer for combat at all? I don’t buy it. It sounds like lip service to me.

-Cf

Joe:

It seems to me that the most vocal and prominent critics of Kerry’s war activities were his military superiors. This makes sense because Kerry’s comments while protesting the war were clearly not aimed at those who obeyed orders, but rather at those who gave the orders.

Admiral Hoffmann was an enthusiastic advocate of free fire zones, and many of Kerry’s accusations were directed squarely at that practice. He also helped found the SBV.

So once again I argue that these men don’t hate Kerry for his actions in Vietnam, but for what he said after the fact. And actually, your acknowledgement that these men “hate” Kerry is just another factor that casts doubts on the motivation behind their quest for a so-called “truth.”

CF-

You see, now the Washington Post is showing you the truth about this story, and your partisan eyes can’t seem to grasp it.

Thurlow is a hero. Thurlow hates Kerry for the things he said upon his return. That hatred gets factored in to his recollections of what happened 35 years ago, and history gets changed in his mind.

What’s funny is that Fox and Friends (a show I’m sure you watch) had their Psychologist lady on describing how this happens about two weeks ago. This is why eye witness testimony is so unreliable once the witness has been exposed to subsequent information.

Thurlow is not lying because he believes what he is saying is gospel. This case can be refuted scientifically and not just by name calling, yet the left is using their standard, and intellectually lazy, playbook by blaming the whole thing on Carl Rove.

Connect the dots…..

A

George, you seem to be saying that Thurlow isn’t a liar because he’s actually a psycho. How does that help me to take him seriously? That just makes me think the ‘swiftboat wackos for Bush’ are pathetic, as well as liars.

John Kerry acted honorably and heroically in Vietnam more than thirty years ago. If that were all we knew about him, we wouldn’t know much. My father, a veteran of Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge, told me real heroes don’t like to talk about the details what they did because memory is a tricky thing. In war’s confusion and terror, people remember things that didn’t happen and forget things that did. Besides, you don’t want to give yourself too much credit out of respect for those that you left behind. So let’s give John Kerry credit for his service as a young man and stop arguing details that are forever lost in the fog or war. Let’s judge him on his more recent record.

I’m not saying he’s psycho AP, no more than I’m saying that you or I are psycho. We are talking about human nature here:

Remembering is not the re-excitation of innumerable fixed, lifeless and fragmentary traces. It is an imaginative reconstruction, or construction, built out of the relation of our attitude towards a whole mass of organised past reactions or experience, and to a little outstanding detail which commonly appears in image or in language form.
Bartlett (1932) Remembering, p213, quoted in Smyth & al (1987) Cognition in Action p232

I’m also giving Kerry the out he needs on his Cambodia story by the way.

On the one hand you’ve got Kerry who one person says did something dishonorable while in a firefight. None of the allegations can be proved, because that person never served anywhere near Kerry. On the other hand, you’ve got Bush, who’s military record has attendance gaps which would send any ordinary citizen to active duty in Vietnam. But, he didn’t go, because he’s so special. Then you have Bush’s criminal record, which includes at least one DUI in 1969. I use the term “at least” because Bush served the community of Houston for six months in a half-way house (P.U.L.L.) in 1972. This is the same period he failed to show up for his physical. His community service is inconsistent with his behavior before and after. We know that for twenty years Bush was a falling down drunk and womanizer, whether in school or out. Like Clinton, Gore, myself, and almost everyone else from the sixties, Bush experimented with illegal drugs. The only explanation consistent with the facts is that he was arrested in 1972 with alchohol and/or other controlled substances in his blood. He and his Daddy cut a deal with the Court to perform community service in exchange for having his records sealed/expunged. It’s what any honkie would do for another while they’re locking up black people right and left on unprovable charges. We should not forget that Cheney has two DUI on his criminal record and six of #43’s staff have felony convictions for offenses committed during his Daddies reign.

The Republicans are spending big bucks to assassinate Kerry’s character while distracting us from the most abysmal excuse for a human being the executive branch has seen. The story of George W Bush is the story of a wreckless drunk who has spent much of his life flaunting the law and avoiding personal responsibility using his daddies political clout.Is a person entitled to a second chance? Yes.

None of his past would matter if he could do his job and beat Kerry with wit, wisdom and sound policy. Bush can’t even speak properly, much less form sound national policy. His legacy is tens of thousands of innocent American and Iraqi citizens killed and maimed in a futile war, ballooning deficits, breaking environmental promises, corruption following deregulation in wall street and energy, slashing wages and benefits of hourly workers and military personell, failed attempts to streamline the military and schools through crony privatization and attempting to impose a narrow evangelical agenda not only on the nation, but the world.

With a legacy like that you need a BIG story about how “unfit” your opponent is. With enough TV dollars the “average joe”(bagadonuts) will believe anything, but that doesn’t make it right.

George, your argument is really bizarre. Face it, Thurlow’s story is totally discredited. He may not be a liar and a rogue (he might, sadly, just be crazy), but he is nonetheless wrong. His story is false, his allegations are garbage, his affadavit is worthless. At least he still has his Bronze Star, which he should be proud of.

It makes you wonder how many other members of the SBVT made similar psychological leaps, transforming their political hatred of Kerry into artificial memories. Elliot’s recantation of his recantation bespeaks a similar type of confusion between true emotions and false memories.

-Cf

> I’m also giving Kerry the out he needs on
> his Cambodia story by the way.

We should all be willing to forgive Thurlow’s memory lapse, if that’s what it was, but we must also throw his affadavit into the trash can. His story can no longer be a credible peice of the “Kerry is a lying coward” argument, which gets thinner every day.

If it’s proven that Kerry was not in Cambodia exactly on Christmas 1968, I’ll forgive him, too. But Kerry’s presence or non-presence in Cambodia has nothing to do with his ability to lead so, in my mind, he doesn’t need an “out”.

-Cf

What’s bizarre about my argument is that I’m actually defending Kerry who I don’t really like. I’m just also criticizing your “political hacks” argument and Bayviking’s diversion to Bush’s record arguments. Or the legal threats to TV stations. Or Carville’s shouting they weren’t there, they don’t know. This Washington Post stuff holds much more water, and has fewer consequences than those arguments.

The standard playbook stuff opens Kerry up to counter attacks. For example, on the Cambodia thing Kerry’s camp has already changed the story on that one by admitting that he was not there on Christmas day. Does that mean that Kerry is “thoroughly discredited” as you say is Thurlow? One of the first arguments used against Letson was that he didn’t sign the sheet so he wasn’t there. But if he was the only MD on the base then that means Kerry didn’t see a Doctor for his injury. These guys are decorated vets with the same medals that Kerry has; to attack their character is to attack Kerry’s campaign premise (his service in Viet Nam).

I’m just saying that the left needs to get off the playbook on this one.

Bayviking:

He and his Daddy cut a deal with the Court to perform community service in exchange for having his records sealed/expunged. It’s what any honkie would do for another while they’re locking up black people right and left on unprovable charges.

Is this statement simply your attempt to bring race into the issue? There’s not even any relevance of your statement to the issue being discussed, unless of course your hatred of Bush simply overwhelms any and all issues. In any regard, I condemn YOUR racist comment. It is ugly, yet also silly in its utter stupidity.

Jerome:

I used the word “dislike” rather than “hate” in regard to the Swiftvet’s opinion of Kerry. But their opinion is their opinion and they have a right to it, whether its for his “in-country” actions or his anti-war actions in the U.S.

I understand your point about his superiors, and it makes sense. But it doesn’t explain away the number of Kerry’s Swift boat contemporaries ( his fellow officers of like rank) who are against him. I’ve heard of only 1 or 2 who are support him, but if any others come forward, that would mitigate the question.

Chris:

How many times do I need to re-explain my position to you. I’ll do it once more:

IFFF military service were the ONLY issue on the table, then Kerry has combat experience while Bush does not. While there are questions about both Kerry’s and Bush’s service records, I’ve not seen anything that qualifies as conclusive proof in either scenario. There are questions, and they deserve to be looked into for both candidates, but no proof.

Therefore, based only on military combat experience, I’d have to say Kerry has the edge. It’s just a hypothetical, but I’ve never said otherwise.

You’ll note that I’ve never criticized Kerry for his service—if you want to suggest that I have, then provide the quote. I have
said there are questions about his service which should be answered.

I’ve also said his career is what is truly important. For instance, I’ve not heard a suitable explanation for his missing 38 of 49 public Senate Intel meetings. All I’ve heard from Kerry’s campaign is that there were many private meetings as well. I’m sure there were, but Kerry has yet to indicate how many of those he attended. He has the power to do release this information, but so far has not done so.

Again, Chris, its his career that I’ve focused on. The Viet Nam issue is more about character than anything. For instance, if proven that Kerry has been lying about it, then it is the lying thats the issue. Same goes for Bush. In the absence of proof, I’m moving on to issues I consider more salient.

Joe:
The real issue here is that Bush’s lifetime and Presidential track record is so worthless that there is nothing for him to do except attack Kerry. It should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that I hate Bush, which is very different from the partisanship you regularly accuse me of. Republicans do on occassion promote good policies, in stark contrast to their puppet bozo President.

Are you saying only Kerry’s record should be discussed? Who brought this crap up?

Bush has gotten special treatment in a Texas legal system which treats ordinary people viciously, especially black people. It wasn’t very long ago that 60 minutes did a story on a small Texas town that convicted a town’s black population based soley on the word of a crooked cop. Of course that white cop is still a free man, despite the fact that it was proven that he lied in order to send the black people to prison. There is nothing more tragic than racist Justice. Texas is a leader in a country whose legal system is broken, as demonstrated repeatedly by DNA technology.

It is an interesting twist to accuse me of racism, when I bring a hopelessly racist State and Country into the spotlight.

“Really? Is that why he yells at his guests and threatens to cut the microphone for people who dissent? I don’t consider that fair minded.”

That is an overstatement. You don’t seem to understand the concept of the “no-spin” zone. Yes, he interrupts and cuts people off when they start their spin. If they start telling blatant lies and propaganda, he stops them, and I thank him for it. That’s why the show is so popular I imagine. The last thing I want to do is watch another show where the moderator lets guests go on and on with their canned speeches. It in no way nullifies his fairness on most issues.

On another note, those of you idolizing that wuss Paul Krugman need a new hero. That guy was visibly shaking in his seat trying to stand up to O’Reilly. Like most liberal men, I’m convinced you could walk up to them and kick them square in the balls and they wouldn’t do anything except inquire why you did it and what they could do to change so that you wouldn’t do it again. Pathetic. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of Paul Krugmans and Alan Colmes deciding foreign policy.

On another note, those of you idolizing that wuss Paul Krugman need a new hero. That guy was visibly shaking in his seat trying to stand up to O’Reilly. Like most liberal men, I’m convinced you could walk up to them and kick them square in the balls and they wouldn’t do anything except inquire why you did it and what they could do to change so that you wouldn’t do it again. Pathetic. The last thing this country needs is a bunch of Paul Krugmans and Alan Colmes deciding foreign policy.

Wow, alderon. Did you formulate this theory on your own? I seriously doubt you have the balls to test it? But that’s pretty typical for you asshole conservative types.

bayviking:

I did not accuse you of racism. What I did do was condemn your racist comment. If you care to try to defend your use of the word “honkie” as NOT being racist, feel free to do so. The inherent logic will be as effective as any you’ve shown so far.

em>

Are you saying only Kerry’s record should be discussed?

Again, with the logic disconnects. Allow me to spell it out for you—-I shall type slowly in order to help you keep up.

The most salient issues are Bush’s record as President and Kerry’s record as Senator. These are their current jobs, which is why it makes the most sense to review these records. Kerry’s record in Viet Nam, or Bush’s record as a private citizen are LESS important because they are in the past.

We should judge both men on the merit of their positions. Since Bush IS president now, we can assess his tenure as president to determine whether to give him a second term. Since Kerry IS in the Senate, we can assess his tenure as Senator to see how it qualifies him for the presidency.

Whether Texas is racist, or whether the entire country is racist, is not a salient issue. Whether BUSH or KERRY is racist can be an issue, but you havent even gone there. You used as your example a 60 minutes report on a “small Texas town” with a racist cop. Wow, now THAT is damning evidence about Bush.

As I’ve said before, if you want to be considered seriously in here, stick to the topic and use intelligent and salient references to the topic. Simply shotgunning information that you are pissed off about does nothing more than tell people that there are a lot of things you are pissed off about.

That much, my friend, we already know.

> 38 of 49 public Senate Intel meetings

Um, because he’s running for President, that’s why. How many Cabinet meetings and White House intelligence reviews has Bush missed? Probably an analogous amount. That’s assuming, of course, that he was going to such meetings in the first place.

-Cf

bayviking, I agree that you should watch it with the “honkie” stuff. You may think it’s funny, and yes white people are hardly a victimized class deserving of any special sensitivity, but the fact remains that the term is a real live racial epithet and not cool for use in civilized company.

-Cf

Just to get back to the column by O’Reilly — at what point did he go “sane” with regards to denouncing the right’s attacks? Seems like a token gesture at best, which he often does on his show for those oh-so-brief moments. 99.9% of the article was Bill simply reprinting historical anecdotes, which I assume come from the “Presidential Campaigns” book by Paul Boller that he mentioned.

JBD
My “honkie” comment reflects a stark truth about our sick legal systems which pander to privilage and destroy the poor. Profit is so much more important than truth or justice that they’ll give a black man with $15 million 11 months of Court time. Honkie is a well known derogatory word used by blacks to discuss whites whom they do not respect. Does a Judge who cuts a deal for an Ambassadors son, when they send others to prison for decades for the same offense deserve respect? Is the term not appropriate to the context? Texas racism is relevant because it reveals the other side of characters who have coddled Bush through failed military service, failed business ventures, insider stock trades, drunken and criminal behavior and his Presidency. How about Bush the Governor who condemns kids to decades in prison for the same thing he did? These honkies make me sick.

Out of context criticizm of my responses to others may sound good, but it “is not salient”.

Bush is entitled to a second chance after two decades of falling down drunk. I couldn’t agree more, if he did his job, all would be forgiven. But his record as President speaks loudly otherwise. Thus his campaign must focus on assassinating Kerry’s character. It worked nicely with McCain and Cleland. Rove is either a genius or evil demagogue, depending on your point of view. Bush is not the source of these character assassinations. Bush is arrogant, insecure, incoherent, indifferent, incapable, mean and lazy, but not clever enough to sprout such devious plans.

Joebagodonuts:
“Whether BUSH or KERRY is racist can be an issue, but you havent even gone there.”

But “Errand Boy” did in his post above - and what he said is true.

Dubya left his service in the Texas Air National Guard to work on an election campaign for Winton “Red” Blount in Alabama.
Blount was a segregationist who opposed the Civil Rights Act. When Nixon appointed Blount to his Cabinet, it was noted by the press at the time that he never employed blacks, that he belonged to an all-white church and that he had always backed local segregationist candidates.

There are several things to say about Dubya and Friends when it comes to racism.

Dubya: Laid a wreath on a monument to the Confederacy. Spoke before the segregationist Bob Jones University in South Carolina. Helped implement the Willie Horton ad during the 1988 presidential campaign of Bush Sr - who approved the racist ad.
Has made a joke out of the role of Secretary of State with Colin Powell, both before and during the Iraq War.

Dick Cheney: Opposed measures strengthening laws against the collection of hate-crime data. Supported apartheid in the racist South African regime - even while it was crumbling.

Attorney General John Ashcroft: Attended a pro Confederacy rally and called Jefferson Davis “a great patriot”. Granted an interview to Southern Partisan - the oldest and the leading neo-Confederate publication. Opposed racial integration and the appointment of African Americans to offices as the govenor of Missouri.

Trent Lott: Also interviewed by Southern Partisan. Commented upon Strom Thurman the segregationist - how if he had been elected president in 1948 the nation would be “better off.” (Of course, not even Dubya could save him after saying this and he had to resign) 

And lets not forget Brother Jeb: Disenfranchising all those Black voters in Florida in 2000.

I know that some will come back and start on about Condi - but I believe she’s only a yes-woman to Dubya.

Chris:

After you read the attached link to FactCheck.org, I think you’ll recognize that your rationale for Kerry missing 76% of the Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) public meetings is incorrect (unless Kerry was running for President in 1993, which of course he was—-in fact, I think he’s been running for Pres since the early 1960’s ).

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

Note: if the link does not go through, simply go to FactCheck.org.

Kerry was on the SIC from 1993 until January of 2001, during which he missed 38 of 49 meetings. His staff has correctly pointed out that the public meetings comprise only 20% of the overall meetings, but has not provided any information on how many of those meetings Kerry attended.

Kerry has not yet allowed attendance records to be divulged, though the chairmen of the committee have agreed to open them up if and when asked. I cannot think of a reason for Kerry to withhold this information, unless its bad news for him. I understand the information part of the meeting should remain private, but I see no harm in revealing the attendance of the known committee members. Any thoughts on that?

Kerry does have some cover on this in the form of his running mate. You see, John Edwards is now on the SIC and has been to 50% of the meetings, thereby raising his ticket’s attendance rate to 15 out of 57 meetings or 26%. So they are now officially over the 1/4 mark in attendance!!

Bayviking:

Honkie is a well known derogatory word used by blacks to discuss whites whom they do not respect.

Apparently, your defense of your racist comment is to agree that it is in fact racist. But its okay because it reflects the “stark truth” of your perspective. I just KNEW you would have a logical answer. Thanks for the laugh.

You are hereby dismissed forthwith.

You don’t seem to understand the concept of the “no-spin” zone.

You can’t be serious. O’Reilly “no-spin zone” is about as credible as those X-ray glasses they sell in the back of comic books.

The last thing this country needs is a bunch of Paul Krugmans and Alan Colmes deciding foreign policy.

You are insinuating that Alan Colmes is a wuss? Of course he is! That’s what FOX pays him for, being a punching bag. (And a not very telegenic one at that.) If he ever grew a spine they would have to replace him.

“Wow, alderon. Did you formulate this theory on your own? I seriously doubt you have the balls to test it? But that’s pretty typical for you asshole conservative types.”

Spell the name right if you want to address Aldaron the Great directly. I had a feeling that comment might draw one of the more aggressive liberals (oxymoron) out.

It’s not a theory. Look around the next time you are at one of your “war is not the answer” and “give peace a chance” rallies. You’ll see many limp-wristed “men” (like you I’m sure) being led around by women with signs espousing some off the wall cause. I think that cross-eyed, effeminate, liberal Alan Colmes is the perfect spokeman for the liberal cause.

I think that cross-eyed, effeminate, liberal Alan Colmes is the perfect spokeman for the liberal cause.

He’s perfect for his job at Fox. I just can’t figure out how he gets through the day. They must give him a lot of drugs or something.

Long time reader, first time poster.
Score one for the Bushies. The focus of national debate has been successfully side-tracked for the time being. In a way, it doesn’t really matter what the “Swift Boat Veterans” say; that’s the beauty of dirty politics.
LBJ was once asked by a journalist (Bill Moyers?) about the rumors his campaign was spreading about the opponent. “Do you really believe your opponent is a pig f*****?” the journalist asked. “No,” LBJ replied. “I just want him to stand there on the stage and deny he f**** pigs.”
And so O’Reilly spends air time on the accusations. Perfect for the Bushies! Expect lots more from the Carl Rove lot between now and the election.

Don:

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Politics these days is like a tactical boxing match—both sides jabbing away and looking for an advantage. When you have your opponent on the ropes, you are controlling the fight.

Kerry did a very nice job of fighting his fight for a while in regard to Viet Nam, and enhanced his image nicely. The Republicans eventually caught on and have figured out a strategy inside Kerry’s defenses. The question for now: Will Kerry counterpunch effectively back again, or will he allow himself to be held on the ropes.

Or in the very apt words you ascribed to LBJ, will Kerry be forced to stand on stage and deny being a pig f*****?

By the way, I believe its Karl Rove, not Carl Rove, for the sake of accuracy. God forbid a weblog to be anything but accurate.

[Comments deleted for violation of our Critique the Message, not the Messenger Policy — WatchBlog Manager]

> your rationale for Kerry missing 76% of the
> Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) public
> meetings is incorrect

I stand corrected.

-Cf

Well alderan, it sounds like you know more about those peace rallies than I do. Personally I’ve never been to one. The political rallies I’ve been to usually involve arrests, tear gas, pepper spray, tonfa, ad hoc detainment centers, and escape. That’s the rough end of it. The nicer end of it is all the naked showers with granola chicks. But hey, if it ain’t for you, I can totally understand.

[Comment deleted for violation of our Critique the Message not the Messenger Policy — WatchBlog Manager] Probably follow that up with a smack to your domestic partner and a demand for dinner while you stroke your gun, huh? Does this compensate for some inherent inferiority complex about genital size? Like your flaccid attempts at emasculation? Limp wrist, what is that from the seventies?

For the record, I wish that people would refrain from using racial epithets when commenting on my posts, even if it is lame one like “honky”.

The term “honky” reminds me of 70’s TV shows like “Sanford and Son” or “Good Times” - and if I’m not mistaken, they actually _used_ that term on those shows. Maybe I’m wrong here, but because that’s so long ago now, and sounds so passe, it seems like it should be practically harmless.

I have to comment on this:
Aldorun:
Look around the next time you are at one of your “war is not the answer” and “give peace a chance” rallies. You’ll see many limp-wristed “men” (like you I’m sure) being led around by women”

Hilarious!
What he’s blinkered by is the fact that Progressive Men actually know how to attract women - unlike Neanderthals who think the world (and women, no doubt) must be conquered with aggro immaturity.
Clowns who go around thinking brutal thoughts will always lose out to Men of Peace, due to the fact that intelligence, wit, a big heart and an open mind are strengths that far outweigh a low brow and a nasty attitude.

Adrienne:

Its not the word being used that is repugnant, but rather the racist intent. Its actually kind of a funny word, and I have no idea how it came to represent white people.

I do remember a great Richard Pryor routine where he and a white guy are throwing racial epithets back and forth at each other. White guy says something like “Bootlip” and Pryor responds with “Cracker”. It goes on and Pryor calls the guy a “honky”, then “honky-honky”. Finally the white guy calls Pryor a “N——-“, at which point Pryor in a deadly icy drawl replies, “Dead Honky!”

My overall point was that racism had and has no context in this thread. The weak logic that Bayviking used in an attempt to connect racism to the topic and to justify her racist comment was laughable. A bit predictable, but it gave me a laugh nonetheless.

Joseph:

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt by considering that your over the top description of “right wingers” is simply an attempt to show Alderan how silly his comments were.

JBOD,

I thought of that skit too. I think that Dan Akroyd is interviewing Pryor for a job and gives him a pscyhological exam along the lines of “Say the first thing that comes to your mind.”

joebagodonuts:

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt by considering that your over the top description of “right wingers” is simply an attempt to show Alderan how silly his comments were.

Yes. Thanks for being so understanding. I know I shouldn’t poke at the trolls but it’s just so much fun sometimes.

[Joseph, poking fun at the trolls on the personal level makes your comments troll bait themselves - and as such, violates our Critique the Message, not the Messenger Policy. Please observe our policy designed to maintain WatchBlog as a civil site for political perspective, information, and debate. — WatchBlog Mangager ]

Only the progessive, politically correct types would have a problem with my site. I really hate it that I offended some of you “progressives” though. You are so enlightened and so much smarter than me. I can almost picture some of you guys in my head.

The point no one makes: If these Swiftboat vets were so upset with Kerry, why did it take them 35 years to publish their book and air their version of waht happened? Of course it is only coincidence this all came out during a presidential campaign.

Dennis:

Its of course no coincidence that the SwiftVets are coming out now. John O’Neill has been opposing Kerry since the early 70’s, but for many of these guys, its that kerry is running for President that makes them want to come forward.

We all know situations in our lives where we feel wrongs have been done. In many of those situations, the fight is not worth it—-not enough is at stake and we simply let it slide. It’s sort of the “Don’t sweat the small stuff” attitude.

Many of these guys oppose Kerry for what they see as betrayal. When he was running in local Boston politics, he was most likely off their radar screens. Even as a Massachusetts senator, he wouldnt have impacted them much. But as President, he would impact all Americans, hence the concern.

Note that I havent justified or negated their claims. To me there are open questions. But I’ve tried to show why they would choose this moment in time as being important enough to stand up.

Woody—-by the way, I looked it up and it was Chevy Chase rather than Dan Akroyd, but I think you are right about the psych test part. And it was hilarious and still makes me laugh. The difference is that I laugh WITH Richard Pryor, but AT Bayviking.

Let me reiterate my position….

I don’t care what Kerry did in Vietnam. I give him and anyone else credit for going over there that actually went. He did exactly what I would have done though… get out as soon as possible.

What I have a problem with is his behavior once he came home. You don’t come home from a war and talk about your fellow soldiers in a negative light publicly while they are still over there fighting and dying. That kind of talk is used as propaganda by the enemy and demoralizes our troops. Kerry should have known better, but it seems his own political ambitions got in the way.

I hope all you Swift Boat Bloggers Against Kerry have been following the recent stories undermining credibility and alleged independence of SBVFT.

A registration-free summary.

You don’t come home from a war and talk about your fellow soldiers in a negative light publicly while they are still over there fighting and dying.

You do if you’re trying to end a pointless war and get your buddies out of there.

Woody, here’s the NYT story that article is referencing.

The man was shameless when he came home…. so shameless that even he says he regrets some of the language he used at the time.

From an editorial from Rocky Mountain News that was posted on Real Clear Politics.

Those Swift boat ads August 21, 2004

Recent newspaper articles about a book and TV ads attacking John Kerry’s war record in Vietnam have not demonstrated that the Bush administration is behind the ads or wholly demolishing all of the allegations concerning the Democratic presidential nominee.

I love the standard of evidence here — Kerry doesn’t just need to show that they tell lies, but that EVERYTHING they say is a lie. Certainly they are correct about the fact that he came back and opposed the war.

Speaking of which, it’s fascinating to me how many apparently rational people are criticizing Kerry for opposing the war when he came back. How many of you are actually willing to claim that we should have stayed in Vietnam until we defeated the Communists, no matter how long it took and how many people had to die?

You are missing so much of the point. He didn’t just come home and oppose the war. He went in front of every camera he could find and described in excrutiating detail how his fellow soldiers were basically committing war crimes. I think you should do a little research into some of the things he is documented as saying at the time. Who knows what was true in the fog of war. While bad things may or may not have been committed by a bunch of 19 yr olds put in a situation like that, you don’t as a former soldier come back to the cameras and use it to further a political career. That is what pisses off so many veterans and that is why few respect him. It’s propaganda for the enemy and demoralizes troops still fighting, something Michael “Fat Bastard” Moore should take note of.

I can understand why a lot of veterans are upset about his comments on war crimes, even if Gen. Tommy Franks recently acknowledged that they are probably true. Whistleblowers rarely make a lot of friends.

At the same time, a lot of his critics admit that they are ALSO mad at him because they wanted to continue to fight Communism in Vietnam. This is a legitimate viewpoint, but it is one that far out of the mainstream of opinion on the war. I think that most people acknowledge that the war was a massive mistake, if not a crime itself.

Agreed…. It was a useless war. However, I couldn’t disagree with you more on Kerry being a “whistleblower”. While I salute him for him time served, there was nothing admirable about what he did after the war. It was opportunistic and shameful.

Bush is gone! Kerry is in! I’m willing to bet on it!!!