Flushing Out the Traitors!

65 replies [Last post]
doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

The Senate overwhelming approved a condemnation of the Moveon.org NY Times ad that condemned General Petraeus, calling him General "Betrayus". The link below takes you to a site that lists those Senators voting for the resolution vs. those traitors voting against it or not voting at all.
I don't believe anyone who can fog a mirror will be surprised at the results.
This is a benign piece of legislation, people. Voting for it doesn't necessarily mean you're a flaming red, white, & blue patriot. BUT voting against it is like voting against Mom & apple pie!
I don't question the patriotism of those who voted against it or did not vote; there's no question at all. THEY ARE TRAITORS! 
I just hope and pray that someday, the "nay" voters and the no-show voters are riding in a bus driven by Senator Edward Kennedy. (For those who don't get the irony, think Chappaquiddick.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c all_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344#n ame
Fox News Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html
 

icecream's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-09-19

Every now and then an issue comes along that you can sink your teeth into.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

icecream wrote:Every now and then an issue comes along that you can sink your teeth into.
Great comment.

STFU's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-06-29

his boyfriend just cringed.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

doberman wrote:
The Senate overwhelming approved a condemnation of the Moveon.org NY Times ad that condemned General Petraeus, calling him General "Betrayus". The link below takes you to a site that lists those Senators voting for the resolution vs. those traitors voting against it or not voting at all.
I don't believe anyone who can fog a mirror will be surprised at the results.
This is a benign piece of legislation, people. Voting for it doesn't necessarily mean you're a flaming red, white, & blue patriot. BUT voting against it is like voting against Mom & apple pie!
I don't question the patriotism of those who voted against it or did not vote; there's no question at all. THEY ARE TRAITORS! 
I just hope and pray that someday, the "nay" voters and the no-show voters are riding in a bus driven by Senator Edward Kennedy. (For those who don't get the irony, think Chappaquiddick.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c all_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344#n ame
Fox News Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html
 
Doby, ya know I luv ya, but on this we disagree.
 
I too, was none too impressed with the Moveon.org ad. However, their position as dessenters against the current administration is well known. While I may not agree with them, or with their methods of message delivery, that they be able to deliver that message is at the foundation of what our country is about. Turning the clock back a few hundred years it was the desenters, the traitors, who dumped tea in Boston's harbor and it was traitors who signed the Declaration of Independence. Word had it that those acts, none to popular with the then current administration, were condemned.
 
That said, what the Senate did was, without question, wrong. These people who are elected to represent us, who can't agree on most important issues of the day, managed to come together to make a political statement. A cheap polital trick. It's a meaningless distraction from the important issues of the day. Kinda like matching out the Flag Burning amendment. Meanwhile real solutions to real problems remain without resolution. And the saddest part is the way people fall for this crap.
 
You might want to ask who the true traitors are? Is it those who wish to affect change or those who waste our time, waste our money, pander to their audience, and embrace the status quo?
 
Lastly, that Bush/Rumsfeld politiczed the military, again not a secret,  opened the gate to the exact type of accusation that moveon.org is making.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:
Lastly, that Bush/Rumsfeld politiczed the military, again not a secret,  opened the gate to the exact type of accusation that moveon.org is making.
 
It's no surprise that the same people who trot out the I-didn't-approve-of-what-moveon-did-but-FREE-SPEECH-is-being-challenged-it's-a-waste-of-time-to-discuss-this-in-the-Senate talking points always have to throw in some ridiculous line, like the above fiction, to provide a quasi-justification for what moveon did to Petraeus.

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

Let's not forget, General Petraeus was approved by both Democrats and Republicans to command the forces in Iraq. Also, the Dems, as a condition of approval, demanded that an accounting for the war be given last September, which he gave.
 
Now, just because he didn't say what the Dems wanted to hear in his report, he's now called a Republican lackey!  And the logic of this is....?
 
For those who think I over-react on negative issues involving the military, please keep in mind that the armed forces are prohibited from making political comments. Murtha, Kerry, and company can compare our military forces to Nazi's all day long and the good General can't say a thing in response. So, in my own small way, I'm defending their honor against those who have no honor.
 
For those who disagree with my response and call it a free speech issue, no problem. But, for those who agreed with the basis of the attack ad, you too have no honor.
 
 
 
 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

This isn't about who approved Petraeus and who didn't. It's about wasting our money on cheap political tricks. It's about distracting us from what is really important. That moveon.org called Petraeus out, does that really matter? And to who? Dave is a big boy who can stand up for himself without a bunch of blowhard senators doing it for him.  That they did it makes him look more political than less. Meanwhile these guys forced the NYT into issuing an apology for running the ad. And that is a free speech issue.
 
Opposition is a good thing, not a bad thing. And its not always pretty.
 
Over the next year, as we move into the election cycle, these same senators will be asking for votes. In many cases they will be asking people whom they have hurt to vote for them. They've hurt them by not reducing their taxes (AMT), or by shipping their jobs overseas, or by allowing eminent domain to take their homes.  Its about allowing banks to charge 30% interest on credit cards. Maybe its something more simple than that, like daming a river to help a large corporate campaign donor, a power company for example. The result of which kills the local fish population. Yet they will still ask for their vote. How will they get it? One way will be to wave the American Flag in their face, calling their opponent a traitor. Its a cheap political trick designed to get votes, nothing more.
 
Petraeus, I'm sure, is an honorable man. The senators who put this condemnation forward are anything but.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
That moveon.org called Petraeus out, does that really matter? And to who?
 
It seems it matters to most people of both parties, given the vote in the Senate. If you can’t understand why some people get agitated that the commander of <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US troops engaged in combat is smeared by some fringe group as a traitor, and that they, in turn, ask politicians aligned with said group to go on the record about whether or not they agreed with the terms of the attack, fine. Perhaps it matters even more to me coming from a military background.
 
 Most of the rest of us get it, and frankly, given your equivocation-filled posts on the subject prior to this one, we “get” why you don’t “get” it. The entire talking point list about hwo you don’t agree with moveon, but, but, but……
 
 
BondGuy wrote:
 Dave is a big boy who can stand up for himself without a bunch of blowhard senators doing it for him.
 
No, he can't. He's specifically forbidden by the UCMJ from entering the political fray. Unlike a politician, he can’t hold a press conference refuting the charges, issue counter-charges, energize a political network to do his bidding. As an officer in uniform, he’s unable to do any of that.
 
All he can do is sit up straight, tell the truth under oath, and stand as a whipping boy for blowhards in the Senate who used their entire “question time” to pontificate at a man they don’t have the standing to carry coffee for, and to get hammered by the loons of the fringe like moveon.
 
BondGuy wrote: Meanwhile these guys forced the NYT into issuing an apology for running the ad. And that is a free speech issue.
 
I'm unaware the Times issued an apology, I know they said after the fact that the ad violated their policy of not allowing advocacy ads that were personal attacks. That no personal attack policy of the Times, which they violated here, isn’t a free speech issue. Could you provide evidence for us that “these guys” forced the Times to do anything?
 
 
BTW, I get tired of explaining that it isn’t a violation of your free speech when someone responds to your comments, that’s THEIR freedom of speech. Freedom of speech violations are when the GOVERNMENT restricts your right to speak, which clearly isn’t the case here.
 
  
BondGuy wrote: One way will be to wave the American Flag in their face, calling their opponent a traitor. Its a cheap political trick designed to get votes, nothing more. {/quote]
 
Nice speech, but not close to reality. The only people I heard using the term “traitor” was moveon.org directing that charge at “Betrayous”.  Dep used it here, and I told him from outset I disagreed with the use of the word, but to claim that happened in the Senate is untrue.
 
BondGuy wrote:
 
Petraeus, I'm sure, is an honorable man. The senators who put this condemnation forward are anything but.
 

 
 
Yawn… I’d say the “anything but” label belongs to the Senators who dodged the issue, most of whom are running for the Whitehouse as Democrats and lacked the courage to go on the record on this. If you can’t stand up to moveon when they cross a line that the vast majority of us can see very clearly, who can you stand up to?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
BondGuy wrote: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
That moveon.org called Petraeus out, does that really matter? And to who?
 
It seems it matters to most people of both parties, given the vote in the Senate. If you can’t understand why some people get agitated that the commander of <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US troops engaged in combat is smeared by some fringe group as a traitor, and that they, in turn, ask politicians aligned with said group to go on the record about whether or not they agreed with the terms of the attack, fine. Perhaps it matters even more to me coming from a military background.
 
 Most of the rest of us get it, and frankly, given your equivocation-filled posts on the subject prior to this one, we “get” why you don’t “get” it. The entire talking point list about hwo you don’t agree with moveon, but, but, but……
 
 
BondGuy wrote:
 Dave is a big boy who can stand up for himself without a bunch of blowhard senators doing it for him.
 
No, he can't. He's specifically forbidden by the UCMJ from entering the political fray. Unlike a politician, he can’t hold a press conference refuting the charges, issue counter-charges, energize a political network to do his bidding. As an officer in uniform, he’s unable to do any of that.
 
All he can do is sit up straight, tell the truth under oath, and stand as a whipping boy for blowhards in the Senate who used their entire “question time” to pontificate at a man they don’t have the standing to carry coffee for, and to get hammered by the loons of the fringe like moveon.
 
BondGuy wrote: Meanwhile these guys forced the NYT into issuing an apology for running the ad. And that is a free speech issue.
 
I'm unaware the Times issued an apology, I know they said after the fact that the ad violated their policy of not allowing advocacy ads that were personal attacks. That no personal attack policy of the Times, which they violated here, isn’t a free speech issue. Could you provide evidence for us that “these guys” forced the Times to do anything?
 
 
BTW, I get tired of explaining that it isn’t a violation of your free speech when someone responds to your comments, that’s THEIR freedom of speech. Freedom of speech violations are when the GOVERNMENT restricts your right to speak, which clearly isn’t the case here.
 
  
BondGuy wrote: One way will be to wave the American Flag in their face, calling their opponent a traitor. Its a cheap political trick designed to get votes, nothing more. {/quote]
 
Nice speech, but not close to reality. The only people I heard using the term “traitor” was moveon.org directing that charge at “Betrayous”.  Dep used it here, and I told him from outset I disagreed with the use of the word, but to claim that happened in the Senate is untrue.
 
BondGuy wrote:
 
Petraeus, I'm sure, is an honorable man. The senators who put this condemnation forward are anything but.
 

 
 
Yawn… I’d say the “anything but” label belongs to the Senators who dodged the issue, most of whom are running for the Whitehouse as Democrats and lacked the courage to go on the record on this. If you can’t stand up to moveon when they cross a line that the vast majority of us can see very clearly, who can you stand up to?
 
 
 
The senate turned Petraeus into a victim for their own political gain. The NYT ad was an opportunity that was too good to pass up. If you think that, that vote isn't going to show up in next year's election well as the saying goes I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Of course it will. And those who voted Nay or didn't vote will be labelled as traitors. Now don't take that literally mike. It will be done in the usual fill in the blanks kind of way. I can hear it now; "My opponent didn't support our military commanders during a time of war. He/she refused to condemn those who would call our military leaders traitors. I ask you here and now, who is the real traitor?" Flags wave as the band strikes up "God Bless America."  And the guy who lost his job, because the senator who is delivering that speech helped ship it overseas, votes for the senator again because he's not going to vote for some moveon lovin commie who doesn't defend our troops in a time of war. Geez Mike, what is it that you don't get? Waning support for the war, embattled republicans hunkered down, dejected. The war front and center in an upcoming election. Petraeus' report to the senate wasn't politcal when he delivered it, the republicans sure changed that.
 
Meanwhile, the real issues, jobs, taxes, healthcare get sidelined.
 
You said it yourself "smeared by some fringe group." The thing about fringe groups is that they have no credibility. This certainly applies to moveon. There was no reason relating to honor to mount a defense against moveon's slanted pov.
 
As for the NYT issuing an apology. The did so in so many words, in admitting that the ad violated policy. Yet, they did run the ad. If one is to believe that the NYT made the mistake of not proof reading it's own paper, missing a full page ad, well then we're back to that bridge for sale in Brooklyn. That they were compelled to defend their actions is where we get into the free speech arena.
 
 
 
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

 
 
BondGuy wrote: The senate turned Petraeus into a victim for their own political gain.
They, members of both parties, defended the honor of a military commander with troops in combat who’s dedicated his adult life to service to the nation, from unconscionable attacks from the lunatic fringe. I guess you missed the public outrage that began before the Senate got involved.
BondGuy wrote: If you think that, that vote isn't going to show up in next year's election …
It may well come up with those that ran from the vote, and it should. That’s what this is really about with you, you know Petraeus wasn’t able to defend himself, you just care more that some coward who knuckled under to moveon might have to pay a political price for it down the road.
BondGuy wrote: And those who voted Nay or didn't vote will be labelled as traitors. [/quoted]
Hopefully more accurate terms will be used, like “captive of the left fringe” or “coward”. Ask me if I have any sympathy for people who would let Petraeus be slandered like that.
BondGuy wrote: Mike, what is it that you don't get? Waning support for the war, embattled republicans hunkered down, dejected.
That’s a cute story, but it has nothing to do with the fact that defending Petareaus was the right thing to do, as Democrats who voted to defend him agree. The worst you can say is that some were right for the wrong reason.
BondGuy wrote: Petraeus' report to the senate wasn't politcal when he delivered it, the republicans sure changed that.
That one’s every bit as vacant as your other comments about “Dave”.
BondGuy wrote: Meanwhile, the real issues, jobs, taxes, healthcare get sidelined.
Oh spare me. It took them an hour, and it was the least that could be done for Petraeus. If you want to tell me that hour would have solved your laundry list, and that Reid hasn’t spend far more time on even less important issues, I’ll sell that bridge back to you. I would have been furious is they didn’t defend the guy.
BondGuy wrote: You said it yourself "smeared by some fringe group." The thing about fringe groups is that they have no credibility. This certainly applies to moveon.
You seem to have missed the fact that moveon claims to own the Democratic party these days, and the deference some Democrats give them seems to prove their claim. If only they didn’t speak for much of the base and the money in the Democratic party….
 
BondGuy wrote:
As for the NYT issuing an apology. The did so in so many words, in admitting that the ad violated policy.
Weasel words, pal. Congress didn’t “force them to apologize” like you claimed, an internal investigation proved the Times violated their OWN standards, and not just with the content of the ad, but the pricing as well.
You sacrifice any credibility you might have had with this sort of stuff, “in so many words”. That’s just like so many other areas in your post, bold claims that just can’t stand up to any critical examination.

 
 
 
 

Roadhard's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

Having served in the military for 22 years and know first hand how it feels not to be able to make political statements for either side--it was an insult to General Petraeus and to every single military member that has given their time and blood for this country to be called a betrayer.  In politics everybody is fair game--but those who follow the orders of the civilian leadership that is elected and appointed--that wear the uniform of the US Military should be considered off limits.
 
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual.  I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged.
 
Part of the oath we took as military members is--I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States agaist all enemies foreign or domestic.  I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me and the military code of military justice.  So Help Me GOD!
 
General Petraeus obeyed the orders given him--he did it with honor and he should be given the proper respect for following the orders given to him by the President and the Congress of the United States--God bless the young men and women who continue to serve this great country as a volunteer.
 
 
 

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

Good post, Roadhard!

stokwiz's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-04

Right on, Doberman, Butler and Roadhard.
 
I would like to propose, in this particularly polarizing election climate, that networks mandate a party affiliation displayed for those expressing political OPINIONS being framed as NEWS. Much like CNBC commentators have to declare ownership status on a stock when expressing an opinion, I'd like to see these libs being framed as unbiased news souses have a little D by their name any time they spew propaganda, so the public can know when they're being spun and the truth. Phony soldiers anyone? Haditha? Global warming? etc. etc.
 
Stok

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

Roadhard wrote:
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual.  I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged.
 
Roadhard,
 
Were you outraged when the swiftboaters attacked John Kerry? 
 
I myself do not think he would have made a great president.  Just my opinion.  But when he was attacked and the 527 group questioned his service, his decorations, etc., I too was outraged. 

granuja's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-08-29

Big Taco wrote:Roadhard wrote:
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual.  I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged.
 
Roadhard,
 
Were you outraged when the swiftboaters attacked John Kerry? 
 
I myself do not think he would have made a great president.  Just my opinion.  But when he was attacked and the 527 group questioned his service, his decorations, etc., I too was outraged. 
 
I was NOT outraged by the Swiftboat Vets pointing out the historical facts of John Kerry's traitorous actions during the Vietnam War.  I WAS outraged by John Kerry attempting to remake history and attempt to make himself some sort of war hero.  Outraged by his pretense on supporting the military, when he did everything he could to denigrate and debase the men who had served in Vietnam by lying and exaggerating. 
 
I was there during those times and I hold John Kerry personally responsible for the horrid treatment that returning Vets received and for the fiction that Vietnam Vets were baby killing, raping, wild eyed crazies who were too dangerous to hire for jobs when they were no longer in the military.
 
He lied about his service, fraudulently obtained his medals, lied in front of Congress about the actions of others, met with the enemy illegally in a time of war while still in his uniform, refused and still refuses to release his military official records.   The man is scum.  

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

granuja wrote:
He lied about his service, fraudulently obtained his medals, lied in front of Congress about the actions of others, met with the enemy illegally in a time of war while still in his uniform, refused and still refuses to release his military official records.   The man is scum.  
 
You're entitled to your opinion.  BTW, I was asking Roadhard, not you.  It's clear that you don't see any problem attacking a man's service record, as long as he's not a member of your political party. 
 
My opinion is that he obtained his decorations using traditional channels after being wounded in the line of duty, served his country at war, rescued a man, and then came back and excercised his constitutional rights to question his government. 
 
These are just the facts as I see them.  Otherwise I could care less about Kerry.  It's the idea of the depths that the 527 group sunk to for political mudslinging.  It's also not even the idea of saying all of these nasty things about Kerry, it's the idea that they don't seem to be true.
 
I don't agree with you at all, Babs.  And his military records have been released from what I can tell from this link:
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Taco wrote:
 
My opinion is that he obtained his decorations using traditional channels after being wounded in the line of duty, served his country at war, rescued a man, and then came back and excercised his constitutional rights to question his government. 
 

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm at a lost as to how your opinion is worth more than that of the officer peers Kerry served with. I'm uncomfortable with the quibbling about Kerry's medals, the fog of war being what it is, the inflated narration present in most awards, etc., but those that served with him (those that appeared with his campaign, as well as those that aligned against him) are entitled to their positions.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
What I'm not at all uncomfortable about is noting that he used a “three and out” option that no other officer used in order to shorten his tour to four months from one year. He left his troops behind.  As a former officer myself, I have to tell you that’s extremely significant.
 
Secondly, I’m not at all uncomfortable with noting what he did when he returned and just how he did it. You keep trying to frame it as him just exercising his freedom of speech, as if anyone seeks to take that right away from him, and as if stating that it was his right closes the subject. Sorry, but it doesn’t.  He slurred those he served with (and that’s what started his decades long fight  with those who came to be known as “Swiftboaters”), he participated in demonstrations where North Vietnamese and Viet Cong flags flew, and he did it in a “uniform”. You might not have a problem with that, and that’s fine by me, just don’t try to keep the rest of us from discussing it and how we feel about it with some pathetic “freedom of speech” whine as if anyone was attempting to squelch his freedom of speech.
 
Finally, your attempt to liken the response of his officer peers to Kerry’s attempts to capitalize for political gain his service record, to make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, and juxtapose that to the attacks on Petraeus, a serving combat commander still in uniform, is just tragically silly.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Roadhard wrote:Having served in the military for 22 years and know first hand how it feels not to be able to make political statements for either side--it was an insult to General Petraeus and to every single military member that has given their time and blood for this country to be called a betrayer.  In politics everybody is fair game--but those who follow the orders of the civilian leadership that is elected and appointed--that wear the uniform of the US Military should be considered off limits.
 
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual.  I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged.
 
Part of the oath we took as military members is--I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States agaist all enemies foreign or domestic.  I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me and the military code of military justice.  So Help Me GOD!
 
General Petraeus obeyed the orders given him--he did it with honor and he should be given the proper respect for following the orders given to him by the President and the Congress of the United States--God bless the young men and women who continue to serve this great country as a volunteer.
 
 
 
 
I agree completely.
 
We'll have to live with the fact that some people will never grasp the difference between attacking Petraeus while he still wore the uniform and commanded troops in command with disputing the airbrushed version of a self-serving poltician's service record as he tried to make his time in uniform the reason he should be elected president.

granuja's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-08-29

It's clear that you don't see any problem attacking a man's service record, as long as he's not a member of your political party. 
 
Many of the Swiftboat Vets are Democrats. Look it up.  Political party has nothing to do with it.  The things they said are true.   There were no depths to sink to.  The mudslinging as you call it,  I call it revealing the truth, was not for any political party, but because these guys had known Kerry, knew he was lying then and lying now.  They couldn't stand the whitewashing he was getting from the press.   I know several of the Swiftboat guys personally and they have hated Kerry since his Winter Soldier days.  They never did anything about it because he was a harmless buffoon senator from Mass.  But when it appeared that this jerk might actually have a shot a becoming Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces they had to do something to bring the real John Kerry to the attention of the voters....not the fake one the press wanted us to vote for.
 
Kerry had not released all of his military records during the election and specifically his medical records or his discharge status, as he promised he would do.  There are also no after action reports on the instances for which he obtained medals.  This lack of after action reports is not normal at all. 
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/20/171506.shtml
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200409%5CSPE20040916a.html
He finally signed the form 180 after he lost the election, but still not all records have been released.   And at this point,  who cares since this loser will never be able to run for President again. 
 
John Kerry obtained his purple hearts from minor wounds that were not deserving of purple heart status, lied and exagerated about his other medals, falsified combat reports and while in uniform conducted meetings with representatives from the opposition.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200410260846.asp
 
Kerry met with the two communist delegations to the Paris peace talks on at least two separate occasions, in 1970 and 1971. One delegation was from North Vietnam and the other was the Viet Cong’s provisional revolutionary government. According to Muravchik, Kerry endorsed the Viet Cong’s “peace plan,” which was to set a date for American force withdrawal in order to have U.S. POW’s returned. When back in the states, Kerry cited Viet Cong foreign minister Madame Binh for this extortionate swap.
Kerry was still in uniform in those days. Some believe his disloyal action is the key reason why he didn’t receive an honorable discharge from the Navy until President Jimmy Carter’s general amnesty of 1977. Whether or not this last point is true,** it is fact that the young naval lieutenant met with the Viet Cong and took their position. Both the New York Times and Washington Post back this up.

 
** And we don't know if it is true or false, because Kerry has not released his discharge status or papers.

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

Good God, Babs,
 
Look at your links:
An EDITORIAL from Kudlow?  Yeah, he's not a right-winger...have you ever listened to his show?   (from the CNBC website): Kudlow's signature line sums up the program’s theme: '"Kudlow & Company" aims to be right on business, right on America, and right on the money.'
 
CNS News?  Never heard of em... Then I saw their tag line: "The RIGHT news, RIGHT now"..  Clever.  I've never seen so many Ann Coulter Banner Ads on one website.  I think I need a shower.
 
NewsMax?  More of the same.  Take a look at the pundits list, and SURPRISE!  more Ann Coulter banner ads.  ugh. 
 
Babs, you're kidding right?  No wonder you write this crap, this is where you get your media from?
 
Again, here's the link I provided:http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
 
Here's factcheck.org's Mission Statement:
http://www.factcheck.org/about/

Our <?: PREFIX = ST1 />Mission
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
Again, just my opinions, but next to factcheck.org, your links just look like propaganda.
 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Let's take Kerry's detractors at face value. That is, he lied about his service, deserted his men, and shamed the flag for which he served by protesting against U.S. policy. Because of all this he was unworthy to be prez.
How is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service? At best, Bush ran and hid in the National Guard. At the time, among young men faced with the high probability of having to go to Nam, an acceptable solution to the draft dilemma. We at the time, called it hiding in the National Guard. In my area of the country that's what it was called.(to those who are not aware, then unlike now Guard units did not serve overseas). Yet, it is what it is, he hid from duty of serving his nation as others, less forunate than he, were called served, many dying in the process.
 

To me this is a disconnect. How can one man be branded as unworthy and the other an acceptable example of military honor?
 
That Kerry pissed off a bunch of people when he served in Nam is a fact. That these people have a credable beef is muddled at best. That Rove brilliantly neutralized Kerry's Nam service when held against Bush's dismal military record is without question.
 
Still amazed that people bought it. It was a classic show'em a good trapese act and they'll forget they're standing in elephant dung distraction. Rove had managed to make Vietnam a campaign issue 30 plus years after the fact. Never underestimate the gullibility of the U.S. voter.
 
MY POV was that both had Nam character baggage.
 
And for the record, Clinton ran and hid as well, using another route to avoid ground pounding in Nam. Cheney however, is the absolute deferment champ. Something like 11 deferments. Like he said, it wasn't his job to go and serve. He sure backed that up.
 
As for myself, I had a promising career as an Architect/engineer to prepare for. Slopping through the mud getting shot at half a world away wasn't part of the plan. Yet the draft loomed large. I then reasoned that I would be better off in the sky than on the ground and took steps to volunteer to become an army helicopter pilot. I had gotten as far as taking all the pre-induction testing and preparation out of the way when congress gave me a reprive. The made the draft a lottery. If my number, which was my birth date, came up as one of the first 150 drawn it was off to Fort Rucker Al. for rotorwing training. If the number was above 150 it was off to engineering school. My number on year one was above 300. I had to get through year two of the lottery, and again my number was above 300. Such were the times.
 
A year or two later i renewed my interst in rotorwing training. However a dinner, arranged by a friend,  with a two tour AC was enough to dampen my enthusiasm. The AC scared me straight by giving me the E true Vietnam reality for helicopter pilots. It wasn't pretty.  
 
I write this here to give you my non judgemental view of Bush's, Kerry's, Clinton's and even Cheney's actions. They'll all good in my book.
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?
 
Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.
 
However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?
 
You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…
 
BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15
Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-30

Since I first picked up a copy on a college campus in '93, I've loved The Onion...

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

That's how I stumbled upon it -- a free newspaper on the corner that I picked up as I walked by.  I couldn't believe something so funny was free.

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

this just in: big spender Bush down to 24% in the polls. Who ARE these people? And where DID that surplus that he inherited go? Sure he's not a Democrat?

newnew's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

sorry, that last entry was just to get all these super-serious politicos p..sed off. just having fun. I actually wish he could run again.

Roadhard's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-02-23

Big Taco, I'm sorry I was off the web a couple of days.
 
To answer your question was I outraged when the swiftboaters attacked John Kerry, I wasn't outraged--it was sad.  Let me explain my position.
 
John Kerry did serve his country as a United States Naval Officer.  He did serve in Vietnam and could have been killed just like anyone else.  I believe he did deserve at least some of the awards presented to him.  I did not like his actions after he left service.
 
George Bush did serve his country in the Texas Air National Guard.  He flew F-102's in the Air Guard and if anybody knows anything about OLD Fighter Jets--he could have been killed just like anyone else flying those pieces of crap.
 
My Father was retired Army, my oldest brother is retired Air Force, I have a brother who served in Vietnam 3 tours and has (6) Purple Hearts, and my little brother served in the Air Force.  I'm retired from the U S Navy.  We all love this country just like you do.  Just because you believe one way does not make you a traitor or a non-patriot--it is what makes our country strong. 
 
General Petraeus is presently serving his country and obeying the orders given him.  Even if he did not like the orders he will follow them.  A prime example is the recently retired General Sanchez--when he was in charge he obeyed the orders given to him as best as he can.  When he retired and became a normal citizen--he exercised his right to free speech at the failures in Iraq.  That is his right.  I don't know what will happen with General Petraeus.
When he retires he might blast or praise the Bush administration.  But while he is in uniform and doing he duty--please don't question his patriotism.

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

Good post. 
 
I've never questioned Petraeus' patriotism.  I thought the moveon ad was really distasteful, and just liberal spin.  But they're able to do that in our country because of our first ammendment rights.  My issue was with congress spending time and energy on the issue and in turn bringing a magnifying glass to the ad.  That's the best Moveon could've hoped for, and it really only helped them in their ad campaign efforts.  I think most of the country who even heard about this ad just dismissed it as a product of a left-wing smear campaign. 
 
I had never even been to the moveon.org website until mikebutler went on and on about this story.  As I expected, more of the same.  I don't partronize the propaganda platforms of the left or right too often (from moveon to drudgereport, they're all the same slanted BS to me).

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
BondGuy wrote: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?
 
Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.
 
However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?
 
You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…
 
BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…
 
You're the one who has got to be kidding. The entire Swift Boat Veterans for truth thing? Mike you do realize that they were a Bush/Rove front group financed by Texas republicans?And putting the words in someone elses mouth is much more effective that saying it yourself.  In this case there was no way Bush could use anything in Kerry's military record in the campaign without putting his own dismal military service front and center. So, as was done with McCain in 2000, have someone else say it, remain distant, and add in some disingenuous praise for the pummelled victim of the smear campaign.
 
 It's a PR smear strategy of which nothing that's said can be trusted. Yet, you bought it? You believed the SBVT? You do know that they've been discredited?
 
 
The Swift boats campaign was classic Rove and a classic PR smear campaign. It was a well funded attack(Boone Pickens is a rich guy) aimed right at Kerry's integrity. The Swift Boats for Veterans group even used some of the same PR and legal people used by the 2000 Bush front group "Republicans for a clean Environment", which attacked McCain's environmental record. Yet you see no connection?
 
Using third party front groups is SOP for Rove. It's a much stronger message coming from someone else. Rove has used this tactic for years. So when i say Rove was behind the strategy, it's not a fantasy, it's a fact. Of course there was no direct connection. Legally there couldn't be and any connection would ruin the third party effect.
 
I wish i could say that I'm amazed that people buy into this propaganda, but I'm not. 
 
 
How can you take issue with Kerry's senate testimony?
 
 
 
 
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Taco wrote:  That's the best Moveon could've hoped for, and it really only helped them in their ad campaign efforts.  <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Actually it did great damage to moveon. It may, by damaging moveon, helped the Democrats by giving them an excuse to move away from them, thus helping the Democratic party down the road. Hopefully that will return Centrists like the Clinton-linked DLC regain control(yeah, you read that right, I called a Clinton-linked group Centrist and I do hope they get back their party). That would be good news for the entire country, save GOP partisans who could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.
 
 Big Taco wrote: 
I had never even been to the moveon.org website until mikebutler went on and on about this story. 
 
LOL "went on and on". Sorry, but I didn't open this subject thread, and if anyone went "on and on" it was those making excuses for the ad and claiming Petraues could have defended themselves.
 
There were millions more just like you that hadn't heard much about moveon before the ad, didn't know the ownership claims they made about the Democratic party.  Now they know. This has served to shine a light on them, and like cockroaches, they scurried for cover.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
BondGuy wrote:
ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?
 
Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.
 
However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?
 
You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…
 
BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

 
You're the one who has got to be kidding. The entire Swift Boat Veterans for truth thing? Mike you do realize that they were a Bush/Rove front group financed by <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Texas republicans?
 
Financed by Republicans? Of course, the head of the group, John O’Neil had had a running feud with Kerry since his return from Vietnam, and of course it wouldn’t be people predisposed to support Democrats that would take issue with Kerry’s actions when he returned. Does that make it a “Rove front group”? Of course not, and there’s no evidence to support that claim.
 
 
BondGuy wrote: And putting the words in someone elses mouth…
There’s the fiction. There’s absolutely no evidence that the opinions expressed by the Swiftboat Vets weren’t their own. I go back again to O’Neil’s ongoing debate with Kerry going back to 1970. The guy debated Kerry about these very issues for decades. I can provide you links to videos, if you need them, of O’Neil and Kerry on the Dick Cavet show having this very same conversation.
 You’d like us to believe they were organized and scripted by the evil Rove, but that’s just Democratic spin. They had a bone to pick with Kerry for a long, long time.
 BondGuy wrote: You believed the SBVT? You do know that they've been discredited?
 
Sure they were….. you mean Kerry didn’t leave with less than 30% of his tour complete? De did lead the “Vietnam Veterans against the War”? He didn’t participate in antiwar demonstrations in a raggedy uniform? He didn’t spread the lies of imposters as a smear of the entirity of the US forces in Vietnam? Really?
 
 
BondGuy wrote: The Swift Boats for Veterans group even used some of the same PR and legal people used by the 2000 Bush front group "Republicans for a clean Environment", which attacked McCain's environmental record. Yet you see no connection?
Strap down that tinfoil hat, Bondguy.
The problem for you is these vets meant every word they said, and they’d been saying it for years. When Kerry started his national campaign, they felt they had to make their case again to a larger audience unfamiliar with their issues. Kerry had several of his crew mates with him, these officers who served with him felt there waas another side to the Kerry story.
Of course the people who helped them get their message out with funding were Republicans. Why is that surprising? If someone had a decades old issue with some Republican running for office, would it shock you is they got support from Democrats? Why try to make that sound like some sort of dirty trick?
When they sought out legal and PR people, of course they went to firms that handle that sort of work for Republicans. Would a Democrat oriented firm have done it for them?  Seriously, why act like this is evidence that what they had to say they didn’t believe?
Notice that you go on and on about who helped fund them and where they went for PR and legal guidance, but you have nothing to say about the substance of their criticisms.
BondGuy wrote: Using third party front groups is SOP for Rove. It's a much stronger message coming from someone else. Rove has used this tactic for years.
If you think that’s a Rove monopoly, let’s discuss that bridge I want to sell you again.  Do you think Carville always has his name on groups aligned with his candidate? Has Soros put his name on ACT or Media Matters? You can’t really be that naive about who does what, can you? 
BondGuy wrote: How can you take issue with Kerry's senate testimony? 
 

 
Easily; “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam …………..”.
 
 
 
http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html
 
 

 

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:

Big Taco wrote:  That's the best Moveon could've hoped for, and it really only helped them in their ad campaign efforts.  <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Actually it did great damage to moveon. It may, by damaging moveon, helped the Democrats by giving them an excuse to move away from them, thus helping the Democratic party down the road. Hopefully that will return Centrists like the Clinton-linked DLC regain control(yeah, you read that right, I called a Clinton-linked group Centrist and I do hope they get back their party). That would be good news for the entire country, save GOP partisans who could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.
 
 Big Taco wrote: 
I had never even been to the moveon.org website until mikebutler went on and on about this story. 
 
LOL "went on and on". Sorry, but I didn't open this subject thread, and if anyone went "on and on" it was those making excuses for the ad and claiming Petraues could have defended themselves.
 
There were millions more just like you that hadn't heard much about moveon before the ad, didn't know the ownership claims they made about the Democratic party.  Now they know. This has served to shine a light on them, and like cockroaches, they scurried for cover.
 
Who hasn't heard of moveone.org?  You couldn't watch a newscast in 2003 without hearing their name.  Shine a light on them?  They do pretty well at getting attention all by themselves. 
 
Mike, i'm starting to think you live in a parallel reality where you listen to Rush Limbaugh, read Ann Coulter, and your homepage is The Drudge Report.  And all this crap media fills your head with big leftwing conspiracy bullshit.
 
For the record, I did not "defend" the Petraeus ad.  I wrote that I don't agree with it, find it distasteful, but also compliant with constituional law, i.e., the 1st ammendment.  And I was most disgusted with congress spending anytime on what amounts to a public cheap-shot.  THAT has been my issue. 
 
To me the ad is just like the swiftboat guys -- partisan mudslinging (although not as insidious nor far-reaching).  For all we know, Petraeus could come out in retirement and pull a Sanchez, invalidating all the former accountings to the Bush administration.  Then you'll probably change your tune about the General, right?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
Big Taco wrote:
 
Mike, i'm starting to think you live in a parallel reality where you listen to Rush Limbaugh, read Ann Coulter, and your homepage is The Drudge Report.  And all this crap media fills your head with big leftwing conspiracy bullshit.
 
The big white flag of surrender appears. Whenever they've run aground, when they’ve been beaten to within an inch of their lives with the facts they’re oblivious to, they drag out their hobby horses, the Limbaugh, Coulter Drudge stuff, people and things that were never mentioned heretofore...
 
Big Taco wrote: For the record, I did not "defend" the Petraeus ad. 
 
Where did I say you defended it? Why lie about what I’ve said?
 
I said you had a long, long list of excuses, like pretending it was a challenge of 1st Amendment rights for anyone to question it, the blather about how Petraeus was a big boy who could defend himself, even though the UCMJ expressly forbids him from making that sort of political response.
 
 Big Taco wrote: And I was most disgusted with congress spending anytime on what amounts to a public cheap-shot.  THAT has been my issue. 
 
Nah, your real “issue” was that some Democrats were put on the spot about it. You brought out a whole laundry list of talking points to try to deflect from the reality of your real “issue”, but it was clear from the outset.
 
Big Taco wrote: To me the ad is just like the swiftboat guys – 
 
Of course it is, because you can’t (or don’t want to) grasp the difference between moveon attacking a US commander in time of war with troops in the field with Kerry’s officer peers telling their side of the Kerry/Vietnam narrative that he had made the centerpiece of his campaign and had hoped to ride into the Whitehouse. Nice 100% repetition of the Democratic taking points, Mr "Independet"....
 
 Big Taco wrote:  For all we know, Petraeus could come out in retirement and pull a Sanchez, invalidating all the former accountings to the Bush administration.  Then you'll probably change your tune about the General, right?

 
Your partisan slip is showing, again…..obviously this is just about Bush….
 
You still don’t grasp it, do you? Petraues is a commander of troops in combat, the attack on him as a “betrayer” was beyond the pale. He was in no position to defend himself, so members of the Senate took a whole hour out of their busy schedule of not passing budgets, doling out earmarks and designating “National Ear Infection Awareness Week” to defend the guy.
 
You and your whiners about this are way out there on the fringe (in addition to simply having no understanding of the rules people like Petraus live under) on this as MOST members of BOTH parties agreed on this. Should Petraus leave the uniform, is no longer a member of the active service and wishes to express his personal opinions, one way of the other, that’s HIS choice. I, for one, will treat his opinion like Sanchez’s (who lacked for criticism for no one, the Bush administration, State Dept, NEWS MEDIA, the OPPOSITION PARTY IN CONGRESS, etc) which is to respect it and weigh it with all the others.
 
BTW, speaking of Limbaugh, 41 Democratic Senators took the precious Senate  time you claim to care so much about to attack him and ask his employer to take action against him. The response from the “don’t-threaten-free-speech-it’s-a-waste-of-time-to-talk-about-this-on-the-Senate-floor-they’re-wasting-my-tax-dollars types? Absolute silence……
 

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

Mike, you calling me "partisan" and "on the fringe" is laughable.  Even if it were true, we'd have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Taco wrote:
Mike, you calling me "partisan" and "on the fringe" is laughable.  Even if it were true, we'd have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Now that's funny considering the majority of BOTH parties in the Senate agree with me and you're repeating the talking points of the far left of the Democratic party.

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

Sure, freedom of speech and fiscal conservatism... far left tenets.  I had no idea.

FreeFromJones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-29

There is a long list of traitors in the political arena.  This one shows where one Democratic front runner stands.
http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html
 
Amazing from someone who wants to be our commander-in-chief.  Hope he doesn't offend anyone by being proud of his country.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
BondGuy wrote:
ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?
 
Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.
 
However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?
 
You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…
 
BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

 
You're the one who has got to be kidding. The entire Swift Boat Veterans for truth thing? Mike you do realize that they were a Bush/Rove front group financed by <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Texas republicans?
 
Financed by Republicans? Of course, the head of the group, John O’Neil had had a running feud with Kerry since his return from Vietnam, and of course it wouldn’t be people predisposed to support Democrats that would take issue with Kerry’s actions when he returned. Does that make it a “Rove front group”? Of course not, and there’s no evidence to support that claim.
 
Mike, every time Bush has run for election, that is, everytime,  some well financed group spewing venom at his opponent has appeared. That the bumpkins see no connection is exactly the point. It allows Bush to remain above the fray.
 
 
BondGuy wrote: And putting the words in someone elses mouth…
There’s the fiction. There’s absolutely no evidence that the opinions expressed by the Swiftboat Vets weren’t their own. I go back again to O’Neil’s ongoing debate with Kerry going back to 1970. The guy debated Kerry about these very issues for decades. I can provide you links to videos, if you need them, of O’Neil and Kerry on the Dick Cavet show having this very same conversation.
 You’d like us to believe they were organized and scripted by the evil Rove, but that’s just Democratic spin. They had a bone to pick with Kerry for a long, long time.

Mike here you are right, to a point. The opinions expressed by the SBVT were their own. No one put words in their mouths. I mispoke.
 
They were financed by Boone Pickens with the needed seperation from the RNC enabling them to get a public stage. As I said, it was a well financed smear campaign. Just like the ones launched against McCain and Richards.
 

 BondGuy wrote: You believed the SBVT? You do know that they've been discredited?
 
Sure they were….. you mean Kerry didn’t leave with less than 30% of his tour complete? De did lead the “Vietnam Veterans against the War”? He didn’t participate in antiwar demonstrations in a raggedy uniform? He didn’t spread the lies of imposters as a smear of the entirity of the US forces in Vietnam? Really?
 
The main claims of the SBVT surrounded Kerry not earning his medals. On this issue, they were discredited. SBVT who claimed to be on scene during the events leading to One of Kerry's Medals, the rescue of a crewman while under fire, were found to be lying. Not only were they not there , they weren't in-country at the time of the event. Nor for that matter was O'Neil. He served after Kerry left. Unfortunately, these guys, fueled by Republican money, didn't let the facts get in the way of their smear campaign.
Kerry's commanding officer who as a SBVT said he erred in giving Kerry his medal, was reputiated by his own sworn statements given at the time. All of those making claims against Kerry were shown to extremely upset with his post war actions. So what are we top believe. The statements given at the time, the ax to grind statements given by bitter angry men?
Kerry's crew stood behind him, as did the man who was rescued. These were the people who were close enough to see and know what was going on. These men had no book to sell, no ax to grind, no money to be made. The story they told in 2004 matched the statements they gave in the 1970's.
 
 
BondGuy wrote: The Swift Boats for Veterans group even used some of the same PR and legal people used by the 2000 Bush front group "Republicans for a clean Environment", which attacked McCain's environmental record. Yet you see no connection?
Strap down that tinfoil hat, Bondguy.
The problem for you is these vets meant every word they said, and they’d been saying it for years. When Kerry started his national campaign, they felt they had to make their case again to a larger audience unfamiliar with their issues. Kerry had several of his crew mates with him, these officers who served with him felt there waas another side to the Kerry story.
Of course the people who helped them get their message out with funding were Republicans. Why is that surprising? If someone had a decades old issue with some Republican running for office, would it shock you is they got support from Democrats? Why try to make that sound like some sort of dirty trick?
When they sought out legal and PR people, of course they went to firms that handle that sort of work for Republicans. Would a Democrat oriented firm have done it for them?  Seriously, why act like this is evidence that what they had to say they didn’t believe?
Notice that you go on and on about who helped fund them and where they went for PR and legal guidance, but you have nothing to say about the substance of their criticisms.
 
 
There is no substance to their criticisms. It was a smear campaign meant to distract and derail Kerry. And it worked. The average person in this country thinks Kerry didn't earn his medals. It was a brilliant strategy to neutralize a hero who put his life on the line against a trust fund baby who hid from service. My hat is off to Rove.
 
As I said, Rove played us. The bumkins bought it. If you bought it , well, what can I say?
 
Sadly, finding the truth isn't hard, it's as close as the fact checking portals on the net. Most though, don't realize they've been had. Thus Rove's brilliance

BondGuy wrote: Using third party front groups is SOP for Rove. It's a much stronger message coming from someone else. Rove has used this tactic for years.
 
 

If you think that’s a Rove monopoly, let’s discuss that bridge I want to sell you again.  Do you think Carville always has his name on groups aligned with his candidate? Has Soros put his name on ACT or Media Matters? You can’t really be that naive about who does what, can you? 
 
Rove has a special talent for using front groups. That you don't believe the SBVT was part of a well orchestrated strategy, led by Rove-PERFECT! Exactly what they were going for.
 
My issue with this isn't that he, or the dems do this. My issue is that it people buy it. You for example. These guys are so slick that the average person doesn't know they're being subjected to a PR smear campaign. People  hear it and think it's true. Then the right wing's echo chamber, FOX, Drudge, Coulter, Hannigan, Limbaugh, pick up the misinformation and run with it. Facts don't matter.
 
I will give Hannigan and for that matter, O'Reilly, credit for calling the Bush admin on some of their mistakes.
 
 

BondGuy wrote: How can you take issue with Kerry's senate testimony? 
 

 
Easily; “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam …………..”.
 
And these things weren't done? He testified to war crimes. He shouldn't have done that? War crimes are OK?
 
 
 

 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Regarding the petraeus outrage:
 
Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?
 
Valerie Plame?
 
Eric Shinseki?
 
 

Big Taco's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-11-15

BondGuy wrote:Regarding the petraeus outrage:
 
Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?
 
Valerie Plame?
 
Eric Shinseki?
 
 
 
I've learned that those people don't matter. 
 
Outing a CIA operative?  Of course no one in the current administration had anything to do with that.  Otherwise they'd be in prison, right?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Taco wrote:
Sure, freedom of speech and fiscal conservatism... far left tenets.  I had no idea.
 
Still trying to attach those unrelated issues to this one, eh? Sorry, no takers....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:Regarding the petraeus outrage:
 
Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?
 
Valerie Plame?
 
Eric Shinseki?
 
 
 
You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.
 
What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....
 
Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Big Taco wrote: 
Outing a CIA operative?  Of course no one in the current administration had anything to do with that.  Otherwise they'd be in prison, right?
 
Actually it was someone in the administration, and we know who it was, Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald (the IP) knows who he is, he admitted he did it, yet he was never charged with a crime. I doubt that the fact he was a critic of the war in Iraq had anything to do with the fact he wasn't charged with any crime.....

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:Regarding the petraeus outrage:
 
Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?
 
Valerie Plame?
 
Eric Shinseki?
 
 
 
You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.
 
What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....
 
Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....
 
I'll take that, that you are not outraged by the lies the right wing hate machine manufactured against these fine people.  You only wave the flag when it's the left doing the bashing. Convenient!
 
Mike, while you're enjoying the trapese act put on by your heros, that's elephant shit that you're standing in. And you gladly stand in it with a smile on your face. The best part: I've lost you, you are clueless as to what i'm talking about. Ah, the life of a sheep...
 
As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, and then the right's hate machine, while he was a four star general, in uniform, unable to respond. Not a stretch - a fact. Yet you, the defender of all slandered military men and woman, remain silent.
 
 And the best part, Shinseki was right. look at the mess Iraq has become. All can tracked right back to not having enough troops in country to get the job done. Unfortunately we don't get a do-over. We can only guess at how different the outcome would have been had Rumfeld listened to his General instead of castigating him.
 
You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?
 
 
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Oh, and by the way, i didn't say it was wrong that he was defended, just a waste of time.
 
Political grandstanding. Playing to the crowd.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:Regarding the petraeus outrage: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?
 
Valerie Plame?
 
Eric Shinseki?
 
 

 
You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.
 
What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....
 
Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....

 
I'll take that, that you are not outraged by the lies the right wing hate machine manufactured against these fine people.  You only wave the flag when it's the left doing the bashing. Convenient!
 
Huh? Look, bondguy, there’s no shortage of hate out there, and you certainly didn’t hear me defending any of it from any source. Funny thing is, the only person defending vicious attacks is, well, you.
 
Unfortunately, but you continue to want to lump all sorts of people who simply aren’t in the position that Petraeus was, an commander of troops in the field, vicouisly attacked and unable, by virtue of his position, to defend himself. Again, while you hyperventilate about this, the vast majority of both parties in the Senate agree with me. Enjoy your lonely little corner of the world.
 
BondGuy wrote: As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, …
 
I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.
 
BondGuy wrote: 
You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?
 
 

 
Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:Oh, and by the way, i didn't say it was wrong that he was defended, just a waste of time.
 
Political grandstanding. Playing to the crowd.
 
You mean doing the right thing by a guy who couldn't defend himself.
 
Speaking of "a waste of time" and "Political grandstanding. Playing to the crowd" I notice you've been silent on the Democrats in the Senate doing the very same thing going after Limbaugh based on MediaMatters talking points.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:Regarding the petraeus outrage: <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
Where is the outrage for Max Cleland?
 
Valerie Plame?
 
Eric Shinseki?
 
 

 
You simply don't want to grasp the fact that the difference between Petraeus and those others (and what's Shinseki even doing on your list? He was scheduled for retirement long before his oft-twisted comment on troop requirements, so you're not floating out that one, are you?) is that Petraeus was an active duty commander with troops in the field in combat who had been slurred, and by virtue of his active duty status and the UCMJ was in no position to defend himself.
 
What you fringe characters on this issue don't seem to understand just how far removed from reality you are . Again, the was massive public backlash and the vast majority of BOTH parties agree with me on this one. Who's in your camp, repeating your talking points? Well, there's you and moveon and .... and..... and.....
 
Now, feel free to keep crying about how wrong it was that he was defended.....

 
I'll take that, that you are not outraged by the lies the right wing hate machine manufactured against these fine people.  You only wave the flag when it's the left doing the bashing. Convenient!
 
Huh? Look, bondguy, there’s no shortage of hate out there, and you certainly didn’t hear me defending any of it from any source. Funny thing is, the only person defending vicious attacks is, well, you.
 
Unfortunately, but you continue to want to lump all sorts of people who simply aren’t in the position that Petraeus was, an commander of troops in the field, vicouisly attacked and unable, by virtue of his position, to defend himself. Again, while you hyperventilate about this, the vast majority of both parties in the Senate agree with me. Enjoy your lonely little corner of the world.
 
They are politicians wasting my time and yours.
 
BondGuy wrote: As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, …
 
I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki
 
BondGuy wrote: 
You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?
 
 

 
Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…
 
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/215826/698
 
Kinda tough to pin the Betrayus name origination on Moveon when it's been in the public domain since at least 2005. So, my questions stand. Why would his own troops call him that? You don't have to answer. i know that you can't
 
Mike, I'm not a moveon fan. Nor am I a democrat. If you could free yourself from being a Bush lapdog for just a minute a whole new world would open up to you. It's call reality. Try it. Over here where the sky is blue and gravity exists we are taught to think for ourselves. I know it's a novel idea. But really you should give it a shot. Once free thought takes hold not only will you realize that I'm not fringe left,  you will understand that what the NYTs did was apologize.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
 
BondGuy wrote: 
They are politicians wasting my time and yours.
 
If you call it a waste of time to defend a commander with troops in battle who can't defend himself, fine. OTOH, you're pretty selective about when their "waste" of your time offends you....
 
BondGuy wrote: As for Shinseki, publically humiliated by Rumsfeld, .....
 
I feel a “they made the NY Times apologize” moment coming on, here. I didn’t see Rumsfled attack Shenseki, perhaps you have a source.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki 
 
You figure that supports your claim that Rummy "publicly humiliated" Shinseki? Really? Golly, how dare the boss disagree with comments made by the underling,  when he directly contradicts the boss, why, that amounts to “public humiliation”.  You’ve offered up some lame stuff before, bondguy, but equating this to calling a commander with troops in combat a  betrayer is just laughable.
 
BondGuy wrote: 
You are aware that moveon didn't come up with the Betrayus nick name? That honor goes to Petraeus' own troops. What's up with that? Where's the outrage?
 
Where’s the source, where’s the equivalency? Where’s the logic? Lol…
 
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/18/215826/698
 
Kinda tough to pin the Betrayus name origination on Moveon when it's been in the public domain since at least 2005. So, my questions stand. Why would his own troops call him that? You don't have to answer. i know that you can't

 
Ask me if I'm surprised your source is none other than Daily "Screw 'em" Kos...... Why would troops bitch about the commander? Gee, because it’s an age-old right of troopers to bitch? That’s not really news to you, is it?
 
The posting makes it clear why the guy said he had a nickname, he made them stay in uniform and hold a rifle, which off of the “safe” position, with the finger off the trigger.  Sometimes troops don’t like being made to do the right thing. Seriously, I know you weren’t in the military yourself, but is this sort of thing as revelation to you? For crying out loud, even Patton’s troops had a nickname for him.
 
More importantly, since when does the fact that the troops have a nickname for a commander (he earned his as a <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Col., many, many moons ago) make the moveon ad defensible? What kind of logic is at work here? I’d say none, what’s at work here is a desperate grasping for straws.
 
 BondGuy wrote:   . Nor am I a democrat.
ROFLMAO, please, Bondguy, if there’s a more reliable repeater of the left fringe of the Democrat talking points than you who isn’t on a DNC payroll somewhere, I have a bridge to sell you….really, we’ve all read everything here you’ve ever written on politics, and you’d make James Carville blush.

More to the point, defending the move the MAJORITY of the Senate, BOTH parties, made to defend Petreaus doesn’t make anyone a “Bush lapdog”. Harry Frink’n REID voted to support it, I suppose he’s a “Bush lapdog” too….

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×