Like politics? Wow.

LINK

quote:

Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues By Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer May 03, 2004 (2nd Add: Includes additional details about Sen. John Kerry's ad campaign.) (CNSNews.com) - Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday. "What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said. O'Neill, currently a Houston, Texas, based attorney, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States. Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any sailor who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone. Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. "We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained. "The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added. Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served. Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire. "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April. Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures will educate people about Kerry. "It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander-in-chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said. 'Unfit Commander-in-Chief' Swift Boat Veterans For Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests. "Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign. "Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said. O'Neill hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character. "In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said. "And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added. 'Real John Kerry' B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack. "There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com. "The American people do not know John Kerry and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he added. Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment. Kerry has launched an ad campaign touting his service in Vietnam in an effort to counter the criticism ahead of Tuesday's press conference. The $25 million ads show photographs of a young Kerry as a Navy lieutenant on the Swift boat he commanded in Vietnam's Mekong Delta as well as photos of him in fatigues holding a rifle. Beginning Tuesday, the ads will run in 17 battleground states, as well as Colorado and Louisiana, which President Bush won in 2000. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), speaking on Fox News Monday, defended Kerry and blasted the president for using "$60 million worth of negative advertising" to try to tear down Kerry. Levin called Kerry's latest ad, "a very strong, a very positive ad." "This is a positive statement about strength of service of Senator Kerry, and I think the public is going to welcome it," said Levin. The Michigan Democrat called Kerry "very likeable," adding that "he'll come through as who he is, which is a very thoughtful, very sincere and a…person with a great deal of integrity and a great deal of sincerity."

Ahh yes, the Conservative Smear Campaign rolls on. They took down Cleland, they took down McCain, and now they focus on their main foe.

Beat that drum Rove. Beat that Drum!

quote:

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com Kerry's old Navy foe looks to sink senator By HELEN KENNEDY DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU Tuesday, May 4th, 2004 WASHINGTON - John Kerry's old nemesis - a fellow Vietnam vet picked by President Richard Nixon to discredit Kerry 30 years ago - is resurfacing today to declare him "unfit to be commander in chief." John O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of the same Navy Swift boat, will announce the formation of a new political group called Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, dedicated to undermining Kerry. O'Neill says he has a letter signed by hundreds of Navy vets, including many who served with Kerry, saying he is not commander-in-chief material. O'Neill's main beef is Kerry's charge that U.S. troops committed atrocities in Vietnam. "Our mission is to provide solid factual information relating to Mr. Kerry's abbreviated tour of duty," he wrote. Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton said, "The group behind this is the same group that smeared Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the 2000 Republican presidential primary." The new attack comes as Kerry launched $25 million in new ads stressing his Bronze Star and Silver Star and featuring a veteran whose life he saved. Bush has spent $40 million on ads tagging Kerry as soft on defense, and Republicans have orchestrated a wide-ranging attack on his Vietnam record - including questioning the three Purple Hearts that sent him home early. While it may seem counterintuitive to go after Kerry's war service, the tactic worked against McCain. Sources in Bush's 2000 operation said the idea was never to sway voters but to infuriate the candidate. McCain reacted furiously in 2000, helping to derail his campaign. Kerry, meanwhile, was reduced to angry stammering when challenged about his medals on ABC last week. O'Neill, a Houston lawyer, is emerging to spearhead the new attack, just as he did for the Nixon White House in the 1970s. Nixon's secret tapes captured him fretting with aides about the political threat Kerry posed and plotting to "destroy" him. O'Neill, an articulate young vet who had criticized Kerry's anti-war speeches, was invited to the White House in 1971 and encouraged to debate Kerry. "Give it to him, give it to him," Nixon told O'Neill. O'Neill says he is not coordinating with the White House this time around. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...8p-164279c.html

Anyone want to call "bullshit" on O'Neill, raise your hand!

(both of mine are raised).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ahh yes, the Conservative Smear Campaign rolls on. They took down Cleland, they took down McCain, and now they focus on their main foe.

Sad as it is, I'd say the Democrats are actually somewhat responsible for Cleland. They tried to glorify his service and his wounds which were not received from him doing anything heroic. If memory serves, he picked up a live grenade that wasn't from the enemy.

Basically, Democrats built him a pedestal to sit up on and when the truth came out (That Cleland readily acknowledged--hell, he admitted how stupid he was), the public realized that he wasn't so much a hero, as he was just a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. His service is respected, but when it came down to it, his service was sensationalized and the voting public saw through it.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sad as it is, I'd say the Democrats are actually somewhat responsible for Cleland. They tried to glorify his service and his wounds which were not received from him doing anything heroic. If memory serves, he picked up a live grenade that wasn't from the enemy. Basically, Democrats built him a pedestal to sit up on and when the truth came out (That Cleland readily acknowledged--hell, he admitted how stupid he was), the public realized that he wasn't so much a hero, as he was just a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. His service is respected, but when it came down to it, his service was sensationalized and the voting public saw through it.

Bullshit Shakka, and I really thought you could do better than to repeat the vitriol claims of someone as dispicable as Coulter (and shame on the libertarian Heritage Foundation for it's publication):

quote:

Coulter: "Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine non-combat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman - or what Cleland sneeringly calls 'weekend warriors.' Luckily, for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam." But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard - which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification."

She also went on about the fact that Cleland shouldn't be portrayed as a "war hero". Jesus f$cking Christ, what f$cking constitutes a f$cking "war hero" to the nut-bag Conservatives? He just threw his life on the line 4 days prior for the following event, which ultimately gave him a Silver Star:

quote:

"The congressional citation which came with the medal specifically said that during a "heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions." The citation concluded, "Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."

Is that a f$cking hero enough for you Coulter?

Peter Carlson of the Washington Post wrote:

quote:

"On April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25."

It turned out to be a grenade from someone else in his unit who jumped out of the helicopter with him. So this accident constitutes this smear job from one of the worst mouthpieces of the ultra-conservatives, and ultimately taking away his ACTUAL SERVICE AND TOUR in Vietnam?

Can our President say anything remotely of the sort?

How 'bout the Vice President?

How 'bout Limbaugh? What was that anal cyst thing that kept him out of the draft again?

OK, how 'bout you Coulter? Why didn't you enlist in Desert Storm?

Not all Republicans appreciated her smear tactic as well:

quote:

Rusty Paul, a Georgia Republican Party strategist, said Coulter crossed the line with her comments. “You can't take away from Max Cleland his record of service to this country and the sacrifice that he's made, regardless of the circumstances. To me, that's out of bounds to talk about that,” he said. http://www.11alive.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=42941

I wonder what brought this out? Perhaps it was when Cleland began openly questioning Bush's AWOL record, much like the rest of the press in Feb.?:

quote:

“(Bush) goes into Iraq and then three weeks in the battle stands on an aircraft carrier, dressing up pretending to be a super hero, and the guy hardly showed up for drills in Alabama,” Cleland says. “He got favorable treatment in Vietnam.”"

Umm, which part of that is untrue?

Besides, it's funny how the conservatives wrap themselves up in the American flag, bitch and rag on those who actually fought for our country, all the while cut the funding for veterans health care, military families, and soldier pay:

http://www.kintera.org/AccountTempF.../bushtroops.htm

And I'm sorry, buy the whole shenanigans about the public not buying the democratic side on Cleland is false. The smear campaign ads done to Cleland were both false and misleading:

http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/new...ion/297860.html

The ads against Cleland likened him to Osama and Saddam for f$ck's sake! That's unbelievably ridiculous to the point of absurdity!:

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/4264879.htm

Is this really any different than what the Conservatives do to ANYONE who questions their tactics and policies?

http://www.americanprogress.org/sit...JRJ8OVF&b=10955

They have such a propensity for attacking one's patriotism when they give a bit of criticism. Do they really have any room to talk about being patriotic? Was it patriotic to expose Ambassador Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA agent who's primary job was to investigate foreign WMD proliferation? I guess if they were going to expose her, it was quite nice to use another mouthpiece:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1000500918

But hats off the the Repugs for their smear job. Money and false propaganda buys votes every time, and the far-right knows how to play the head games better. Not too unlike what Bush is doing now, I would say:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

Not to say that the Dems. don't distort. Of course it goes both ways. But Bush and his cronies need to let this war record issue rest, because it is all too evident that it is fallacious at best and quite misleading.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I forgot to add something about the man behind the smear job on Cleland's bid for re-election. The ads that equated Cleland to Osama and Saddam were originally sponsored by Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), a man who told Georgia Public Television on 8/16/02 that he was kept out of Vietnam because of a "bum knee" and a handful of student deferments:

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories...020922028.shtml


Funny, it must have been some incredible miracle that Chambliss still found a way to play baseball in college and even plays in the Congressional Baseball games today.

F$cking chickenhawks. I've about had enough of all of their squawks!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I mean, if you wanna say FUCK, just come out and say FUCK. Fuckity fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. You sir are on the left, and I am on the right. Apparently, it's only acceptable to quote sources on the left when arguing historical points. I wasn't trying to refer to Coulter, rather pointing out the fact that Cleland himself said he thought it was his own grenade. Poor guy lost his limbs doing his duty, but Demoshitheads made the mistake of glorifying something that should not have been glorified(Much like John Kerry campaigning primarily on the fact that he served in Vietnam 30 years ago). In 1992, military service wasn't important to Democrats as they pushed a draft-dodger into office, yet today it's suddenly the greatest attribute they can offer about their presidential candidate while denouncing (Without a single DOCUMENTED FACT) Bush's service in the National Guard. I could care less about his national guard service, but I find it HIGHLY hypocritical of the Demoshiteating-flipfloppers to make a 180 degree change on their stance about service. On the one hand, they're the leading voice of anti-war opposition, yet on the other they're the one's trying to brag about Kerry's 4 month stint in Vietnam, when the real problem is that Kerry simply has no core. It's the blatant twisting and manipulation of facts to pursue an agenda which really get under my skin.

Again, your response reminds me of the fact that Demococks think it's fine to dish the shit out, but they can't deal with it when it's thrown back in their faces. Much like playground bullies. Like I said last week, it's a 2 way street that Demo****s and Liberaces can't seem to accept.

I use those silly transformations of "Democrat" and "Liberal" to point out the silliness of parties calling eachother "Repugs", "Smear Machine", and anything else you want to throw out there.

More from your buddy, O'neill

quote:

Unfit for Office By JOHN O'NEILL May 4, 2004; Page A20 HOUSTON -- In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray. Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago -- that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades. Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there. During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment. John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform -- a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America. Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces. John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate? Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience. Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing -- John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.

If O'neill is full of shit, he should have a LOT of explaining to do. Funny though that he still holds the same line that he held 33 years ago, whereas John Kerry has changed his stance on issues more times than I can count on my fingers and toes.

I wonder how many people on this board even remember who Dick Cavett is?

And I hope you took nothing personally, you know at the end of the day I still enjoy the political sparring.

Again, Kerry campaigning on bullshit.

Link

quote:

GLOBAL VIEW By GEORGE MELLOAN Kerry Tries Xenophobia As a Campaign Ploy May 4, 2004; Page A21 John Kerry's tour of the Midwestern "swing" states last week was notable for one thing: the all-pervasive negativism about U.S. commerce with the rest of the world. He wants revival of a lapsed law called "Super 301" which requires the U.S. trade representative to nitpick U.S. trading partners for "rules violations" and punish them with trade sanctions. Mysteriously, he proposed "legal action" against countries whose currency exchange rate is not to his liking. He claimed direct investment in the U.S. is drying up, when in fact it's booming. So to win blue-collar votes, he is seeking out enemies among the many millions of "foreigners" who do business with the U.S. In his campaign script, they sit at their workbenches plotting mischief, like scheming to sell Americans cell phones or to get their hands on Indiana soybeans. Doesn't this worldview sound just a tad mean-spirited, not to mention paranoid? Surely it must to some of Mr. Kerry's overseas targets when they consider that the average wealth and material well-being of Americans far exceeds that of almost anyone else on the planet, except for residents of a tiny few garden spots, like Switzerland. Nearly 70% of American households own the homes they live in. Over half have investments in stocks. The statistics Mr. Kerry uses to try to prove that American workers are hurting look like they were cooked on the gas burners of the AFL-CIO. Much to Mr. Kerry's political discomfort, the U.S. is enjoying a robust economic recovery. After a strong comeback in the third quarter last year, economic growth has exceeded an annual rate of 4% -- well above the historic average -- for two quarters in a row. Personal income and consumer spending are rising. As to the "jobless recovery," it's true that after the 2001 slump, the U.S. lost manufacturing jobs, as did practically every other industrial nation, including China and Japan. But those losses were caused mainly by remarkable improvements in manufacturing technology, which raised factory productivity sharply. American manufacturing has become the most productive in the world, with output nearly doubling to $1.5 trillion from $880 billion in the last two decades. And last summer, manufacturing jobs began to grow again. Payroll employment has climbed 759,000 since August. The Bureau of Labor Statistics household survey, which measures self- as well as payroll-employment, looks even rosier. The U.S. workforce has swelled to a record 138.3 million, 978,000 more than a year ago. So it's pretty hard for Mr. Kerry to sell Americans on the idea that they are victims of globalization. Quite the contrary; Americans have benefited enormously from the efforts of past presidents to promote freer trade, as the above statistics clearly demonstrate. Surely Mr. Kerry knows this, even as he goes about spreading doom and gloom. The folks at the AFL-CIO, which once had decent free-trade credentials, surely know it too, but they're less concerned with the larger work force than with the shrinking share represented by industrial unions. U.S. manufacturers, to be sure, do have problems. According to the Manufacturers Alliance, they pay the highest taxes among global competitors. They have a $233 billion annual legal burden and $850 billion in regulatory costs. But tort lawyers and government bureaucrats are important constituencies of the Democratic Party, so Mr. Kerry prefers to focus his wrath on foreigners who don't cast votes in the U.S. He has a weird "jobs" proposal to cut corporate taxes slightly but charge a higher rate on earnings from abroad. Bring on a million more accountants, please. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the candidate's Midwest swing was his sally into the wonderful world of exchange-rate relationships. He seemed to be introducing a novel concept in international law, that central banks behave "illegally" when they manipulate exchange rates. Plenty of central banks have been punished for this kind of behavior; but by the markets, not by the World Court, World Trade Organization or wherever Mr. Kerry plans to file suit. There must be some megalomanical instinct that causes politicians to think that if they could just get control of the international monetary system, they could bring order to the world. George W. Bush and his Treasury secretary, John Snow, are similarly afflicted, judging from their attempts to jawbone the Chinese into raising the value of the yuan. Mr. Kerry's remarks sound as if he has morphed back to the 1970s, when a lot of people, still laboring with theories that afflicted the International Monetary Fund, thought that a weak currency would "correct" a trade imbalance. Let's look at two currencies, the U.S. dollar and the yuan, which troubles Mr. Kerry as well. The yuan is fixed to the dollar so it goes where the dollar goes, which up until recently was down. But did the 30% three-year dollar slump correct the U.S. trade deficit? Not quite; it's running at a half trillion dollars. And the yuan devaluation didn't help China, if you think trade deficits are something to be ashamed of. China slipped from a trade surplus last year into a trade deficit in the first two months of this year. Yet, the Chinese deficit is helping pull Japan out of its slump, and the U.S. deficit is a world-wide blessing in its benefits to national economies. Contrary to Mr. Kerry's fears about foreigners holding too much U.S. Treasury paper, there is little evidence of a reluctance to use the dollars earned in the U.S. to buy U.S. Treasuries. If there were, Treasuries would be yielding far more than the modest rates that now pertain. When the U.S. can no longer finance its trade deficit, some adjustment will have to be made in the U.S. government's spending and borrowing habits. That is not something Mr. Kerry wants to talk about on his campaign tour. His campaign promises, for education and health care, cost out to more of the free spending that goes on now in Washington. If he wants to behave like a junkyard dog, he might get more votes by biting his Senate colleagues for overspending than he's likely to get threatening the foreigners who supply Americans with goods.

At least he can count on the votes of Kim Jong Il, Jacques Chirac, and other unnamed foreign leaders to give him support.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I forgot to add something about the man behind the smear job on Cleland's bid for re-election. The ads that equated Cleland to Osama and Saddam were originally sponsored by Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), a man who told Georgia Public Television on 8/16/02 that he was kept out of Vietnam because of a "bum knee" and a handful of student deferments: http://www.onlineathens.com/stories...020922028.shtml Funny, it must have been some incredible miracle that Chambliss still found a way to play baseball in college and even plays in the Congressional Baseball games today. F$cking chickenhawks. I've about had enough of all of their squawks!

Don't worry, I voted for Chambliss.

The reason why I say f$ck is because I thought I thought Swamper had an editor on certain profane words.

So I can say "fuck" now?

Awesome! Fuckity fuck fuck fuck on a fuck's fuck with a fucky ducky fucking a fuck!

Cool! Alright, where were we?

Edit: Of course you know I take nothing personally. Some of my favorite drinking buddies in my life were hard-nosed conservatives! . And just like you, I love a good political spar myself!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on May-04-2004 at 16:46

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Again, Kerry campaigning on bullshit. Link At least he can count on the votes of Kim Jong Il, Jacques Chirac, and other unnamed foreign leaders to give him support.

As to this story on from Georgy Melloan, I'd like to comment on it but I think it would be best served as another thread.

Just a healthy suggestion.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Apparently, it's only acceptable to quote sources on the left when arguing historical points.

You're kidding. Are you pulling a "Nessa" and calling all my sources given are from the left? Of course American Progress is on the left, but the rest? Factcheck.org? C'mon.

Besides, could we argue on the points given, not just ad hominem attacks? I think I've done my share arguing against previous Wall Street Journal Editorials and WorldNetDaily.com pieces.

quote:

I wasn't trying to refer to Coulter, rather pointing out the fact that Cleland himself said he thought it was his own grenade.

No you weren't referring to her, but the argument you chose came directly from her and the Heritage Foundation. This argument was not used during his re-election bid. It was used when he chided Bush on his AWOL record.

quote:

Poor guy lost his limbs doing his duty, but Demoshitheads made the mistake of glorifying something that should not have been glorified(Much like John Kerry campaigning primarily on the fact that he served in Vietnam 30 years ago).

Again, what constitutes a "war hero" to you? What constitutes a necessity for glorification of one's past, if a Silver Star won't do it?

Furthermore, what right did the ultra-conservative chickenhawks have for slandering him and equating him to Osama and Saddam, when he did actually serve in the military and put his ass out on the line to save others' lives?

quote:

In 1992, military service wasn't important to Democrats as they pushed a draft-dodger into office, yet today it's suddenly the greatest attribute they can offer about their presidential candidate while denouncing (Without a single DOCUMENTED FACT) Bush's service in the National Guard. I could care less about his national guard service, but I find it HIGHLY hypocritical of the Demoshiteating-flipfloppers to make a 180 degree change on their stance about service. On the one hand, they're the leading voice of anti-war opposition, yet on the other they're the one's trying to brag about Kerry's 4 month stint in Vietnam, when the real problem is that Kerry simply has no core.

Well I'd think the economy was the primary issue over the military, considering how Reagan's tax cuts eventually led us into a recession on Bush Sr.'s watch because our deficit was just a wee bit too high. So yeah, I guess that was the primary issue. Didn't seem to bother the public too much, despite the fact that the "liberal" media ran something like 13,641 or so stories on his draft-dodging (compared to Bush's mere 49 during his 2000 election bid).

I too would find it highly hypocritical if Clinton had decided to be a chickenhawk himself and go into a war of choice on false pretenses. But unlike this chickenshit Admin. he decided to have UN involvement in Kosovo, and went multilaterally.

Speaking of hypocrites, I seem to remember just how much criticism the conservative right gave him for his action to go to war multilaterally with the UN. Why didn't they criticize Bush for similar measures, esp. under false pretenses?

Oh, and the "without a single documented fact" part on Bush's AWOL, well Bush has yet to answer the following events, despite the selected records he's given to the press:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain615317.shtml

quote:

In 2000, Mr. Bush said he missed the physical because his family doctor was in Texas. But, as Time magazine reports, Air Force surgeons must perform the physicals and there was no surgeon shortage in Alabama. In March 2004, the White House said Mr. Bush did not need the physical because he was not flying. Regardless of these speculations, there is no record of any investigation in Mr. Bush's file. As Moore concludes, "A pilot simply did not walk away from all of that training with two years remaining on his tour of duty without a formal explanation as to what happened and why." Pay stubs released in February show that he was paid for enough days in Alabama to be judged "satisfactory," but that he did not do any duty between April 16 and October 28, 1972, and that he failed to show up for training in December 1972, February 1973 and March 1973. There is nothing in the records from that key period beyond those pay stubs – no evaluations from either Mr. Bush's Alabama supervisors or his Texas ones. In fact, Mr. Bush's Texas evaluators wrote on May 2, 1973 that, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187th Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." But no Alabama records exist. And Mr. Bush's official discharge papers include no evidence of any duty between May 1972 and October 1973, when he left the Guard.

He's playing dodgeball with the issue. Why?

And he did move to Alabama without the Guard's permission. Why?:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunher...ion/7932511.htm

Plus, it's pretty damn obvious that Bush and the Pentagon are stonewalling the hell out of this issue:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/brea...te=200431401040

quote:

At the National Guard Bureau, now headed by a Bush appointee from Texas, officials last week said they were under orders not to answer questions. The bureau's chief historian said he couldn't discuss questions about Bush's military service on orders from the Pentagon. ‘‘If it has to do with George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Vietnam War, I can't talk with you,” said Charles Gross, chief historian for the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C. Rose Bird, Freedom of Information Act officer for the bureau, said her office stopped taking records requests on Bush's military service in mid-February and is directing all inquiries to the Pentagon. She would not provide a reason. Air Force and Texas Air National Guard officials did not respond to written questions about the issue. James Hogan, a records coordinator at the Pentagon, said senior Defense Department officials had directed the National Guard Bureau not to respond to questions about Bush's military records.

yet at the same time has the audacity to attack Kerry's record? It really is unbelievable.

quote:

It's the blatant twisting and manipulation of facts to pursue an agenda which really get under my skin.

Are you really being fair by not putting your own party under the same microscope? It seems pretty obvious that you're being a little selective in your judgements.

quote:

Again, your response reminds me of the fact that Demococks think it's fine to dish the shit out, but they can't deal with it when it's thrown back in their faces. Much like playground bullies. Like I said last week, it's a 2 way street that Demo****s and Liberaces can't seem to accept.

I think they're taking it pretty good, considering just how much shit the Bush cronies are continually throwing at them. The pockets and interests in the conservative party are huge, and it's a monumental obstacle to climb. But overall I think Kerry's doing okay (not great, he should be attacking much more).

quote:

I use those silly transformations of "Democrat" and "Liberal" to point out the silliness of parties calling eachother "Repugs", "Smear Machine", and anything else you want to throw out there.

I know. It's what makes the debate interesting.

quote:

More from your buddy, O'neill If O'neill is full of shit, he should have a LOT of explaining to do. Funny though that he still holds the same line that he held 33 years ago, whereas John Kerry has changed his stance on issues more times than I can count on my fingers and toes. I wonder how many people on this board even remember who Dick Cavett is?

I like the "breach of loyalty" part of the article. Perhaps it's because Kerry's C.O. was a little off his rocker? Read emphasis in article below? What a great guy O'Neill has decided to defend.

This is purely political, plain and simple. The fact that O'Neill worked for Nixon to curb Kerry's accounts is pretty funny, to say the least. O'Neill's partisan side is getting a little too far into the way in all this, and as I said, the Conservatives ought to leave the military history of Kerry alone. In comparison to Bush and Cheney's it's not even a comparison.

Tit for tat, here's a liberal side of the story on O'Neill and Kerry's C.O.:

quote:

Smear Boat Veterans for Bush The "swift boat" veterans attacking John Kerry's war record are led by veteran right-wing operatives using the same vicious techniques they used against John McCain four years ago. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Joe Conason May 4, 2004 | The latest conservative outfit to fire an angry broadside against John Kerry's heroic war record is Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which today launches a campaign to brand the Democrat "unfit to serve as commander in chief." Billing itself as representing the "other 97 percent of veterans" from Kerry's Navy unit who don't support his presidential candidacy, the group insists that all presidential candidates must be "totally honest and forthcoming" about their military service. These "swift boat vets" claim still to be furious about Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony against the war in which he spoke about atrocities in Indochina's "free fire zones." More than three decades later, facing the complicated truth about Vietnam remains difficult. But this group's political connections make clear that its agenda is to target the election of 2004. Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group's media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O'Neill, law partner of Spaeth's late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as "the classic body-count guy" who "wanted hooches destroyed and people killed." Spaeth told Salon that O'Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his "concerns about Sen. Kerry." O'Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's dirty-tricks aide. Spaeth heard O'Neill out, but told him, she says, that he "sounded like a crazed extremist" and should "button his lip" and avoid speaking with the press. But since Kerry clinched the Democratic nomination, Spaeth has changed her mind and decided to donate her public relations services on a "pro bono" basis to O'Neill's latest anti-Kerry effort. "About three weeks ago, four weeks ago," she said, the group's leaders "met in my office for about 12 hours" to prepare for their Washington debut. Although not as well known as Karen Hughes, Spaeth is among the most experienced and best connected Republican communications executives. During the Reagan administration she served as director of the White House Office of Media Liaison, where she specialized in promoting "news" items that boosted President Reagan to TV stations around the country. While living in Washington she met and married Lezar, a Reagan Justice Department lawyer who ran for lieutenant governor of Texas in 1994 with George W. Bush, then the party's candidate for governor. (Lezar lost; Bush won.) Through Lezar, who died of a heart attack last January, she met O'Neill, his law partner in Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson, a Dallas firm. (It also includes Margaret Wilson, the former counsel to Gov. Bush who followed him to Washington, where she served for a time as a deputy counsel in the Department of Commerce.) Spaeth's partisanship runs still deeper, as does her history of handling difficult P.R. cases for Republicans. In 1998, for example, she coached Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, to prepare him for his testimony urging the impeachment of President Clinton before the House Judiciary Committee. She even reviewed videotapes of his previous television appearances to give him pointers about his delivery and demeanor. The man responsible for arranging her advice to Starr was another old friend of her late husband's, Theodore Olson, who was counsel to the right-wing American Spectator when it acted as a front for the dirty-tricks campaign against Clinton known as the Arkansas Project; he is now the solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department. (Olson also happens to be the godfather of Spaeth's daughter.) In 2000, Spaeth participated in the most subterranean episode of the Republican primary contest when a shadowy group billed as "Republicans for Clean Air" produced television ads falsely attacking the environmental record of Sen. John McCain in California, New York and Ohio. While the identity of those funding the supposedly "independent" ads was carefully hidden, reporters soon learned that Republicans for Clean Air was simply Sam Wyly -- a big Bush contributor and beneficiary of Bush administration decisions in Texas -- and his brother, Charles, another Bush "Pioneer" contributor. (One of the Wyly family's private capital funds, Maverick Capital of Dallas, had been awarded a state contract to invest $90 million for the University of Texas endowment.) When the secret emerged, spokeswoman Spaeth caught the flak for the Wylys, an experience she recalled to me as "horrible" and "awful." Her job was to assure reporters that there had been no illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the Wyly brothers in arranging the McCain-trashing message. Not everyone believed her explanation, including the Arizona senator. The veteran group's founder, Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, first gained notoriety in Vietnam as a strutting, cigar-chewing Navy captain. But it was O'Neill, by now a familiar figure on the Kerry-bashing circuit, who came to Spaeth for assistance. Until now, Hoffmann has been best known as the commanding officer whose obsession with body counts and "scorekeeping" may have provoked the February 1969 massacre of Vietnamese civilians at Thanh Phong by a unit led by Bob Kerrey -- the Medal of Honor winner who lost a leg in Nam, became a U.S. senator from Nebraska and now sits on the 9/11 commission. After journalist Gregory Vistica exposed the Thanh Phong massacre and the surrounding circumstances in the New York Times magazine three years ago, conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell took particular note of the cameo role played by Kerrey's C.O., who had warned his men not to return from missions without enough kills. "One of the myths due to die as a result of Vistica's article is that which holds the war could have been won sensibly and cleanly if the 'suits' back in Washington had merely left the military men to their own devices," Caldwell wrote. "In this light, one of the great merits of Vistica's article is its portrait of the Kurtz-like psychopath who commanded Kerrey's Navy task force, Capt. Roy Hoffmann." Arguments about the war in Vietnam seem destined to continue forever. For now, however, the lingering bitterness and ambiguity of those days provide smear material against an antiwar war hero with five medals on behalf of a privileged Guardsman with a dubious duty record. The president's Texas allies -- whose animus against his Democratic challenger dates back to the Nixon era -- are now deploying the same techniques and personnel they used to attack McCain's integrity four years ago. Bush's "independent" supporters would apparently rather talk about the Vietnam quagmire than about his deadly incompetence in Iraq. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conaso...ift/index1.html

Edit: In reading my own post, I've noticed that I need to cut back on the profanity, esp. the word "fuck". I've deleted that out, as I believe that, to a certain degree, it detracts from the points I'm attempting to make. I will try to be a little more constructive in the future.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on May-04-2004 at 19:46

I really don't think we need a Commander-In-Chief who threw away his war medals. Now what kinda rational soldier in the military would look up to him?


[[[smoke]]]