At the height of the Clinton hatred, what upset the right the most was not Clinton’s actual sins, but that he seemed to be capable of always getting away with them. No matter what was thrown at him, he shrugged it off- which just INFURIATED people, sending them into a frothing rage.
If this Drudge report is accurate, the same is going to happen to Democrats in the upcoming weeks:
Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, spoke with TIME mag’s Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative.
But Rove did not leak the name of the CIA op Plame, Rove’s lawyer said again Saturday night.
Robert Luskin said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations.
“Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn’t disclose Valerie Plame’s identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,” Luskin said to the WASHINGTON POST. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: “Who outed this woman? … It wasn’t Karl.”
NBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell claimed this weekend, ‘Rove Blew CIA Agent’s Cover’.
“Emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper’s source. I have known this for months,” O’Donnell said.
Do a technorati search for “frog march rove,” and look what you see. Max Blumenthal, as nasty a partisan as they come (check out his testimonials, which are pretty funny):
No matter what Judy D’Arc does or doesn’t do, Rove is in real trouble. And I thought Scooter Libby would fall on his sword for Rove.
Holy Shit – it IS Rove!
Ok, everybody take a deep breath. O’Donnell could not be more definitive, but let’s make sure this is REAL before we get too excited. Still, I’m psyched!
If it turns out Rove did nothing wrong, certain quarters are going to explode with rage. Should be funny.
*** Update ***
If you are just itching to jump in to the comments section RIGHT NOW and tell me that you were personally outraged OUTRAGED! because Clinton did X*, not because he got away with it, and that I owe you an apology APOLOGY!, that has already been adequately covered.
Let X = treason, perjury, adultery, killing Vince Foster, driving an El Camino, eating too much fast food, marrying Hillary, and other unnamed Clinton sins
G. Hamid
The only source for this accusation in Lawrence O’Donnell?!?
Holy Shit, indeed.
Halffasthero
The issue may not be that Rove leaked Plame but that he lied in the Plame GJ about what he knew concerning the leaker. From what I understand, they may be looking at a second source of confirmation regarding what Rove knew.
Jeff Harrell
“At the height of the Clinton hatred, what upset the right the most was not Clinton’s actual sins, but that he seemed to be capable of always getting away with them.”
That sounds an awful lot like “Liberals called for moderation and restraint” to me, John. I thought you condemned Karl Rove for painting with a broad brush.
During the 1990s I was a moderate Democrat. I voted for President Clinton twice, enthusiastically, but opposed Democratic flagship items like nationalized health care. I thought the Whitewater investigation was little more than a witch-hunt instigated by mean-spirited Congressional Republicans, and I opposed it on the grounds that broad-based mandates to independent investigators do far more harm than good. But once the evidence of the President’s misconduct and his lying under oath came to light, I had no choice at all but to support impeachment.
So no, John. It’s not true to say that what people hated was some nonsense about how he got away with things. What I hated was his adultery and his perjury.
I expect you’ll be demanding a retraction from yourself before lunchtime, yes?
;-)
SomeCallMeTim
I always thought it was a bit of an overreach, anyway. Things like this happen in DC all the time; pretending that Rove getting away with it is a first is naive. We lack the power with the American people to convince them that this matters, so we can’t hang an attack on it. Oh well; move on to the next possible attack.
Rick
John,
Some of your visitors will surely fall victim to the “Scanners” exploding head trick. “Rove didn’t lie, and people died.”
Cordially…
Stormy70
KaBoom! :)
Sojourner
That’s an oxymoron.
The Owner's Manual
” what upset the right the most was not Clinton’s actual sins, but that he seemed to be capable of always getting away with them”
Well, no. Outsourcing DoD critical systems decisions to Commerce, taking PRC campaign contributions in return for weapons design hardware and other forms of treason were paramount, not the fact he got away with them.
Mike S
driving an El Camino,
Clinton was a pool cleaner?
M. Scott Eiland
If Rove isn’t indicted, I’d strongly suggest to the communities where large amounts of moonbats congregate that it might be a good idea to step up police presence in the vicinity of tall buildings and bridges: no one wants to see a substantial number of dKos, DU, and Indymedia types to start doing swan dives into pavement and/or industrial sewage. For one thing, the cleanup bill would be a bitch.
Rick
Sojourner,
“Yawn.”
Hey! That really *is8 clever. Who’da thunk it?
Cordially…
Sojourner
You’ve been a great role model.
Thanks much!
B-Line
“At the height of the Clinton hatred, what upset the right the most was not Clinton’s actual sins, but that he seemed to be capable of always getting away with them.”
Hmmmmm, wasn’t Clinton impeached?
Rick
Sojourner,
It’s among my greatest pleasures. While sitting down. Not in the bathroom. And not reading, dining or watching TV. But it’s way, way up there.
Stormy,
It would be interesting to view the contents, no? I suspect a certain revolting substance that I’m to correct to mention.
Cordially…
Geoduck
Bush and Rove have been “getting away with it” for five long years now, and with far less consequences than Clinton. (Personally. The consequences for America have been disasterous, and will only mount as time goes by.) If nothing comes of this latest round, it’s just more of the same.
aldahlia
Clinton drove an El Camino!?! NOW I finally have a reason to get good and frothy!!! ;-)
Jimmy Jazz
OT, but Abu Ghraib Gonzales is winging his way to Iraq, presumably to provide some continuing education on the finer points of torture and death squads, instruction begun by departed ambassador Negroponte:
Oh, and in today’s last throes, the Egyptian ambassador was kidnapped.
Ken Hahn
I still think Clinton was the worst President in the history of the republic and that he should have been convicted in the impeachment but he’s not worth the effort of hating. As a former President and as a human being, he’s boring and meaningless. Anything that happens to him now will do nothing to heal the damage he did the Presidency and the country.
If Rove or anyone else committed a crime, let them be tried and convicted. If this is just a rumor ( and considering the source, it probably is ), so be it. Howard Dean represents the politicalization of justice, condeming Delay while saying we must presume Osama innocent until proven guilty. Everyone should recieve the presumtion of innocence, even Clinton.. or Rove, …or Delay.
I think you will see the presumption of guilt applied, not only to Rove and Delay ( and Bush ) but to anyone that is nominated to the supreme court. I have little faith that Bush will nominate a conservative, but anyone to right of Ted Kennedy will be slandered by the Senate Democrats and their echo chamber press. I hope the weak kneed majority has the guts to stand up to them.
Sojourner
So you think Clinton should have been convicted for lying about a blow job? Then I can assume that you support impeaching Bush for lying about the Iraq war, right? Intellectual consistency is, after all, an important virtue.
nancy
Don’t hold back Ken.
Mike S
I still think Clinton was the worst President in the history of the republic
I hated peace and prosperity too.
MF
Clinton was not even close to the worst we’ve had….we have that now. He was impeached by a petty Senate and a prosecutor with a wish to be famous. He had an affair. Yes, he’s a liar. He’s the idiot who brought us NAFTA. UGH!
Bush lied because he had a vendetta. Hussein will burn in hell – as he should. Nearly 1,800 dead men and women – for his grudge. He should not only be impeached for failing to get Bin Laden, but be tried for starting a war with a country that posed no “immediate” threat to our country. There was a reason his daddy didn’t stay the first time. He (and Cheney) knew we would have many losses. Meanwhile, the promise that he made to get Bin Laden is no longer important somehow…amazing! His Father was a better President.
HH
So Clinton deserved impeachment for failing to get bin Laden too right?
Sojourner
I didn’t know bin Laden killed 3000 people on American soil under Clinton’s watch. When did that happen?
ARROW
“I hated peace and prosperity too.”
The peace and prosperity part was okay. It was the Internet bubble in the stock market, the recession that followed, and the gang of corporate thieves that he left for Bush to clean up. Not to mention the terrorism issue that he soooo effectively dealt with!
“He was impeached by a petty Senate and a prosecutor with a wish to be famous.”
Just a small point, but President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives and given a “trial” by the Senate. How does a prosecutor wanting to be famous make him any different from any other prosecutor?
ARROW
“I didn’t know bin Laden killed 3000 people on American soil under Clinton’s watch. When did that happen?”
No, that happened under Bush. It was Clinton’s weakness that caused these people to act. You know, WTC I (and the wonderfully effective trials that commenced thereafter), Mogadishu (where 18 American soldiers were killed with a retreat in answer), the Embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole, his failed bribe of the North Koreans, his attorney general’s failed policy regarding the sharing of intelligence, etc., etc. etc. The moral of the story…don’t put someone that loathes the military in charge of the military.
Jess
Arrow,
Would the “gang of corporate thieves” you mention include W’s buddy “Kenny-boy” Lay? What effect has the Republican emphasis on deregulation had on a corporate environment that fosters this kind of corruption? What was W’s response to California’s pleas for government intervention when Enron was looting our economy with phony energy crises? I know you won’t want to look honestly at role of “leaders” like W and his corporate cronies in all of this, but don’t try to deflect the blame onto Clinton…that dog don’t hunt.
p.lukasiak
all I know is that Bush was warned of OBL’s intention to attack the USA, and stayed on vacation clearing brush.
All I know is that when Bush was told that “a second plane has hit the World Trade Center, America is under attack” he continued with that day’s photo op until a scheduled break occurred.
All I know is that Clinton had reached an agreement with the Government of Pakistan to allow the US to attack bin Laden’s base and take him out from Pakistan….but that Musharraf overthrew that democratically elected government, and shut down the US operation— and Musharref is now Bush’s best asshole buddy….
All I know is that the WTC was successfully attacked by a bunch of religious fanatics with penknives — and that we let their leader get away because we wanted to go to war with someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the people who attacked us.
Brian
“Clinton was the worst President in the history of the republic”
I can’t get my mind around this statement. I realize part of my Bush hatred is just finding his personality grating, and that also happens to people with Clinton, but I think the Onion put it best when Bush was elected:
Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over.
http://chak.org/pages/onion/bush_nightmare.html
McDuff
That’s one way of looking at it.
The other way is to consider that the Plame investigation looks like it may well turn up some juicy shit on someone very high up in the administration, Rove or not. Rove was always suspect #1, but if it wasn’t him the other candidates are just as good for us liberals baying for blood. Hell, man, what if it was Cheney?
Regardless, I rather think that finding out who the traitor in the Cabinet is should be a matter of some urgency, and shouldn’t really be a partisan issue. Then again, I thought that about torture and the White House don’t agree with me about that either.
M. Scott Eiland
“I hated peace and prosperity too.”
Yeah–because Harding and Coolidge were great Presidents, too. They had the stock market bubble, and Bubba had the tech bubble–and both had virtually nothing to do with the central factor behind the good times they were fortunate enough to preside over (though I’ll give Clinton points for bucking his party and pushing NAFTA through).
Sojourner
The Clinton haters are an interesting breed. They get hysterical over blow jobs but show no concern for the lies and dirty deeds of this administration. They blame 9/11 on Clinton in spite of overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration was warned (by the Clinton administration, by countless informers, etc. etc. etc.) that terrorism was the major threat and did NOTHING. Under Clinton, the millenium bombing was stopped. Under Bush… well, he failed to get OBL and started a war against a country that had no involvement with 9/11 based on lies about WMD.
The folks who did the first WTC bombing are serving time. The mastermind of WTC 2 is laughing his ass off as Bush does exactly what OBL wants. Bush is bankrupting the economy (a Bin Laden goal), has decimated the military (a Bin Laden goal), and is the prime terrorist recruiter through his arrogant war on Iraq (a Bin Laden goal).
Yet the Clinton haters still hate Clinton and love Bush. Amazing.
Jess
Thank you, Sojourner–well said!
scs
I think too many people get too caught up in this cult of personality. Clinton wasn’t responsible for all the good (or bad) stuff that happened in the 90’s, just as Bush was not the source of all so-called lies and the sometimes setbacks on the terror war. The world is more than just the US President, you know. And good thing too, cause if it were, I think that would be called a dictatorship.
scs
Also, I saw Lawrence O’Donnell have a meltdown one night on MSNBC against the SwiftBoat guys. After that, I think he got demoted. That guy doens’t seem to be in full control of himself. I agree that if he is the source, we got a lot more sourcing to do.
Sojourner
O’Donnell was brilliant that night. Finally, a talking head with the balls to call those liars on their lies. He saw through the lies and was unwilling to play along with them, unlike Tweety and the other talking heads who prostitute themselves to keep the big paycheck.
What you saw wasn’t a guy not in full control of himself. He was a guy who was fed up with the bullshit coming from the Bush supporters, including those who didn’t serve themselves but trash those who did (Kerry, McCain, Cleland). O’Donnell was smart enough to understand that the Swift Boat liars dishonored all veterans, not just Kerry, and he was tired of the dishonesty.
I can understand why you were put off by him. You’re just not used to hearing the truth very often.
Bravo, O’Donnell.
ARROW
What was W’s response to California’s pleas for government intervention when Enron was looting our economy with phony energy crises?”
California got exactly what it deserved. The dumbshits you call legislators froze the price paid by consumers and left the utilities to twist in the wind. When energy costs shot up, because demand shot up, the utilities couldn’t pass on the increases, so they finally went bankrupt. After they figured out what was going on, they entered into long-term price agreements and prices went back down. What a bunch of dumbasses!Your brilliant politicians were to blame for what happened. When was the last power generating facility built in California? Californians got exactly what they deserved, period.
“The folks who did the first WTC bombing are serving time. The mastermind of WTC 2 is laughing his ass off as Bush does exactly what OBL wants.”
Can you say IDIOT? Where is the “mastermind” of WTC I? Using your idiotic logic, the guys behind WTC II are pushing up daisies (no trial necessary) and the “mastermind” is in the same place as the mastermind of WTC II.
Mike S
California got exactly what it deserved. The dumbshits you call legislators froze the price paid by consumers and left the utilities to twist in the wind. When energy costs shot up, because demand shot up, the utilities couldn’t pass on the increases, so they finally went bankrupt
It’d be nice if you looked into this before spouting the spinned version. Demand went up when ENRON, Dynergy and others gamed th system by shutting down fully funtioning plants and made sham trades.
THE FIRST STEP TO UNDERSTANDING THE STATE energy crisis is to realize that, contrary to news reports at the time, there was always plenty of energy. “There has never been a ‘power shortage’ in the state of California,” said state Senator Joe Dunn, chairman of the Select Committee to Investigate Price Manipulation of the Wholesale Energy Market. “What California experienced in 2000 and 2001 was not a crisis in electricity, it was a crisis in economics,” Dunn said.
That testimony was supported by Robert McCullough, a Portland-based consultant who was the sole committee witness from outside California. McCullough cited data from the Western Systems Coordinating Council to show that the ratio of generating capacity to energy demand never slipped below standard operating margins during the crisis. In fact, McCullough testified, “The situation was far better in 2000 than the situation the WSCC faced from 1991 through 1998.” The difference, state officials agreed, was deregulation.
Of course, not all efforts to roll back government oversight results in such spectacular market failures. But in California, the experiment with an unfettered electric market was, to a significant degree, designed by lobbyists and executives at Enron. Freeman emphasized, “At every step in the rule-making for deregulation in California from 1996 until today, Enron, more than anybody else, used their enormous resources to urge the most extreme positions that resulted in maximum secrecy and lack of accountability.”
snip
Key to Enron’s strategy was to ensure that it could operate in secret. It accomplished this goal, not in California, but through lobbying in Washington, via the offices of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. There, in 1992, commission chairwoman Wendy Gramm, the wife of Texas Senator Phil Gramm, wrote rules to exempt energy companies from normal financial accounting rules. Six weeks after the rules were approved, Gramm left the commission and joined the Enron board.
snip
Loretta Lynch of the PUC described Enron’s greatest innovation — the creation of its own electricity marketplace, with its own set of rival firms, where prices were set before the energy was shipped to the central exchange. “In the fourth quarter of 2000,” Lynch said, when energy prices were spiking, “five Enron affiliates — Enron Energy Services Inc., Enron Power Marketing, Inc., Enron Energy Marketing Corp., the New Power Co., and Portland General Electric — bought and sold 10,167,782 megawatt-hours of electricity to and from each other, at prices as high as $1,100 per megawatt-hour (more than 10 times the cost of generation). These trades were not only among affiliated companies; the same individuals were managing all these companies.
“These ‘trades’ were in fact sham transactions — Enron was selling the same megawatts back and forth to itself, causing the price to rise with each sale — all under the rules it had helped to create . . . This was truly a Ponzi scheme.”
Rick
The other way is to consider that the Plame investigation looks like it may well turn up some juicy shit on someone very high up in the administration, Rove or not.
LOL! And another way is to consider that Dan Rather may well turn out to really be the Queen of the Space Unicorns.
Cordially…
carot
“They blame 9/11 on Clinton in spite of overwhelming evidence that the Bush administration was warned (by the Clinton administration, by countless informers, etc. etc. etc.) that terrorism was the major threat and did NOTHING.”
Bush could have done more against terrorism from the beginning, I even think thst 9/11 probably wouldn’t have happened if Gore was elected. This is not the point though, and the fact that Liberals think it is shows why they don’t understand why they don’t win elections.
The problem wasn’t that 9/11 would have happened or not, the problem was the situation was criticially dangerous for many years and that sooner or later the terrorists would get lucky with a small error by the authorities. Clinton understood this, and knew he had been a lot more lucky than Liberals admit, which was why he emphasised terrorism so much to the next administration. Even Ann Coulter of all people understood it when she said the swamp needed to be drained, which to me meant the situation was too dangerous for anything but drastic actions.
What those actions need to be is debatable, probably Iraq didn’t help though bringing extremists into a politicial process is happening there now. Also Gitmo and the Patriot Act don’t help either, they are just being over cautious because Bush started out being under cautious and probably let 9/11 happen. So now he’s the opposite but the problem remains. The British found you can’t live in a police state forever because you won’t let terrorists (the IRA) into the politicial process. And in fact Al Qaeda and the IRA said the same thing, that they were occupied by a colonialist power.
There are only two ways of getting rid of terrorists, to beat them or make a deal with them by bringing them into the politicial process. Bush won’t beat the terrorists in Iraq, e might beat them in Afghanistan. His father and their peers have fought terrorists their whole lives in South America, mostly to protect their financial interests and that of their cronies. His plan to protect American is about the same as Somoza tried, though less extreme. The same people who helped Somoza and then the Contras work for Bush now. Bush has no new ideas or a doctrine, just old techniques from battling Maoist guerillas in South America, and old textbooks from the School of the Americas. The only way those terrorists went away was by bringing them into the politicial process. Bush knows this from Poppy, wich is why they pursue this course in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The second (bringing terrorists into the politicial process) is the natural foreign policy of Liberals, they are afraid of seeming too Pinko by advocating this which is why they are left with no foreign policy. Their problem is terrorists are usually leftists and represent an extreme part of their own ideology. To attract the moderate vote they have to convince them they can police their extreme left, whether it’s Michael Moore, Arab terrorists battling dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Jordon propped up by the US, or starving peasants raiding the plantations of the rich ruling class in South America.
Every terrorist problem in the last few decades has been solved by bringing them into the political process, for example Palestine, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Nicarague, El Salvador, Spain, Algeria, and so on. Conservatives know as well as anyone you rarely win agfainst terrorists, you give them enough so they become pacified for fear of losing what they’ve gained. The ones that either failed to make peace or still fight the terrorists to some degree include Palestine, Chechnya, Sri Lanka, and the US with Al Qaeda. Every country starts out saying terrorists can’t be reasoned with, for example Northern Ireland.
Sooner or later the US has to either win against Al Qaeda or bring it into the political process in the Middle East, give it a stake it can’t afford to lose by continuing terrorist attacks. This is exactly what they did with Arafat who used to hijack planes. It’s not always easy to do but the Liberals sooner or later have to present a Liberal policy based on a politicial dialogue with Al Qaeda or present themselves as Republican Lite and lose elections.
This is hard because Americans died, but every country hit by terrorists has to overcome the anger from those losses and try to stop attacks in a permanent solution. It was no easier for the Israelis to negotiate with the Palestinians,or the British with the IRA, but it has to be done.
rs
Someone working in the White House revealed the identity of a CIA operative-would someone please explain why that’s a good thing for the country and why it’s important that person be allowed to stay at work in the White House where they’re privy to even more secrets?
Sojourner
carot:
I agree with some of what you say. However, Bush drained the wrong swamp. The Bush administration has made so many mistakes that practical solutions to the problem in the near term are very difficult to find. Most of the world recognizes that the U.S. is operating from a position of weakness militarily, economically, and with respect to international support. Bush has basically implemented Bin Laden’s wet dream for America.
It’s a very sorry state of affairs.
scs
Once again Sojourner, we get into evidence. I don’t believe there is real evidence either way whether the Swiftie’s lied. Certainly the number of medals in a short time Kerry was there leads to suspicion. Then of course, others say, well the written record says that the Swifties lied, until of course you find out who actually wrote the record and provided the info for it (Kerry perhaps?)
Anyway, the point it, since most of the public doesn’t know the truth or have decided the truth, I don’t know why you think its cool for O’Donnel to not allow us the info to make up our own minds. He just sat there and screamed like a maniac everytime the Swiftie guy (John something) opened his mouth. Was O’Donnell afraid of US hearing the truth and thus trying to talk over him? If O’Donnel was confident in his thesis, he would have listened to John politely and then bam, boom, bam, provided point by point facts to PROVE (I thought you liked proof by the way) John was a liar, like a real adult would.
Screaming and shouting and talking over someone like a child having a tantrum did nothing to conince me the Swifties were lying and made me believe John even more.
Sojourner
The official record was confirmed by Viet Namese eye witnesses who didn’t even know who John Kerry was. They had no axe to grind and, unlike the majority of the Swift Boat liars, were close enough to observe what actually happened.
Frankly, I would love to see a lot more displays of outrage of the kind displayed by O’Donnell. People who basically say this is bullshit and they’ve had enough.
You don’t seem to get that these talks shows do not allow the kind of time required to make a logical argument. Nor is there any fact checking. O’Neill can just sit there pulling shit out of his ass and it’s his word against Kerry’s. There’s no way Scarborough would have allowed O’Donnell the air time to challenge his boy, O’Neill. So O’Donnell grabbed the time. God bless him.
Go ahead and believe the straightfaced liars. You’ll get the government you deserve. Too bad the rest of us get punished for it.
Sojourner
A correction to my previous post. It was Scarborough’s show but Pat Buchanan was the host. Not only was Buchanan a supporter of the Swift Boat liars but he gained additional notoriety by claiming that Mark Felt was a traitor for his role as Deep Throat.
scs
True, talk shows do not usually provide enough time to get into a meaty debate. That is why O’Donnel wasted his time there by shouting away. Pat Buchanan was the host that night and he was begging O’Donnell to calm down and explain himself. Buchanan tries to be on his best behaviour to the left when he hosts, by the way. O’Donnel could have mentioned a few sentences about like what you said above about the locals, perhaps mentioned a source to go for more info and I, and others like me, would have listened to it. Instead it just confirmed the centers opinion that the left was becoming unhinged. In contrast John (O ‘Neil thats his name !) was the picture of composure and logic. Net result? Bush elected.
Rick
Frankly, I would love to see a lot more displays of outrage of the kind displayed by O’Donnell.
I don’t remember your hosannahs to certain Terri Schiavo/Schindlers advocates a few months ago.
But maybe I didn’t pay close attention.
Cordially…
scs
Here Here Rick. (Or is that ‘hear, hear’? And where did that saying come from anyway?)
Sojourner
On the basis of lies. Definitely something to brag about.
Sojourner
The Schindler advocates were lying. I don’t give kudos to liars, remember?
Rick
scs,
It’s “hear, hear”–an archaic expression for “listen up.” Definitely not applied to Sojourner posts. For those, the polite response is “there, there.”
Cordially…
Rick
I don’t give kudos to liars, remember?
Absolutely haven’t noticed that distinction.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Another “witty” rejoinder.
Double yawn.
Mike S
I don’t remember your hosannahs to certain Terri Schiavo/Schindlers advocates a few months ago.
Who should we have cheered? Randall Terry when he claimed that Terri said “I want to live?” Bill Frist for his spot on diagnosis? Pat Buchanan for his comparrisons to the holicaust? Sean Hannity for his accusations against Michael and his pushing of the “Nobel Prise nominated” doctor?
W.B. Reeves
SCS,
“Then of course, others say, well the written record says that the Swifties lied, until of course you find out who actually wrote the record and provided the info for it (Kerry perhaps?)”
There is not a shred of hard evidence for the suggestion that Kerry wrote his own recommendation for a medal. The charge, if factual, would implicate Kerry’s Commanding Officer in perpetrating a fraud on the U.S. army. Moreover, asserting that an officer could write his own recommendation for a Purple Heart or any other decoration cast suspicion on every officer who has received such decorations. It implies that the chain of Command in Vietnam was so corrupt that such violations of Army regulations could be winked at. Such unsubstantiated accusations amount to an attack on the Military as an institution. Anyone who actually gave a damn about the Military wouldn’t make such charges without solid evidence.
Stormy70
Kerry could not stand on his Vietnam record because he trashed it and his fellow soldiers when he returned to the US. He was an anti-war protester who hung out with Jane Fonda at the rallies. Bye bye vet vote! O’Donnell is the biggest lefty loon on Pundit TV right now, and it cracks me up to watch you guys fall in line like little lemmings.
Cordially…Hee hee!
ARROW
Mike S:
I have no problem with Enron being barbecued for what they did. I am not defending Enron, or anyone the conspired to drive up energy prices. If they did wrong, they should be punished. However, all of the politicians you quote were the problem, what do you expect them to say?
ARROW
“There is not a shred of hard evidence for the suggestion that Kerry wrote his own recommendation for a medal.”
Except the “testimony” of his then commanding officer, Grant Hibbard (one of the Swift Boat Vets). Hibbard has said that Kerry wanted his recommendation for a Purple Heart (his first), but Hibbard refused. Hibbard says he doesn’t know how Kerry received this award, and since Kerry has not authorize the release of all of records, perhaps we will never know.
Is that what you mean by not a shred of HARD eveidence?
Mike S
You’re right. I worded that wrong. Demand did not go up, supply went down. That is why prices went up. The car comparrison doesn’t fit because cars are not essential. Although prices do go up when there are limited editions.
Demand was less in most of 2001 than it was in 1999. It was the supply that dropped.
None of that is to say that there wasn’t a lot of boneheaded crap thrown into the dereg legislation. The energy companies saw those and exploited them to the fullest. But while California was being ripped off by them they were busy in DC helping to write energy policy. They had all the access they wanted while neither of our Senators could get a meeting with President Bush or VP Cheney.
scs
I agree with ARROW that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Its amazing to me how some people (Sojourner) only seem to think people who are against his or her point of view are liars. The Swift Boat story is a complicated story and I don’t think that we have enough EVIDENCE, Sojourner, to accuse 50 or so people of a serious offense such as group lying. If you want to call them liars based on imcomplete evidence, it’s on your conscience.
And Reeves, don’t get so dramatic here. Vietnam war was a confusing time, and if any of those movies about it that I saw are to be believed, a time of disorganization and lack of supervision in the field. As John Kerry was group leader of his troup, I saw John O’Neill on Cspan explain that he was responsible to write the daily reports for his troup. I don’t think that’s such a shocking indictment of the whole military, thats just the way it was. Hence, reports of John Kerry’s glorious actions in combat, writtem by John Kerry, lead many people to question their ‘unbiasedness’, so to speak.
Sojourner
How interesting that the military “supporters” are upset because of Kerry’s efforts to end the Viet Nam war and bring the soldiers home safely. And these same folks are also big supporters of the chickenhawks who love nothing more than to trash the military records of Kerry, McCain, and Cleland.
Talk about lemmings! You guys will believe anything the Bush/Cheney/Rove folks send your way. Very sad.
Sojourner
We have the official military record created at the time the events occurred. Including accommodations given to Kerry by at least one of the Swifties. We have the testimony of the folks who were actually on Kerry’s boat. We have the testimony of the Viet Namese themselves. And we know that the charges were made by Republican partisans.
The reality is you guys want to believe this crap and there’s no amount of evidence that would satisfy you. It’s on your conscience, not mine. Mine is with the people who were actually there.
Sojourner
Ugh. That should be commendations, not accomodations.
ARROW
Mike S:
There is plenty of blame to go around. Why are you apologizing for California politicians?
The reports and information I have seen say that demand was up in California, and the West, in 2001 (due to the Internet economy, hot weather, etc.). The utilities were paying market rates that were a function of supply, given demand (rates which were very high during peak usage periods). Since they could not enter into long-term agreements, and they couldn’t pass these costs on to consumers, the utilities had to eat the increased costs. PG&E finally filed for bankruptcy. What were the politicians thinking? Were they buying votes?
It’s just another example of how voters get the kind of government they deserve.
Darrell
Yes, Kerry’s “efforts” to end the Vietnam war by smearing honorable vets, claiming ‘at all levels of command’ they were a bunch of baby killers to be compared with Genghis Khan. Kerry is such a f*cking lowlife scumbag. To claim that Kerry’s smears on his fellow vets + meeting with the enemy while still in the reserve, that these outrages somehow equal “efforts to end the Viet Nam war”.. demonstrates how dishonest much of the left truly is
Speaking of dishonesty, Sojourner, can you back up your claim (Lie?) that Cleland’s war record was in any way “trashed”(your exact description)? How about McCain’s war record being trashed? Where is your evidence? Or did you simply pull it out of your ass? Show us the evidence of the “trashing” of Cleland’s and McCain’s war records
scs
The “Official Military Record” was based on the reports John Kerry had written, dude! Not exactly the Holy Bible there.
We have some vets who were supporting John Kerry and we have about 50 others who were there, who are against him. Who are these Vietnamese that are the witnesses? I have not seen detailed reports of who they were, who found them and what they knew. Perhaps, as Viet Nam is still a communist country and love Jane Fonda still, I’m sure, perhaps its possible they were put up to it. I don’t know. I think we will never really know for sure as it’s one groups word aginst another. And who really cares about it anyway anymore? John Kerry was a weinie anyway, that’s why he didn’t get elected.
ARROW
“How interesting that the military “supporters” are upset because of Kerry’s efforts to end the Viet Nam war and bring the soldiers home safely. And these same folks are also big supporters of the chickenhawks who love nothing more than to trash the military records of Kerry, McCain, and Cleland.”
It is not hypocritical to examine someone’s record, when that record is being advanced as one of the primary reasons to support that candidate. It would be one thing if it was just one or two Vets suggesting that Kerry’s records was suspect. There were well over 150 Swift Boat Vets saying that Kerry was not what he appeared to be. Three Purple Hearts in fours months of Swift Boat service should raise the suspicions of anyone that thinks about what a Purple Heart is awarded for.
Sojourner
The testimony given by Kerry and others was confirmed by people like Bob Kerrey and one of Bush’s high-ranking generals. Bad things happened in that war. It’s well established. That in no way dishonors those who performed honorably. The American people had a right to know what was going on over there so they could decide whether they felt the war was still worth fighting. As it turns out, the American people decided it was not.
Check out the commercials that were played during Cleland’s re-election campaign. The patriotism of this gravely injured vet was challenged. None of the Republican leadership stepped forward and demanded that it be stopped. A shameful event in the history of this country.
McCain was accused of siding with his captors in order to save his own hide. This occurred during his failed run for the presidency.
Look it up.
Darrell
Three Purple Hearts in 4 months, without spending a full day in the hospital for any of them.. Until Kerry’s purple heart episodes came to light, I, like I think most everyone else, always assumed a purple heart was awarded only to those who sustained serious injury under enemy fire, not a bandaid scratch. I would assume that is the situation in virtually all purple heart awards, except John Kerry’s of course
Darrell
I’m going to have to call you a damn liar on that one Soj. Show us where Bob Kerrey and one of Bush’s (unnamed) Generals stand by John Kerry’s winter soldier smears of honorable vets? I’m especially interested to hear their “confirmation” of Kerry’s smear that atrocities were policy acknowledged by and committed by ‘all levels of command’. Please show evidence
I saw the commercial on Cleland. NOTHING in that commercial even mentions Cleland’s war record. Again Soj, you are a goddamn liar. As for your claim that McCain was accused of siding with his captors, I could find nothing via google.. Please show us the evidence on that claim of yours, because we all know what an honorable person your are Soj.. how your word can be trusted
Sojourner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html
http://hnn.us/articles/8008.html
“
Sojourner
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040905/SRTIGERFORCE/409050410
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/7132.html
Sojourner
It was Tommy Franks who confirmed Kerry’s testimony:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40094
ARROW
Sojourner:
All of your links do not support your obvious implication… the Republican Party supported all of the ill-advised statements, actions, etc. There are people on both sides of the partisan divide that have said stupid things. However, when it comes to employees / representatives of the parties, there is not as much evidence of what you are implying.
Sojourner
Please provide evidence of Bush or any of the other Republican leadership condemning these ads. Silence can reasonably be interpreted to mean approval.
ARROW
I think one of your articles you linked about McCain says the Republican Party (Bush) did not approve of things that were being said. When asked about the Swift Boats during am interview, Bush said he did not like what the 527’s were doing. While not an out and out denial of the things advanced by the Swift Boat Vets, it sure wasn’t an endorsement.
Silence is not approval. NOBODY addresses every idiotic thing that is said in the arena of politics. NOBODY.
Darrell
Soj, thanks for the links. The scorecard is as follows:
1. Your claim that the ads run against Max Cleland “trashed” his war record is a demonstrable lie as Cleland’s war record is not even mentioned in the ad. You lied flat out about that
2. I suppose your claim that McCain’s war record is trashed is not technically a ‘lie’, only to the extent that it appears that some local blowhards, not sanctioned by the RNC, did spread rumors that McCain had been brainwashed by his captors in Vietnam. On that basis, you dishonestly suggest that these rumors were endorsed by Republicans.. when there is zero evidence of that
3. Regarding Tommy Frank’s “confirmation” of John Kerry’s Winter soldier smears, this is a Sojourner lie. Franks only confirmed that Mai Lai atrocity occurred. In no statement did Franks ever say, infer, or suggest, as Kerry did explicitly, that civilian mass murder was official US policy. Franks most certainly publically endorsed Bush over Kerry. Many of those allegations/smears by “veterans” which were repeated by Kerry were made by frauds and imposters who never even went to Vietnam.. a fact which underscores what a lowlife Kerry truly is
Sojourner
Oh, okay. I guess I missed the official statement that was released by the Republican party disclaiming the ads and demanding that they be stopped.
I guess I missed Bush’s request that the Swift Boat liars cease and desist.
I missed Bush’s request that Karl Rove stop his involvement in these sleazy activities.
This was hardly just an “idiotic” thing. As the articles demonstrate, these were well-organized campaigns to smear both McCain and Cleland.
Ann Coulter trashed Cleland’s war record. The ads accused him of being unpatriotic. Maybe that’s not a big deal for you, but accusing a decorated veteran of being unpatriotic clearly discounts his service to our country.
That’s good enough for me.
Sojourner
Could you tell me where in Kerry’s testimony before Congress that he claimed that
I don’t see this anywhere in his statement.
ARROW
Part of John Kerry’s statement before the Fulbright Committee:
“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but CRIMES COMMITTED ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS WITH THE FULL AWARENESS OF OFFICERS AT ALL LEVELS OF COMMAND.” [EMPHASIS added]
“It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.”
“They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut of 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 a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”
Sojourner, do you really think it a stetch to say that John Kerry testified to the effect that “civilian mass murder was official US policy”?
Sojourner
Yep. It’s a stretch.
First:
150 veterans testified to this. It’s their word that his testimony is based on. It’s not Kerry making accusations about these veterans. That’s a huge difference. 150 people is a lot of people, considering the risk they took in coming forward.
Second: Awareness is not at all the same thing as policy.
So, basically, you and Darrell have distorted what Kerry said and then expected him to defend it. How very odd.
Jess
Arrow,
your evidence states quite explicitly that Kerry testified that OTHER SOLDIERS were testifying to these events. He obviously took their testimony seriously, though, and with good reason. It seems that our government, whichever party is in charge, has an unfortunate habit of shooting the messenger. It is our duty as citizens to try to listen as objectively as possible to what these messengers have to say and try to sort out truth from lies. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence, and all that. This is hard to do if you’re already convinced ahead of time that one side is all good and the other all evil. It seems to me that this website is about achieving the intellectual maturity to start considering shades of gray.
(as for the Enron vs. CA mess, you’re right that it was largely the fault of poor legislation regarding deregulation, pushed through by primarily the Republican team as I recall. I understand that many of them meant well, but they do need to rethink certain aspects of their free-market fundamentalism. Like socialism, it only seems to work well on paper.)
scs
150 veterans testified to this…. 150 people is a lot of people, considering the risk they took in coming forward.
Are we talking about the Swifties here? No apparently their risk to come forward are all lies in your book. 150 vets didn’t seem to be enough people to convince you about the Swifites, now all of a sudden 150 people is enough to indict the whole army. Strenght in numbers Sojourner, but only for your beliefs it seems.
Rick
If press reports last year were correct, a little research would show that an embarrassing number of the Winter Soldier folks were REMFs, chairborne rangers, or never in theater. Just yarning for the cameras and congresscritters.
Cordially…
Sojourner
These vets came forward within a matter of a few years after they served. And their testimony does not contradict the official record nor the record of VietNamese observers. Nor did these vets have partisan ties with a particular party, nor did they come forward during an election year in order to defeat a candidate they had a personal grudge towards. The same cannot be said of the Swifties.
Nor am I indicting the whole Army. Good grief. Stay on topic, people. Accusations were made about what Kerry did/did not say during his testimony.
Sojourner
Whatever. It changes nothing in terms of Kerry’s anti-war activities.
scs
Yeah we should stay on topic. These comments were supposed to be about Rove. Somehow, it all comes back to Nam.
W.B. Reeves
Where John Kerry was and where Rove was not. Nothing I say, you say or anyone says will alter that fact.
Sorry but I didn’t learn about Vietnam from movies. I knew guys who went over and didn’t come back. Seeing as it’s July 4th, I don’t take kindly to people repeating partisan smears that degrade the service of citizen soldiers. You can call that being dramatic if you like.
scs
Reeves you obviously didn’t understand the point of my post. And who are you to claim some sort of extra special knowledge on Viet Nam when you didn’t go over there either, just like us? You aren’t the only one who knew someone who didn’t come back. And even if you did know someone who went to war there, that doesn’t give you the right to be illogical. Ny post was about the fact that Kerry, as troop leader, wrote the activity reports for the group. I don’t think that’s really in contention. The reports that he wrote were then used in part as the basis for his being recommended the awards he got. What is the problem here? Why all the false patriotic outrage? Stick to facts not histrionics.
Randolph Fritz
“The other way is to consider that the Plame investigation looks like it may well turn up some juicy shit on someone very high up in the administration, Rove or not.”
It’s going to; someone did it, and the act is a crime.
“Hell, man, what if it was Cheney?”
Well, you can’t impeach a VP. At least I don’t think you can. That’s the real problem here; these people may be guilty as sin, and be let off the hook.
Sojourner
How illogical of you to ignore the testimony of the VietNamese who observed the events in question. There’s a whole lot more involved than who wrote a few reports.
ARROW
“as for the Enron vs. CA mess, you’re right that it was largely the fault of poor legislation regarding deregulation, pushed through by primarily the Republican team as I recall. I understand that many of them meant well, but they do need to rethink certain aspects of their free-market fundamentalism. Like socialism, it only seems to work well on paper.”
Geez Jeff, what planet are you living on? California is pretty much been controlled by Democrats for a long time. Do you remember who Arnold replaced in the recall fiasco they had there? And the legislation I’m talking about has nothing to do with “free-market fundamentalism.” Price controls are just the OPPOSITE, as are restrictions on what a Utilitiy can and cannot do.
Sojourner:
I have no interest in playing word games. IMO, John Kerry gave effect to the stories told by the “soldiers” he was representing. John Kerry TESTIFIED to the effect that war crimes, including the killing of innocent civilians, were being committed with the awareness of officers at all levels of command (the President is at the top). If it goes to the top, that clearly makes it policy.
W.B. Reeves
SCS
Typical. You talk of learning about Vietnam from movies, then you complain when I mention that I lived through the period. That’s not “special knowlege”, that just a fact. It takes a special sort of gall to introduce a topic and then whine when someone else addresses it.
It’s easy to see how you could fall for the swift boat scam. Evidently you think that there is no difference between living through events and watching a fictionalized film treatment of them. If that’s your standard of judgement, you can swallow anything.
Look, every officer in the field is expected to provide after action reports. If you think that Kerry’s following SOP is evidence of skullduggery then you’d have to argue the same point applies to any officer who received a decoration for action with his command. That’s a hell of a lot of officers. Or is it only John Kerry you apply this standard to?
The truth is that your so-called evidence isn’t evidence of anything except that Kerry was doing his job. You might as well argue that a cop who receives a commendation for action in the line of duty is suspect because he wrote the initial police report. That’s the kind of “logic” you’re using.
In each instance, such a fraud wouldn’t have a straw hats’s chance in hell of flying unless everyone who was supposed to be overseeing the process was either incompetent or corrupt. You may think making that kind of an argument for partisan reasons is OK but I don’t. You want to call that “false patriotism”? Be my guest.
Sojourner
He testified that he was told these things. Subsequent hearings gave the reporters the opportunity to tell their stories. This is not semantics, it’s a factual matter.
So you’re saying that torture is now an American policy because everybody at all levels knows about it, including the president?
Sorry but policy is different than simple awareness. Once again, not an issue of semantics.
ARROW
John Kerry took the words of the 150 “soldiers” he was REPRESENTING, and used them to cast aspersions on the entire military effort in Vietnam. And he did this while our soldiers were still in the field and in prison camps. If you want to think of this in the best light, go ahead. I think he betrayed the trust of his brothers in the field, and I can’t think of any behavior that I hold in lower esteem.
ARROW
“It’s easy to see how you could fall for the swift boat scam.”
Maybe you could explain how you know this is a scam?
ARROW
“I think he betrayed the trust of his brothers in the field, and I can’t think of any behavior that I hold in lower esteem.”
On second reading, I should have said that “I can’t think of any behavior, by a non-war criminal, avowed supporter of the U.S. military, that I hold in lower esteem.”
But since John Kerry has admitted to unknowingly committing war crimes on national TV, I guess I would have to amend the amended comment to say that “Just because the 150 war criminals he represented committed war crimes, does not mean that war crimes committed in Southeast Asia were commonplace incidents that were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
In other words, I don’t think much of John Kerry and don’t care whether you can characterize what he said as official US policy.
Pug
and the gang of corporate thieves that he [Clinton] left for Bush to clean up
I think you should be more respectful when talking about the president’s largest contributors.
Pug
“California got exactly what it deserved. The dumbshits you call legislators froze the price paid by consumers and left the utilities to twist in the wind. When energy costs shot up, because demand shot up, the utilities couldn’t pass on the increases, so they finally went bankrupt. After they figured out what was going on, they entered into long-term price agreements and prices went back down. What a bunch of dumbasses!Your brilliant politicians were to blame for what happened. When was the last power generating facility built in California? Californians got exactly what they deserved, period.”
Nice rant for a California-hater, but unfortunately there’s not much truth in it. Did you hear about the former Dynegy trader who just got 24-years? Heard of the Fat Boy trading strategy? You really should know what your talking about before writing long, stupid rants.
California’s deregulation scheme, devised under that idiot politician Pete Wilson, was indeed flawed. But it’s the Enron and Dynegy boys going to federal prison. Wonder why that is? Oh, and California is doing fine, it’s Enron that is long gone. They got exactly what they deserved.
ARROW
Yes I heard of most of the “strategies” used by Enron and others (my favorites are “Death Star” or “Get Shorty”) and know that people are going to prison. If you read my “rants” carefully, you would have noted that I do NOT defend them.
I actually don’t hate California. I just think it’s time for people of that state to take a little responsibility for the government they put in place.
Sojourner
Well, this says it all.
Your hatred for John Kerry wipes out the value of all facts, especially those that contradict your beloved Swift Boat liars. You don’t care that the folks who were closest to the action and had absolutely no axe to grind (the VietNamese) in this confirmed Kerry’s story. You don’t care that a lot of people, including veterans, supported the anti-war movement. You don’t care how many lives Kerry and the other anti-war protesters saved through their actions by shutting down an unwinnable war. You don’t care that Robert McNamara confirmed that he knew the war was unwinnable but did NOTHING to stop it. How many more people would have died if the anti-war protesters hadn’t shut down the war – because McNamara wouldn’t?
What a strong intellectual position.
scs
Reeves, yes I didn’t go to Viet Nam. And apparently neither did you! You said you “lived” through the period. What the hell does that mean? “Lived” through it? Give me a break. Because you’re older than 35 you’re supposed to get some respect? How do you know I’m not older than 35 too and that I also may have “lived” through it?
The comment about the movies was only supposed to be illustrative, kind of poking fun at how the movies always show the disorder in the field. But I didn’t get ALL my knowledge from the movies. I can read too you know! Newspapers, books. And I can also talk to people who’ve been there. So what? Is this a “I know more about Nam” contest?
Anyway, I’m glad you finally admitted my point that Kerry wrote his own reports. That may have been the best system for the troop at the time, but I do think that system has a potential for misuse. I’m sure there are instances of officers besides Kerry who embellished their own action reports to make themselves look more glorious. I’m sure there are police officers who have embellished their police reports. That’s just human nature. It will never be completely prevented. I’m also sure there are many more soldiers and officers who would never think of doing that.
The way to cut down on inaccurate reports is to have corroberation. In the police system, we usually have several police officers writing reports and then we also have court hearings to in effect determine the accuracy of the police report. In Kerry’s case, because they were so isolated in the field, I don’t think there was too much corroberation of his accounts. Not only that, in his case, we have most of Kerry’s own troops disbelieving his accounting of what happened. There probably were officers who embellished their reports but because they never became famous and the reports publicized like Kerry’s, no one in their troup ever knew a thing about it. In Kerry’s case, he got busted.
Sojourner
It means having friends and family who served. It means worrying about friends and family who might have to serve. It means watching the war on the news every night.
The VietNam war was very different than Iraq. Iraq is still a voluntary war, which means the burden is borne by a very narrow class of society. VietNam was different, which meant that everybody had a significant risk of losing someone they loved.
Kerry got busted on what? You intentionally ignore the evidence of what actually happened so you’re the one who’s busted, not Kerry.
scs
Sojourner, who are these Vietnamese who saw the battle? If you can, provide me a link so that I can read more about it so I can determine for myself the reliabilty of these reports. I have never seen anything about that in the mainstream media (and I read the New York Times by the way, hardly a conservative paper).
In either case, unless I am bowled over by the compelling nature of the Vietanmes witnesses, I have my doubts. We are supposed to believe the word of some unknown Vietnamese, who love Jane Fonda and are living in a communist system filled with propaganda, who were maybe far away from the action and had no idea who Kerry was and hence no way to accurately remember 35 years later which one was him and which one wasn’t him, and believe them over dozens of American vets in Kerry’s own troops? The word of Americans vets who were there is good enough for me.
scs
If that’s the definition of living through it, then I have lived through it too. So what? Does that make me right?
scs
Sojourner, the evidence you claim is the reports that Kerry himself wrote and disbelived by his fellow soldiers who were there and some anoynymous Vietnames bystanders? Hardly good evidence. Once again, the evidence for me is the American vets who were there with Kerry.
Sojourner
They were interviewed as part of ABC’s Nightline program. I have no idea if there’s a link or not but you can probably order the program.
Oh for Christ’s sake. These are villagers who don’t know who the fuck Jane Fonda is. What propaganda? These are villagers out in the middle of fucking nowhere in VietNam. All they did was describe what happened during the event. They didn’t need to know who the participants were other than who was American and who was Viet Cong. You’re the one who’s bought into the propaganda, not them. They’re just trying to get by.
How come you don’t believe the troops who were on Kerry’s own boat? You choose to believe the partisan assholes who were hundreds of yards away as opposed to those who were on the boat or on the shore. So much for believing the American vets in Kerry’s own troops.
The reality is you don’t give a shit about facts. Which makes you the ideal Swift Boat liars supporter. Congratulations.
Sojourner
Oh no no no. You only want to believe the ones who weren’t on Kerry’s boat and agree with your position. You don’t believe the ones who were actually there with Kerry.
Be very careful with your terminology.
ARROW
“Your hatred for John Kerry wipes out the value of all facts, especially those that contradict your beloved Swift Boat liars.”
Quite to the contrary, I dislike the politician, John Kerry, because of the facts.
ARROW
scs:
Ted Koeppel (ABC) went over and talked to the Vietnamese that Sojourner is talking about. What a joke.
Sojourner
Typical ARROW…
Anything that contradicts his position is a joke. Yeh, big joke to talk with those who were there. How inconvenient for you that these WITNESSES contradict what was said by the Swift liars which contradicts what the Swift liars said at the time the events occurred. So which version of the Swift liars’ testimony are you choosing to believe?
So many choices…
scs
Well it kind of makes me suspicious that the only source of these Vietnamese witnesses is one TV show. If this was a such a great reliable story, why didn’t the other media pick it up? The New York Times was a big Kerry fan and I didn’t even see it in there.
And you think propaganda does not reach the villages there? You think they don’t have any access to newspapers or any TV’s in town? Just because they are not living in the US doesn’t mean they are ignorant. Leonardo Dicaprio told this story on Leno that even the most primitive people living in the most isolated part of the Amazon jungle were like “Yeah, liked you in Titanic” when he went there.
And, as to the half dozen guys in Kerry’s boats, some believed him and some did not. The others in the boats right next to him mostly all disbelieved him. So we are left with several for and about 150 against.
Sojourner, you have to discern between reliable evidence and insufficient evidence. Until you can do that, there may be no point in continuing this discussion with you.
scs
Besides, I have other things to do. I can’t sit here and post all day.
ARROW
“Anything that contradicts his position is a joke. Yeh, big joke to talk with those who were there. How inconvenient for you that these WITNESSES”
And just exactly how do you know these these people were WITNESSES? You have heard of Dan Rather and his memos, haven’t you? If you want to take the word of Vietnamese citizens over American military personnel, go ahead.
scs
Ok one more post. I did a quick search and saw the info on the Vietnamese witnesses you were touting. Some things support your thesis, some support mine, but either way, hardly earth shattering info. Your evidence may need a little more evidence.
The link is http://mediamatters.org/items/200410150009.
Here are some excperts:
Was the man killed by Kerry or by fire from the Swift boat? It was the heat of battle, Tam said, and he doesn’t know exactly how the man with the rocket launcher died. But he knows the man’s name — Ba Thanh. He was one of the 12 reinforcements sent to the village by provincial headquarters, and after he died, the firefight continued, according to Tam.
“When the firing started, Ba Thanh was killed,” Tam said. “And I led Ba Thanh’s comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats.”
According to the after-action report, after beaching the Swift boat, Kerry “chased VC inland, behind hooch, and shot him while he fled, capturing one B-40 rocket launcher, with round in chamber.”
None of the villagers seems to be able to say for a fact that they saw an American chase the man who fired the B-40 into the woods and shoot him. Nobody seems to remember that. But they have no problem remembering Ba Thanh, the man who has been dismissed by Kerry’s detractors as “a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth.” (The description comes from “Unfit for Command,” by Swift boat veteran John O’Neill.)
“No, this is not correct,” Nguyen Thi Tuoi, 77, told ABC News. “He wore a black pajama. He was strong. He was big and strong. He was about 26 or 27.”
Tuoi said she didn’t see Ba Thanh get shot either, but she and her husband say they were the first to find his body. They say they found him a good distance from his bunker, though she could not confirm that Kerry — or anyone else — had pursued him into the bush.
fred
Sojourner:
You did notice the rhetorical slight of hand that ARROW & scs tried to pull off didn’t you? Namely, that when you provided links to evidence backing up the claims of Cleland & McCain’s war records being trashed*, you were then faced with protestations of “Well you can’t claim that the employees of BushCo had anything to do with that” – the implication being that the ads just sprouted from nowhere, funded by no one. Their widespread reach and the fact that they were not condemned by the folks in question implies nothing, implicates nobody. How laughable is this? I mean, it’s like the only criterion that would satisfy this crowd is a TV ad that goes something like, “Hi, I’m Karl Rove, close personal confidant to the President, and we would like to state unequivocally for the record that John McCain is a cowardly, traitorous son-of-a-bitch…”
At this point, I fear you’d be met with protestations of “You can’t trust your empirical senses, you know. We could all just be brains suspended in vats somewhere, part of the great Liberal cognitive farms, that most exemplary example of Big Government gone amuck…”
Of course, then Kerry testifying about phenomenon – in this case, problematic actions by our troops, things* whose observance was widespread but not stopped by the brass – is a complete and airtight case that he was saying this crap was official US policy.
Sigh…
*The action, in both examples, being reprehensible but actually quite helpful toward in terms of the overall goal.
fred
Sojourner:
You did notice the rhetorical slight of hand that ARROW & scs tried to pull off didn’t you? Namely, that when you provided links to evidence backing up the claims of Cleland & McCain’s war records being trashed*, you were then faced with protestations of “Well you can’t claim that the employees of BushCo had anything to do with that” – the implication being that the ads just sprouted from nowhere, funded by no one. Their widespread reach and the fact that they were not condemned by the folks in question implies nothing, implicates nobody. How laughable is this? I mean, it’s like the only criterion that would satisfy this crowd is a TV ad that goes something like, “Hi, I’m Karl Rove, close personal confidant to the President, and we would like to state unequivocally for the record that John McCain is a cowardly, traitorous son-of-a-bitch…”
At this point, I fear you’d be met with protestations of “You can’t trust your empirical senses, you know. We could all just be brains suspended in vats somewhere, part of the great Liberal cognitive farms, that most exemplary example of Big Government gone amuck…”
Of course, then Kerry testifying about phenomenon – in this case, problematic actions by our troops, things* whose observance was widespread but not stopped by the brass – is a complete and airtight case that this crap was official US policy.
Sigh…
*The action, in both examples, being reprehensible but actually quite helpful toward in terms of the overall goal.
Sojourner
You’re absolutely right, Fred. They demand facts, they are provided with facts, they dispute facts.
What a waste of time.
scs
Fred, if what you posted is an example of your reading skills and your grasp of facts, no wonder you fall prey to so much propaganda.
I never ONCE addressed the subject of McCain and Cleland . Go back and read this segment. I don’t claim to know anything about that and if I don’t know about something, I just don’t write about it. Unlike SOME people here…
fred
Sojourner:
You did notice the rhetorical slight of hand that ARROW & scs tried to pull off didn’t you? Namely, that when you provided links to evidence backing up the claims of Cleland & McCain’s war records being trashed*, you were then faced with protestations of “Well you can’t claim that the employees of BushCo had anything to do with that” – the implication being that the ads just sprouted from nowhere, funded by no one. Their widespread reach and the fact that they were not condemned by the folks in question implies nothing, implicates nobody. How laughable is this? I mean, it’s like the only criterion that would satisfy this crowd is a TV ad that goes something like, “Hi, I’m Karl Rove, close personal confidant to the President, and we would like to state unequivocally for the record that John McCain is a cowardly, traitorous son-of-a-bitch…”
At this point, I fear you’d be met with protestations of “You can’t trust your empirical senses, you know. We could all just be brains suspended in vats somewhere, part of the great Liberal cognitive farms, that most exemplary example of Big Government gone amuck…”
Of course, then Kerry testifying about phenomenon – in this case, problematic actions by our troops, things* whose observance was widespread but not stopped by the brass – is a complete and airtight case that this crap was official US policy.
Sigh…
*The action, in both examples, being reprehensible but actually quite helpful toward in terms of the overall goal.
ARROW
Sojourner:
I think you confuse me with Darrell. I made the mistake of defending Darrell’s comment, which I believe was something along the lines of: “civilian mass murder was official US policy.” That’s when you began your semantics games to defend John Kerry’s April 1971, perfidious remarks before a Committee of the U.S.Senate.
Personally, I would really rather give Mr. Kerry the benefit of the doubt about Nam. Those were hairy times and he did after all serve his country and get Honorably Discharged. My problems with Mr. Kerry relate to what he’s done since coming home from Nam. But frankly, I don’t care much about the issue at this point.
Darrell
uh fred, after 3 posts, I think we get what you’re trying to say. However, contrary to your statement: Namely, that when you provided links to evidence backing up the claims of Cleland & McCain’s war records being trashed*, .. contrary to that statement, Soj NEVER provided a link demonstrating Repubs ‘trashing’ Cleland’s war record. In fact, Soj lied his ass off, claiming that Cleland’s war record was “trashed” in a campaign ad, a blatent lie as Cleland’s war record was not discussed in those ads. How’s that for “facts”?
As for his links about McCain’s war record being trashed, his evidence amounts to a Newsweek article which explicitly states that a “local” group spread some bad things about McCain, that he had been brainwashed by his captors. This group was not affiliated with the RNC and there was no mention as to whether the ‘smear’ amounted to anything more than a handful of fliers.
yeah, some set of “facts” you presented there Sojourner. wow, you really blew away my position, didn’t you?
W.B. Reeves
SCS
This is funny because it is such an obvious misrepresentation. Exactly where did I criticize you for not going to Vietnam? Please, point out the passage. If you have to ask what it means to live through a period like the Vietnam era, it suggests that you couldn’t have lived through much yourself. Likewise your ill considered crack about learning the history of that war from movies. Of course, some folks do make it to old age without ever learning to avoid making themselves look ridiculous. So I suppose it’s just possible that you’re using the computer at the nursing home. I doubt it though.
In other words, I was right. You don’t have any first hand experience of that time because you were’nt around then. Tell me, if it’s no big deal that you don’t have such experience, why are you squealing about it?
Except, of course, you have no evidence whatever that Kerry did any of those things. You have only uncorroborated accusations combined with your own credulousness. You’re assuming he did such things because it suits your prejudice. BTW, that’s not just the way things were done then, it’s the way they are done now. Don’t think people wont notice that you still haven’t explained how Kerry could pull off such a scam without the collusion or incompetence of the chain of command.
I don’t know whether to put this tissue of innaccuracies down to ignorance or dishonesty. Arguing for the latter assessment is the fact that you repeatedly cite the Swift Boater’s statements as evidence. If you really believe their statements, you obviously don’t believe that Kerry’s boat was “…so isolated in the field.” Unless of course you think they are credible regardless of whether they were actually present to see what they claim they saw.
As for “most of Kerry’s own troops disbelieving his accounting”, that is simply false. Kerry commanded a swift boat. His “troops” consisted of his crew, all but one of whom supported Kerry.
So which is it? Kerry was so isolated that nobody could know what he was doing, or Kerry was surrounded by witnesses who have, at long last, come forward to expose him? That you could tie yourself up in such a knot of incoherence is another thing that suggests that you are on the youthful side.
Just so things will be nice and clear, I don’t give damn for John Kerry. He has all the resources he needs to look after himself. I simply dislike partisan slanderers who have no regard for facts.
Sojourner
No semantics on my part. Just because something is allowed to occur does not make it official policy. Nor does sharing the observations of others make them one’s own observations. These are hardly matters of semantics and the result has been a shameful attack on a veteran who served his country. That is something we all should be against.
Sojourner
Yep. Sure did. If you delve further into the Internet you will see repeated reference to the McCain smears. They were common knowledge at the time and are now part of the shameful history of the Bush 2000 campaign. Hardly just a few fliers.
scs
Reeves, I lived through the era, however I was very young, if you must know. Feel better? Still I remember watching it on the news with my parents, hearing about it and we knew people during and after the war in the neighborhood, friends of my oldest brother etc who went. So technically, I “lived” through it. Okay I was young, but hey, I was a precocious child!
But either way, like I said, that should be irrelevant to this discussion. Hell, neither one of us “lived” through the civil war, or the revolutionary war, doesn’t mean we can’t still talk about those too!
In regards to Kerry, I never said for sure he embellished reports and if I gave you that impression, I miswrote. You can see earlier in this segment that I said there is not enough evidence to know for sure that he did. However, I have my suspicions. In regards to your isolated/non isolated wanna-be-gotcha moment in your post, I think you did not understand the fine distinctions there. (I find that I have to explain everthing to the T on here or some posting vigilante will think they busted me on something. Can’t any of you string some things together on your own?)
Let me clarify for all you literalists. When I spoke about isolation, I meant being far away from civilization. They were a group of a hundred or so men floating away in ISOLATED spots in the Nam jungle. They were also far away from their chain of command, unlike say police officers at a police department. So yes he was surrounded by the people in his boat, his crew, and some people in other boats, yet they were isolated from civilization and superior officers.
I believe that he was the one in command for his group, perhaps the only one in command around there, so anything he wrote probably went unchallenged. He did not need collusion from his superior officers for a false award. I’m sure they read the reports (that HE wrote) and trusted he was telling it accuarately and so gave him his medal. After all, his superiors weren’t there, why should they doubt him. Even people who ARE in battle with you somethimes don’t even see whats going on in the heat of battle, why should superiors who are far away know any better? Once again, some on his boat supported him, but the crews of the other boats who were right alongside him the whole time did not support him. My feeling is, where there’s smoke there’s fire.
And by the way, I think its hilarious on here how people accuse you of being a partisan hack when they can’t debate you. Only voted for one Republican in my life dude. I am an independent thinker, don’t need to get my thoughts from a party. Maybe you do though, who knows.
ARROW
“These are hardly matters of semantics and the result has been a shameful attack on a veteran who served his country.”
Good grief! What you are about is semantics. As for John Kerry, his testimony was not only shameful, it was a betrayal of the trust of U.S. military personnel that were still in the field as he spoke!
Sojourner
Nope. I make real distinctions. The problem is they’re inconvenient for your arguments.
I don’t understand military “supporters” like you. Your idea of being a supporter is unquestioning support for the decisions of the civilian leadership (Nixon, Bush) even at the cost of the lives of soldiers.
Your idea of patriotism is don’t ask, don’t tell rather than pointing the spotlight at a problem so it can be fixed. You want to pretend that the atrocities didn’t happen. That fixes nothing.
We obviously have very different views of what constitutes patriotism.
ARROW
You are playing your game AGAIN! Tell of specific examples and we can debate. Throw around generalities and all we argue over meanings. I have better things to do.
“I don’t understand military “supporters” like you. Your idea of being a supporter is unquestioning support for the decisions of the civilian leadership (Nixon, Bush) even at the cost of the lives of soldiers.”
This is incorrect, but too general to address. I am not unquestioning. Why did you only list two Presidents (three if you count “Bush” to mean both 41 and 43)?