Flushing Out the Traitors!

or Register to post new content in the forum

66 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Oct 15, 2007 9:39 pm

Good God, Babs,

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

Our <?: PREFIX = ST1 />Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.


Again, just my opinions, but next to factcheck.org, your links just look like propaganda.    
 
Oct 16, 2007 8:18 pm

Let's take Kerry's detractors at face value. That is, he lied about his service, deserted his men, and shamed the flag for which he served by protesting against U.S. policy. Because of all this he was unworthy to be prez.

How is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service? At best, Bush ran and hid in the National Guard. At the time, among young men faced with the high probability of having to go to Nam, an acceptable solution to the draft dilemma. We at the time, called it hiding in the National Guard. In my area of the country that's what it was called.(to those who are not aware, then unlike now Guard units did not serve overseas). Yet, it is what it is, he hid from duty of serving his nation as others, less forunate than he, were called served, many dying in the process.   To me this is a disconnect. How can one man be branded as unworthy and the other an acceptable example of military honor?   That Kerry pissed off a bunch of people when he served in Nam is a fact. That these people have a credable beef is muddled at best. That Rove brilliantly neutralized Kerry's Nam service when held against Bush's dismal military record is without question.   Still amazed that people bought it. It was a classic show'em a good trapese act and they'll forget they're standing in elephant dung distraction. Rove had managed to make Vietnam a campaign issue 30 plus years after the fact. Never underestimate the gullibility of the U.S. voter.   MY POV was that both had Nam character baggage.   And for the record, Clinton ran and hid as well, using another route to avoid ground pounding in Nam. Cheney however, is the absolute deferment champ. Something like 11 deferments. Like he said, it wasn't his job to go and serve. He sure backed that up.   As for myself, I had a promising career as an Architect/engineer to prepare for. Slopping through the mud getting shot at half a world away wasn't part of the plan. Yet the draft loomed large. I then reasoned that I would be better off in the sky than on the ground and took steps to volunteer to become an army helicopter pilot. I had gotten as far as taking all the pre-induction testing and preparation out of the way when congress gave me a reprive. The made the draft a lottery. If my number, which was my birth date, came up as one of the first 150 drawn it was off to Fort Rucker Al. for rotorwing training. If the number was above 150 it was off to engineering school. My number on year one was above 300. I had to get through year two of the lottery, and again my number was above 300. Such were the times.   A year or two later i renewed my interst in rotorwing training. However a dinner, arranged by a friend,  with a two tour AC was enough to dampen my enthusiasm. The AC scared me straight by giving me the E true Vietnam reality for helicopter pilots. It wasn't pretty.     I write this here to give you my non judgemental view of Bush's, Kerry's, Clinton's and even Cheney's actions. They'll all good in my book.    
Oct 16, 2007 11:18 pm

[quote=BondGuy] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?[/quote]

 

Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.

 

However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?

 

You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…

 

BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

Oct 17, 2007 1:10 am

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important

Oct 17, 2007 4:13 am

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

Oct 17, 2007 1:32 pm

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

Oct 18, 2007 12:33 am

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

Oct 18, 2007 12:41 am

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

Oct 18, 2007 3:04 pm

Big Taco, I’m sorry I was off the web a couple of days.

  To answer your question was I outraged when the swiftboaters attacked John Kerry, I wasn't outraged--it was sad.  Let me explain my position.   John Kerry did serve his country as a United States Naval Officer.  He did serve in Vietnam and could have been killed just like anyone else.  I believe he did deserve at least some of the awards presented to him.  I did not like his actions after he left service.   George Bush did serve his country in the Texas Air National Guard.  He flew F-102's in the Air Guard and if anybody knows anything about OLD Fighter Jets--he could have been killed just like anyone else flying those pieces of crap.   My Father was retired Army, my oldest brother is retired Air Force, I have a brother who served in Vietnam 3 tours and has (6) Purple Hearts, and my little brother served in the Air Force.  I'm retired from the U S Navy.  We all love this country just like you do.  Just because you believe one way does not make you a traitor or a non-patriot--it is what makes our country strong.    General Petraeus is presently serving his country and obeying the orders given him.  Even if he did not like the orders he will follow them.  A prime example is the recently retired General Sanchez--when he was in charge he obeyed the orders given to him as best as he can.  When he retired and became a normal citizen--he exercised his right to free speech at the failures in Iraq.  That is his right.  I don't know what will happen with General Petraeus. When he retires he might blast or praise the Bush administration.  But while he is in uniform and doing he duty--please don't question his patriotism.
Oct 18, 2007 6:48 pm

Good post. 

  I've never questioned Petraeus' patriotism.  I thought the moveon ad was really distasteful, and just liberal spin.  But they're able to do that in our country because of our first ammendment rights.  My issue was with congress spending time and energy on the issue and in turn bringing a magnifying glass to the ad.  That's the best Moveon could've hoped for, and it really only helped them in their ad campaign efforts.  I think most of the country who even heard about this ad just dismissed it as a product of a left-wing smear campaign.    I had never even been to the moveon.org website until mikebutler went on and on about this story.  As I expected, more of the same.  I don't partronize the propaganda platforms of the left or right too often (from moveon to drudgereport, they're all the same slanted BS to me).
Oct 18, 2007 9:36 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?[/quote]

 

Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.

 

However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?

 

You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…

 

BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

[/quote]   You're the one who has got to be kidding. The entire Swift Boat Veterans for truth thing? Mike you do realize that they were a Bush/Rove front group financed by Texas republicans?And putting the words in someone elses mouth is much more effective that saying it yourself.  In this case there was no way Bush could use anything in Kerry's military record in the campaign without putting his own dismal military service front and center. So, as was done with McCain in 2000, have someone else say it, remain distant, and add in some disingenuous praise for the pummelled victim of the smear campaign.    It's a PR smear strategy of which nothing that's said can be trusted. Yet, you bought it? You believed the SBVT? You do know that they've been discredited?     The Swift boats campaign was classic Rove and a classic PR smear campaign. It was a well funded attack(Boone Pickens is a rich guy) aimed right at Kerry's integrity. The Swift Boats for Veterans group even used some of the same PR and legal people used by the 2000 Bush front group "Republicans for a clean Environment", which attacked McCain's environmental record. Yet you see no connection?   Using third party front groups is SOP for Rove. It's a much stronger message coming from someone else. Rove has used this tactic for years. So when i say Rove was behind the strategy, it's not a fantasy, it's a fact. Of course there was no direct connection. Legally there couldn't be and any connection would ruin the third party effect.   I wish i could say that I'm amazed that people buy into this propaganda, but I'm not.      How can you take issue with Kerry's senate testimony?          
Oct 19, 2007 6:33 pm

[quote=Big Taco]  That's the best Moveon could've hoped for, and it really only helped them in their ad campaign efforts. [/quote] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

Actually it did great damage to moveon. It may, by damaging moveon, helped the Democrats by giving them an excuse to move away from them, thus helping the Democratic party down the road. Hopefully that will return Centrists like the Clinton-linked DLC regain control(yeah, you read that right, I called a Clinton-linked group Centrist and I do hope they get back their party). That would be good news for the entire country, save GOP partisans who could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.

 

 [quote=Big Taco] 

I had never even been to the moveon.org website until mikebutler went on and on about this story. [/quote]

 

LOL "went on and on". Sorry, but I didn't open this subject thread, and if anyone went "on and on" it was those making excuses for the ad and claiming Petraues could have defended themselves.

 

There were millions more just like you that hadn't heard much about moveon before the ad, didn't know the ownership claims they made about the Democratic party.  Now they know. This has served to shine a light on them, and like cockroaches, they scurried for cover.

Oct 19, 2007 7:22 pm

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?[/quote]

 

Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.

 

However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?

 

You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…

 

BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

[/quote]

 

You're the one who has got to be kidding. The entire Swift Boat Veterans for truth thing? Mike you do realize that they were a Bush/Rove front group financed by <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Texas republicans? [/quote]

 

Financed by Republicans? Of course, the head of the group, John O’Neil had had a running feud with Kerry since his return from Vietnam, and of course it wouldn’t be people predisposed to support Democrats that would take issue with Kerry’s actions when he returned. Does that make it a “Rove front group”? Of course not, and there’s no evidence to support that claim.

 

 

[quote=BondGuy] And putting the words in someone elses mouth…[/quote]

There’s the fiction. There’s absolutely no evidence that the opinions expressed by the Swiftboat Vets weren’t their own. I go back again to O’Neil’s ongoing debate with Kerry going back to 1970. The guy debated Kerry about these very issues for decades. I can provide you links to videos, if you need them, of O’Neil and Kerry on the Dick Cavet show having this very same conversation.

 You’d like us to believe they were organized and scripted by the evil Rove, but that’s just Democratic spin. They had a bone to pick with Kerry for a long, long time.

 [quote=BondGuy] You believed the SBVT? You do know that they've been discredited? [/quote]

 

Sure they were….. you mean Kerry didn’t leave with less than 30% of his tour complete? De did lead the “Vietnam Veterans against the War”? He didn’t participate in antiwar demonstrations in a raggedy uniform? He didn’t spread the lies of imposters as a smear of the entirity of the US forces in Vietnam? Really?

 

 

[quote=BondGuy] The Swift Boats for Veterans group even used some of the same PR and legal people used by the 2000 Bush front group "Republicans for a clean Environment", which attacked McCain's environmental record. Yet you see no connection? [/quote]

Strap down that tinfoil hat, Bondguy.

The problem for you is these vets meant every word they said, and they’d been saying it for years. When Kerry started his national campaign, they felt they had to make their case again to a larger audience unfamiliar with their issues. Kerry had several of his crew mates with him, these officers who served with him felt there waas another side to the Kerry story.

Of course the people who helped them get their message out with funding were Republicans. Why is that surprising? If someone had a decades old issue with some Republican running for office, would it shock you is they got support from Democrats? Why try to make that sound like some sort of dirty trick?

When they sought out legal and PR people, of course they went to firms that handle that sort of work for Republicans. Would a Democrat oriented firm have done it for them?  Seriously, why act like this is evidence that what they had to say they didn’t believe?

Notice that you go on and on about who helped fund them and where they went for PR and legal guidance, but you have nothing to say about the substance of their criticisms.

[quote=BondGuy] Using third party front groups is SOP for Rove. It's a much stronger message coming from someone else. Rove has used this tactic for years. [/quote]

If you think that’s a Rove monopoly, let’s discuss that bridge I want to sell you again.  Do you think Carville always has his name on groups aligned with his candidate? Has Soros put his name on ACT or Media Matters? You can’t really be that naive about who does what, can you? 

[quote=BondGuy] How can you take issue with Kerry's senate testimony? 

 

[/quote]

 

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

 

 

 

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

 

 

Oct 19, 2007 7:43 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Big Taco]  That's the best Moveon could've hoped for, and it really only helped them in their ad campaign efforts. [/quote] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

Actually it did great damage to moveon. It may, by damaging moveon, helped the Democrats by giving them an excuse to move away from them, thus helping the Democratic party down the road. Hopefully that will return Centrists like the Clinton-linked DLC regain control(yeah, you read that right, I called a Clinton-linked group Centrist and I do hope they get back their party). That would be good news for the entire country, save GOP partisans who could never bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.

 

 [quote=Big Taco] 

I had never even been to the moveon.org website until mikebutler went on and on about this story. [/quote]

 

LOL "went on and on". Sorry, but I didn't open this subject thread, and if anyone went "on and on" it was those making excuses for the ad and claiming Petraues could have defended themselves.

 

There were millions more just like you that hadn't heard much about moveon before the ad, didn't know the ownership claims they made about the Democratic party.  Now they know. This has served to shine a light on them, and like cockroaches, they scurried for cover.

[/quote]   Who hasn't heard of moveone.org?  You couldn't watch a newscast in 2003 without hearing their name.  Shine a light on them?  They do pretty well at getting attention all by themselves.    Mike, i'm starting to think you live in a parallel reality where you listen to Rush Limbaugh, read Ann Coulter, and your homepage is The Drudge Report.  And all this crap media fills your head with big leftwing conspiracy bullshit.   For the record, I did not "defend" the Petraeus ad.  I wrote that I don't agree with it, find it distasteful, but also compliant with constituional law, i.e., the 1st ammendment.  And I was most disgusted with congress spending anytime on what amounts to a public cheap-shot.  THAT has been my issue.    To me the ad is just like the swiftboat guys -- partisan mudslinging (although not as insidious nor far-reaching).  For all we know, Petraeus could come out in retirement and pull a Sanchez, invalidating all the former accountings to the Bush administration.  Then you'll probably change your tune about the General, right?
Oct 22, 2007 4:46 pm

<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=Big Taco]

 

Mike, i'm starting to think you live in a parallel reality where you listen to Rush Limbaugh, read Ann Coulter, and your homepage is The Drudge Report.  And all this crap media fills your head with big leftwing conspiracy bullshit. [/quote]

 

The big white flag of surrender appears. Whenever they've run aground, when they’ve been beaten to within an inch of their lives with the facts they’re oblivious to, they drag out their hobby horses, the Limbaugh, Coulter Drudge stuff, people and things that were never mentioned heretofore...

 

[quote=Big Taco] For the record, I did not "defend" the Petraeus ad.  [/quote]

 

Where did I say you defended it? Why lie about what I’ve said?

 

I said you had a long, long list of excuses, like pretending it was a challenge of 1st Amendment rights for anyone to question it, the blather about how Petraeus was a big boy who could defend himself, even though the UCMJ expressly forbids him from making that sort of political response.

 

 [quote=Big Taco] And I was most disgusted with congress spending anytime on what amounts to a public cheap-shot.  THAT has been my issue.  [/quote]

 

Nah, your real “issue” was that some Democrats were put on the spot about it. You brought out a whole laundry list of talking points to try to deflect from the reality of your real “issue”, but it was clear from the outset.

 

[quote=Big Taco] To me the ad is just like the swiftboat guys – [/quote]

 

Of course it is, because you can’t (or don’t want to) grasp the difference between moveon attacking a US commander in time of war with troops in the field with Kerry’s officer peers telling their side of the Kerry/Vietnam narrative that he had made the centerpiece of his campaign and had hoped to ride into the Whitehouse. Nice 100% repetition of the Democratic taking points, Mr "Independet"....

 

 [quote=Big Taco]  For all we know, Petraeus could come out in retirement and pull a Sanchez, invalidating all the former accountings to the Bush administration.  Then you'll probably change your tune about the General, right?

[/quote]

 

Your partisan slip is showing, again…..obviously this is just about Bush….

 

You still don’t grasp it, do you? Petraues is a commander of troops in combat, the attack on him as a “betrayer” was beyond the pale. He was in no position to defend himself, so members of the Senate took a whole hour out of their busy schedule of not passing budgets, doling out earmarks and designating “National Ear Infection Awareness Week” to defend the guy.

 

You and your whiners about this are way out there on the fringe (in addition to simply having no understanding of the rules people like Petraus live under) on this as MOST members of BOTH parties agreed on this. Should Petraus leave the uniform, is no longer a member of the active service and wishes to express his personal opinions, one way of the other, that’s HIS choice. I, for one, will treat his opinion like Sanchez’s (who lacked for criticism for no one, the Bush administration, State Dept, NEWS MEDIA, the OPPOSITION PARTY IN CONGRESS, etc) which is to respect it and weigh it with all the others.

 

BTW, speaking of Limbaugh, 41 Democratic Senators took the precious Senate  time you claim to care so much about to attack him and ask his employer to take action against him. The response from the “don’t-threaten-free-speech-it’s-a-waste-of-time-to-talk-about-this-on-the-Senate-floor-they’re-wasting-my-tax-dollars types? Absolute silence……

Oct 23, 2007 4:46 am

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

Oct 23, 2007 5:10 am

[quote=Big Taco]

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

[/quote]   Now that's funny considering the majority of BOTH parties in the Senate agree with me and you're repeating the talking points of the far left of the Democratic party.
Oct 23, 2007 1:56 pm

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

Oct 23, 2007 3:49 pm

There is a long list of traitors in the political arena.  This one shows where one Democratic front runner stands.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html   Amazing from someone who wants to be our commander-in-chief.  Hope he doesn't offend anyone by being proud of his country.
Oct 23, 2007 4:12 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

ow is it that this same group of exmilitary who have their feathers all bent out of shape over this find no problem with Bush's military service?[/quote]

 

Huh? You’re joking, right? I’ve said before I’m really uncomfortable with the attacks on Kerry’s medals. Yes, he did appear rather “agressive” in his efforts to be rewarded for injuries you’d expect most officers to ignore, but that’s not a fatal flaw. The fact he took the unpresidented route for an officer of cutting his tour from a year to less than six months was a major issue with me and many I know.

 

However, what really sank Kerry’s attempts to make his military service the center of his campaign (have you forgotten the boat ride in to the convention?) for many who’ve served in uniform was his actions upon his return. The testimony before the Senate, his “Winter Soldier” theatrics, his appearences at demonstrations in a raggedy uniform where VC and NVA flags flew. You need to have explained to you why that might be considered much worse by vets than learning how to fly F-102s in the TXANG?

 

You might have well have asked what so many military types have against Jane Fonda…

 

BTW, you know the “Rove did it” stuff is pure Democrat fantasy, right? Or isn’t that known in “the Center” lol…

[/quote]

 

You're the one who has got to be kidding. The entire Swift Boat Veterans for truth thing? Mike you do realize that they were a Bush/Rove front group financed by <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Texas republicans? [/quote]

 

Financed by Republicans? Of course, the head of the group, John O’Neil had had a running feud with Kerry since his return from Vietnam, and of course it wouldn’t be people predisposed to support Democrats that would take issue with Kerry’s actions when he returned. Does that make it a “Rove front group”? Of course not, and there’s no evidence to support that claim.

  Mike, every time Bush has run for election, that is, everytime,  some well financed group spewing venom at his opponent has appeared. That the bumpkins see no connection is exactly the point. It allows Bush to remain above the fray.

 

 

[quote=BondGuy] And putting the words in someone elses mouth…[/quote]

There’s the fiction. There’s absolutely no evidence that the opinions expressed by the Swiftboat Vets weren’t their own. I go back again to O’Neil’s ongoing debate with Kerry going back to 1970. The guy debated Kerry about these very issues for decades. I can provide you links to videos, if you need them, of O’Neil and Kerry on the Dick Cavet show having this very same conversation.

 You’d like us to believe they were organized and scripted by the evil Rove, but that’s just Democratic spin. They had a bone to pick with Kerry for a long, long time.

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

 [quote=BondGuy] You believed the SBVT? You do know that they've been discredited? [/quote]

 

Sure they were….. you mean Kerry didn’t leave with less than 30% of his tour complete? De did lead the “Vietnam Veterans against the War”? He didn’t participate in antiwar demonstrations in a raggedy uniform? He didn’t spread the lies of imposters as a smear of the entirity of the US forces in Vietnam? Really?

  The main claims of the SBVT surrounded Kerry not earning his medals. On this issue, they were discredited. SBVT who claimed to be on scene during the events leading to One of Kerry's Medals, the rescue of a crewman while under fire, were found to be lying. Not only were they not there , they weren't in-country at the time of the event. Nor for that matter was O'Neil. He served after Kerry left. Unfortunately, these guys, fueled by Republican money, didn't let the facts get in the way of their smear campaign. Kerry's commanding officer who as a SBVT said he erred in giving Kerry his medal, was reputiated by his own sworn statements given at the time. All of those making claims against Kerry were shown to extremely upset with his post war actions. So what are we top believe. The statements given at the time, the ax to grind statements given by bitter angry men? Kerry's crew stood behind him, as did the man who was rescued. These were the people who were close enough to see and know what was going on. These men had no book to sell, no ax to grind, no money to be made. The story they told in 2004 matched the statements they gave in the 1970's.

 

 

[quote=BondGuy] The Swift Boats for Veterans group even used some of the same PR and legal people used by the 2000 Bush front group "Republicans for a clean Environment", which attacked McCain's environmental record. Yet you see no connection? [/quote]

Strap down that tinfoil hat, Bondguy.

The problem for you is these vets meant every word they said, and they’d been saying it for years. When Kerry started his national campaign, they felt they had to make their case again to a larger audience unfamiliar with their issues. Kerry had several of his crew mates with him, these officers who served with him felt there waas another side to the Kerry story.

Of course the people who helped them get their message out with funding were Republicans. Why is that surprising? If someone had a decades old issue with some Republican running for office, would it shock you is they got support from Democrats? Why try to make that sound like some sort of dirty trick?

When they sought out legal and PR people, of course they went to firms that handle that sort of work for Republicans. Would a Democrat oriented firm have done it for them?  Seriously, why act like this is evidence that what they had to say they didn’t believe?

Notice that you go on and on about who helped fund them and where they went for PR and legal guidance, but you have nothing to say about the substance of their criticisms.

    There is no substance to their criticisms. It was a smear campaign meant to distract and derail Kerry. And it worked. The average person in this country thinks Kerry didn't earn his medals. It was a brilliant strategy to neutralize a hero who put his life on the line against a trust fund baby who hid from service. My hat is off to Rove.   As I said, Rove played us. The bumkins bought it. If you bought it , well, what can I say?   Sadly, finding the truth isn't hard, it's as close as the fact checking portals on the net. Most though, don't realize they've been had. Thus Rove's brilliance

[quote=BondGuy] Using third party front groups is SOP for Rove. It's a much stronger message coming from someone else. Rove has used this tactic for years. [/quote]

   

If you think that’s a Rove monopoly, let’s discuss that bridge I want to sell you again.  Do you think Carville always has his name on groups aligned with his candidate? Has Soros put his name on ACT or Media Matters? You can’t really be that naive about who does what, can you? 

  Rove has a special talent for using front groups. That you don't believe the SBVT was part of a well orchestrated strategy, led by Rove-PERFECT! Exactly what they were going for.   My issue with this isn't that he, or the dems do this. My issue is that it people buy it. You for example. These guys are so slick that the average person doesn't know they're being subjected to a PR smear campaign. People  hear it and think it's true. Then the right wing's echo chamber, FOX, Drudge, Coulter, Hannigan, Limbaugh, pick up the misinformation and run with it. Facts don't matter.   I will give Hannigan and for that matter, O'Reilly, credit for calling the Bush admin on some of their mistakes.    

[quote=BondGuy] How can you take issue with Kerry's senate testimony? 

 

[/quote]

 

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

  And these things weren't done? He testified to war crimes. He shouldn't have done that? War crimes are OK?

 

 

 

[/quote]