Monday, November 21, 2005
By Gordon Smith, at Mon Nov 21, 07:39:00 PM:
Like Jeff Gannon, Armstrong Williams, Michael McManus, and Maggie Gallagher!
Then it would be clear that he pays some people to lie for him, while other folks just do it for free!
CP - Sorry to get all snarky in the opening comment on your post, but anyone who's a fan of the SBVT crowd has really sunk below any acceptable level of civility. Come on... The SBVT? Really? You're a fan?
Video: Charlie Company In Action
You should link this Tiger...
By Dan Kauffman, at Tue Nov 22, 03:06:00 AM:
"CP - Sorry to get all snarky in the opening comment on your post, but anyone who's a fan of the SBVT crowd has really sunk below any acceptable level of civility. Come on... The SBVT? Really? You're a fan? "
I don't know about "fan" but when over TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY Veterans stand up to be counted and say that a Man they served with is not fit to be commander in chief. "I" say they have EARNED the right to express their views.
You must be like Al Frankin who claimed slam dunking a Larue Heckler was defending Freedom of Speech,
All Speech should be free as long as it passes your censor?
By Cassandra, at Tue Nov 22, 05:33:00 AM:
Thank you, Dan. So many people would just prefer the military to shut up and get killed for their country - apparently they lose their civil rights once they've served.
Let's see... by the MSM's and Screwy's reasoning, if a 527 is able to raise any money at all (or if you can find ONE person in the whole organization who volunteered for a party) then their speech is "bought and biased" and cannot be trusted. As an added bonus, the media don't have to cover or examine their charges - heck - they're obviously biased by all that big money!
$2.5 million to MoveOn.org from a single donor (George Soros) with ties to the Democrats
$10 million to America Coming Together (uh...George Soros again)
$3 million over three years to an anti-Bush policy shop headed by ex-Clintonite John Podesta. (you guessed it...George Soros)
top individual contributors to 527s? Gee: not a single Swift Vet on the list. How strange.
Of the top 10 individual donors to 527 committees, all are backing anti-Bush or Democratic-allied groups. Of the 50 largest groups, 34 of them are allied with the Democrats or anti-Bush.
And on Democratic ties to 527s:
Ickes at the Media Fund. Former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan is a strategy consultant for the Media Fund and America Coming Together. Or, take the New Democratic Network (NDN). Its president, Simon Rosenberg, is a veteran of the Democratic National Committee and former adviser to the Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis presidential campaigns. Senior vice-president Maria Cardona is a former Democratic Party communications director. The NDN advisory board includes former chairs of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Leadership Council, as well as a former White House chief of staff and a former White House press secretary.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Tue Nov 22, 09:06:00 AM:
"I don't know about "fan" but when over TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY Veterans stand up to be counted and say that a Man they served with is not fit to be commander in chief. "I" say they have EARNED the right to express their views."
"I" say 250 sacks of partisan crap are still 250 sacks of partisan crap. Didn't Bush try to discredit McCain too? I see a pattern here. Bush who had his daddie get him out of Vietnam has the balls to take on people who actually served? Oh wait... I'm sorry, he gets other veterens to take those men on for him. That's much more respectable. And hasn't what the SBVT said been widely discredited?
By Gordon Smith, at Tue Nov 22, 09:43:00 AM:
Yes, Catchy, widely. One might say 'thoroughly'.
Cardinal Park. Clearly there is no lie you won't repeat in the name of whatever political agenda you're carrying around in your men's club shaving kit.
Does Tigerhawk support and endorse the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as well? I'm guessing no.
By Dan Kauffman, at Tue Nov 22, 09:55:00 AM:
"I" say 250 sacks of partisan crap are still 250 sacks of partisan crap."
LOL wasn't it John Edwards who said if you want to know what kind of man John Kerry is, just ask anyone who served with him?
UH I guess that is limited to the minute number who like him and NOT the overwehlming majority who served with him who despised him.
Who you wished silenced.
I guess Vets should be seen and not heard.
Yep we have lots of Al Frankin Defenders of Free Speech out there don't we?
By TigerHawk, at Tue Nov 22, 10:02:00 AM:
I don't "endorse" the Swifties, but I find it impossible to distinguish their tactics from those of the anti-Bush groups. 527s on both sides made many accusations that did not distinguish them as principled.
On the matter of the Swifties, I think two things might be said. First, Kerry could have nipped off all doubt very early on had he authorized the release his military records. His persistent refusal to do this caused a lot of people, including me, to give the Swifties a lot of credence. We now know that Kerry did not release his records because they contained a devestating political bombshell: that he had lower grades at Yale than the allegedly stupid party animal, George W. Bush.
And, to be fair, the Swifties did raise legitimate attacks against Kerry. Kerry wrapped his image in 2004 in the glory of the military decorations that he had thrown away in contempt (figuratively, if not literally). He showed tremendous disrespect for the military in 1972 -- there is no question that this is so -- and then tried to exploit his military service for political gain in 2004 ("reporting for duty"?!?). This is what really animinated the Swifties.
None of this isn't to say that George W. Bush was not at least somewhat guilty of the same thing. The "Mission Accomplished" speech on the Lincoln was important recognition of the military, but it was also a political stunt. When George Bush donned that flight suit in May 2003, he was setting himself up for the close inspection of his National Guard service.
I believe that an honest history of the presidential election of 2003-2004 cannot be written by somebody who was politically aware last year. The oldest possible author is probably ten years old right now, so we will not see a truly objective history until at least 2025. When it does appear, I expect that it will conclude that neither side was covered with glory.
By Dan Kauffman, at Tue Nov 22, 10:18:00 AM:
". And hasn't what the SBVT said been widely discredited?"
No actually reported as discredited but not discredited. Unless you count a MSM figure screamig Liar Liar drowning out anythng John O'Neil could say on Network TV
By Cardinalpark, at Tue Nov 22, 10:26:00 AM:
My goodness, such vitriol. I don't know how TH feels about the SBV. I will let him address.
As for me, I think they are patriots who served their country bravely, and who deeply resented Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971, and found his interactions with the North Vietnamese treasonous. Like O'Neill, I think Kerry lied to Congress and besmirched our troops; and I think his interactions with the North Vietnamese in Paris were out of order, at a minimum, and potentially treasonous.
Ironically, I think O'Neill's animus towards Kerry is depply personal and non-partisan.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Tue Nov 22, 10:38:00 AM:
Here's some links I found in about five minutes.
There's an awful lot of people out there who question the truth part of the SBVT. I'd like to add this is such an old dead issue. Kerry was a boob and didn't win the election because of his boobness. This doesn't mean the 250 sacks of partisan crap or SBVT have any legitimacy at all out side of some political funding and air time.
By Dan Kauffman, at Tue Nov 22, 10:42:00 AM:
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."
But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.
This photograph of John Kerry and 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers was taken at Ton Son Nhut Air Base on January 22, 1969, immediately following a meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt.
The Kerry campaign featured the photograph in an advertisement released in May titled Lifetime. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth contacted surviving members of this group to find out how many actually support John Kerry, and discovered that of 19 Swift boat skippers pictured other than Kerry, 12 consider him unfit, 2 are neutral, 2 have died, and 3 now support Kerry. Four other officers were not present for the photo session; all oppose Kerry.
Only 3 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 supports his candidacy today.
Their images used in the Kerry campaign the majority of the men in photo said/
"NOT IN OUR NAMES"
Not a smimple majority over 60% of the men in the photo.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Tue Nov 22, 10:58:00 AM:
I can understaqnd them not supporting him. That's based on political opinions. I'm more annoyed with the factual incorrect accounts of his service in Vietnam.
Kerry will be a candidate in 2008. How do I know this. The laywers are attacking the POWs who made a video about Kerry. isn't it great. Spend years in a North Vietnamese POW camp and now you have to put up with the leftist lawyers attacking your credibility just so a slimebag can run without any negative comments.
Has the man released all of his military records. And if not, why not? My guess is that there is probably a problem lurking in the records....
By Catchy Pseudonym, at Tue Nov 22, 11:16:00 AM:
Kerry will lose any attempt to run for president and I sure as hell am not going to vote for him again. He doesn't have what it takes to win and be a good president. Of course, that's just my opinion.
By Cardinalpark, at Tue Nov 22, 11:51:00 AM:
The military records question is an interesting one. The obsession regarding their release involves pure speculation. However, the issue at stake seems to be the nature of John Kerry's discharge from the military. He completed his service in 1971 or 1972, yet he was only given a clear discharge during the Carter Administration. Many speculate, I repeat, speculate, that the nature of his earlier discharge was less than honorary as a result of his Congressional testimony and his interaction with the enemy in Paris. Teddy Kennedy then apparently intervened on Kerry's behalf to clean up his record and became his political mentor during Carter's Presidency.
This kind of stuff is why he is a dead letter as a candidate in 2008, in my opinion. When the country is at war, the majority of voters will prefer somebody who they think can operate cooperatively with the military.
I have the book UNFIT FOR COMMAND and its got real interesting news including that JOHN KERRY has his picture there by the vietcong him and hanoi jane are both there