Sunday, August 29, 2004

Attacking Back

After four weeks of gutter politics in the form of the group Swiftvets Lying For Bush, I guess we have to counter. I don't like it, I don't think we are addressing the real issues, but it appears capable of deciding the election. I hate that because if the issues were openly and honestly discussed then I feel my candidate would win easily. It seems that the right doesn't need to be proven truthful, they seek merely to muddy the water of issues favorable to Kerry (like his heroism) and distract from issues unfavorable to Bush (like almost everything else).

So on to gutter politics. The right will claim that the left was already doing that in the form of, but that just shows they don't see the difference between negative, hard-hitting, "mean" ads and outright lies. Much like they can't distinguish Saddam from Osama. There are similarities so they must be the same. With us or against us. Good or evil. Republican or evil. Think like us or evil.

I don't know if this story is true or not, but the Swiftvets KNOW they are lying and they go ahead. So here is an unsubstantiated allegation which may prove true, unlike the Swiftvet's proven lies:

Ben Barnes, the former Texas Speaker of the House, personally asked the top official of the Texas Air National Guard to help George W. Bush obtain a pilot's slot in a Guard fighter squadron during the war in Vietnam. This has been denied by the Bush family for years.

Well, here is a link to a video in which Barnes says

"I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas."

Jim Moore, a reporter critical of the President, wrote in an article in Salon in July:

"During the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race between Ann Richards and George W. Bush, I was a panelist on the only televised debate between the two candidates.

The question I chose to ask Bush first was about the National Guard.

I had lost friends in Vietnam, and many of them had tried to get into the Guard. We were all told that there was a waiting list of up to five years. The Guard was the best method for getting out of combat in Vietnam. You needed connections. George W. Bush had them.

"Mr. Bush," I said. "How did you get into the Guard so easily? One hundred thousand guys our age were on the waiting list, and you say you walked in and signed up to become a pilot. Did your congressman father exercise any influence on your behalf?"

"Not that I know of, Jim," the future president told me. "I certainly didn't ask for any. And I'm sure my father didn't either. They just had an opening for a pilot and I was there at the right time."

A waiting list of 5 years, with 100,000 names, Bush scores the minimum on his aptitude test, had no prior service or ROTC, and they "just had an opening" days after Bush first decided to go into the Guard. Because, as he says, he "wanted to be a pilot," not to dodge the draft.

So maybe Kerry was just "near" Cambodia getting shot at on Xmas, instead of actually in Cambodia. He sure was a lot closer to the enemy than Bush, wasn't he? Oh, but he might have exaggerated - even lied - to make a political point about our involvement in Cambodia. That shows Kerry is unfit for office.

WMDs anyone? Oh no you say, EVERYBODY thought there were WMDs.

Please see my previous post about Mr. Scott Ritter.

And did Bush lie? Or was he "knowingly ignorant" about how he jumped 5 years and 100,000 names ahead on the list? Or was he just absolutely so stupid that he didn't know? None of them seem to make him look good, do they?


artbyruth said...

"..but that just shows they don't see the difference between negative, hard-hitting, "mean" ads and outright lies."

Those ads were negative, hard-hitting, mean, AND outright lies about the President.

Notice, Bush didn't sue, or ask Kerry to denounce those ads. He didn't file a complaint with the FEC. He took it like a man, because he knew they were all lies.

Kerry, OTOH, knows the Swiftboat Vets are telling the TRUTH and that is why he is trying to stop them.

And America and its Veterans aren't too happy with Kerry right now.

When you came home from combat, were you spit upon? Did people throw feces at you?

One man wrote to Roger Hedgecock about how he kept his uniform in the exact state it was in when he returned from Vietnam. He was escorted off his bus in San Francisco along with other returning Army Vets. The escort was because of the protestors. It was late at night, so he couldn't see what was being thrown at him, but he could smell it: urine, feces, rotten fruit. They shouted that he was a disgrace to his country.

He tried to go the the bathroom to clean up, but didn't have enough time. When he got home, he put that uniform in a locker and left it the way it was to show his children the "welcome" he received after the war.

And he knows that those protestors bought into the hype that Hanoi Jane and John Kerry were feeding them.

Kerry never should have mentioned Vietnam.

HCWHunter said...


I was reading CB's blog (before he shut it down) and started following links to other blogs and found myself at yours. I've been impressed and informed by your posts on military matters. It's too bad your political bias is starting to taint virtually all of your posts. While some of what you say against President Bush may be true, I cannot fathom how you or anyone else would believe that Kerry would be a better president. As for the Swift Boat Vets, they, and many, many other VN vets are still mad at Kerry for his post war testimony and protests. Did he or didn't he throw back "his" medals? You are calling their ads and book lies. How do you know? Because the pro-Kerry vets say so?

I'm not a vet, and have the utmost respect for all vets, but Kerry brought this all on himself with his making his 4 month VN service the centerpiece of his qualifications to be Commander in Chief. Do you really want a CIC who called VN vets "baby killers" and protested alongside Jane Fonda? Let's face it, Kerry built a name for himself politically by jumping on the anti-war bandwagon after VN. Of course he wishes he could take it all back now, but he can't. And what's more, if he hadn't, chances are he would have had a harder time making Senator from Mass., a very liberal state.

As for the war in Iraq. That should be a non issue since Kerry has already gone on record that he believed that Saddam had WMD's (everyone did) and that he would have invaded Iraq to enforce the UN sanctions just like Bush did. End of story.

So let's look at Kerry's domestic policy. He has an extremely liberal voting record in the Senate while he's been there so we can pretty much tell what that will be. If you want a liberal Democrat in the White House, then Kerry's your man.

For me, although I am starting to lean Libertarian, I would prefer a fiscally conservative, moderate domestic policy Republican. Bush isn't perfect, far from it, but he beats the Hell out of Kerry as a CIC in my book.


vrangel said...

I like that "stupidity" excuse, LOL.

this we'll defend said...

HCWhunter, thank you for your post, and your compliments. I imagine I am as biased as everybody else, even though I think I'm fair. Much like I think I'm a good driver, but so does everybody else, and there seem to be an awful lot of bad drivers out there so somebody must be wrong...

I addressed many of your contentions in a reply to Artbyruth in the post below this one (Patriotism).

I do want a democrat in the White House, I would be lying if I said I didn't. I clearly do.

I don't see how you can call Bush fiscally conservative, though. I really don't.

Thanks for stopping by, I liked your comments and hope you will make more.

vrangel said...

HCWhunter hit it dead on in first paragraph.

TWd is falling into campaign mode:

"The right will claim that the left was already doing that in the form of, but that just shows they don't see the difference between negative, hard-hitting, "mean" ads and outright lies"

It takes deliberate blindness or worse
not to see lies in some ads.

Snap out of it TWD. You cannot temporarily suspend you own integrity in order to help out your candidate.

Pretty soon it will be gone forever along with your own credibility.

On a substance of your post I tend to agree that GWB's dad pulled his connections to arrange a slot for him.
GWB was pretty irresponsible dude at the time, he probably didn't even care much one way or the other.

vrangel said...

Off topic. To ppl who earlier read Levi's blog from Sadr-city . Found this message posted on 8.25.04 by his brother:

"I just wanted to let you ;know that cpl.Levi Presmyk is in Ramadi. He's with the CG jump squad."

this we'll defend said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
vrangel said...

"FAILURE TO APPEAR" AWOL ad, I mentioned it before.

this we'll defend said...

Well, I haven't seen all ads. But I didn't see ANY lies. Sure, the "hood, robbing" one might be distasteful, but it was satire based on the national debt increase. Not a lie, an opinion.

Please point out which ads you think were untruthful. I don't think lying helps my candidate win or is good for our nation. I just haven't seen it. Please let me know. It is easy to make a charge that " lied" and many of you have done so, but please show me where. I can and have shown where Swiftvets lied.

Here is the difference between hard and perhaps deceptive ads, and outright lies:

HARDHITTING: Bush ads claimed Kerry was weak on defense (an opinion) because he voted against a lot of weapons programs (a fact). The ads didn't note the specifics, such as that Cheney when he was SecDef suggested many of the same cuts, or that Bush I pushed through bigger cuts. Kerry's votes were taken out of context. Yet the ad was not a "lie." I'm not going ballistic over it.

Another ad released June 24 by the pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund (PFA) attacks Kerry for voting against intelligence spending "even after the first World Trade Center bombing" and for voting against "13 weapons systems our troops depend on." (emphasis original).

The ad is partly accurate, but misleads by starving the facts of context. Republicans including Bush's father and Vice President Cheney also proposed cuts or elimination in several of the same weapons at around the same time Kerry supposedly "voted against" them. And Kerry voted for Pentagon funding increases 16 out of 19 years.

And while it's true that Kerry voted to cut intelligence spending in 1994, he did so as part of a much larger deficit-reduction bill at a time of massive federal deficits and growing agreement that military spending could safely be scaled back in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse.

One of the weapons systems that is included in the "13 weapon's systems our troops depend on" to win the war on terror? The Trident nuclear missile system -- not exactly a weapon "our troops depend on" in the current conflict.

But yet the authors of the ad can point to 13 weapons systems Kerry voted against and the inaccurate conclusions drawn from that aren't lies, just misleading, hard-hitting ads. In fact, it is my opinion that the conclusions are "inaccurate" and somebody could disagree with me and I wouldn't consider them a liar.

A LIE: Well, there are lots of republican ones, and I've spoken of Swiftvets specifically many times, so let me practice bipartisanship with a democratic one (no, I'm not even saying the only one):
A Kerry ad (actually, an independent "mediafund" ad supporting Kerry) claimed "Bush says he is going to help companies outsource jobs." That was a lie. He never said that. He apparently said the OPPOSITE. What he actually said was "The best way to deal with job creation and outsourcing is to make sure our businesses are competitive here at home." That seems the opposite of the "paraphrasing" of the mediafund ad. He later said that outsourcing bothered him as much as anybody.

It was wrong. The ad not only misquoted the President, it made the quote up.

That's the difference.

Most of the ads out there are misleading, but not downright, outright lies. hasn't, to my knowledge, lied. Even the hitler spot that they pulled (and Kerry condemned, and Moveon rightly apologized for) wasn't a lie, just in incredibly poor taste. Nobody said Bush was Hitler, but many are concerned by the Patriot Act, people held without trial or access to lawyers, etc. But it was over the top and unacceptable. You don't have to lie to be despicable and beyond the pale. That was wrong.

Some fringe groups on both sides have lied, such as mediafunds. Some ads are mere opinion but still unacceptable among respectful and reputable people, such as the Hitler spot (never shown except for the website, by the way, as part of a contest, and as I said pulled and apologized for and condemned by Kerry.)

But nothing has happened like Swiftvets, financed with hundreds of thousands of dollars, with media coverage of the ads themselves on all networks, all newspapers, etc. It is even worse than the Willy Horton ad, because at least in that race-baiting ad there really was a Willy Horton. The Swiftvets allegations are false and despicable.

It isn't because the ads are "effective" that I'm upset, it is because the ads are LIES. Proven lies. And I'm upset that the president (my president too until Jan. 20 of I hope 2005) has not condemned them. And they aren't even about politics or votes or positions, but about a veteran's military record.

If has lied please let me know instead of just claiming I must be "blind" or too partisan to see. I don't think condemning attack ads is the same as condemning lies, and the President has not done the right thing. Even when he said "I don't think Kerry was lying" isn't the same thing as "Swiftvet ads are wrong, not just misleading but dishonest, and I disown them and would ask them to stop." He hasn't done so. And you know why. That's not "ok."

I won't justify lies of my campaign because I do have integrity and respect for our system. How many of you on the right will do likewise?

vrangel said...

Here you go :


ANNOUNCER: ...when the chips were down, went missing.

this we'll defend said...

please give me a source or a citation.

I have said before that Bush was not AWOL. He was never charged with AWOL or even FTR (failure to report). If he did in fact skip National Guard duty and the Guard didn't charge him it might have been because that was acceptable at the time, in which case he again would have done nothing to get upset about. AND his attendance record from Texas was fine, so the information we do have shouldn't lead us to conclude that the missing records from Alabama would be different, especially since if he did get "special" favorable treatment in Texas that doesn't mean he would in Alabama.

However, if the failure to report is a reference to his missed flight physical that caused the Guard to suspend his flight status, then, well, we have a different issue.

so please give me a reference. I'd like to know. I don't remember it from's site, but I might have missed it.

this we'll defend said...

Not a quote, but a source so I can see where it came from, what it said, who did it, etc.

vrangel said...

Just google it, I saw it on TV.
It's a ad .

If you want some extensive info about dem ties and coordination with 527s it's here :

ALa said...

Howard Dean, Al Gore and almost every other LEADER of the Dem party have said that Bush was AWOL -flat out. I don't see what this story is supposed to prove. I have always figured that Bush used connections to get into the Guard --who wouldn't have? Kerry asked for a deferment but didn't get it...he still asked --so what happened to him signing up, but asking for a deferment. It doesn't make sense.
I think that you are lying about being a drill SSgt. No wait ...I KNOW you are lying. I haven't seen any records that prove it.
Isn't that silly? You can't say that you know the SBVFT are lying --because ya weren't there. And how about the Admiral that just spoke out to the Chicago Sun Times? He isn't a Republican and not part of the SBVFT -said he didn't want to get involved, but couldn't sit by while Kerry was lying anymore.... I am sure he will soon be smeared too.

I have never even heard of your Ritter dude and I watch the news 24/7. If the liberal sources that you stated slammed him –he must be a real piece of crap. They will even take Michael Moore seriously so I would hate to see who they deem ‘not worthy’…

this we'll defend said...

Who wouldn't have? Me. John Kerry. John McCain. LOTS of other people.

You have always figured Bush used connections, but HE SAID HE DIDN'T. That's my point. I thought you were concerned about honesty. I thought that is why Xmas in Cambodia was such a big deal to you.

Don't pretend my saying SBVFL is Lying is based on my opinion. I've provided countless links, records, impartial and non-partisan accounts, and analysis showing inconsistencies and impossibilities in their claims. And if anybody did challenge my DS bonafides I could back that up with military records - just as Kerry has.

And I am really suprised you haven't heard of Scott Ritter. He was HUGE news. And no he is not a piece of crap. The "liberal" sources aren't liberal, that is another right-wing myth. The "liberal media" has given Bush a pass on everything, and lefties like me are angry about it. But then you probably believe Fox News is "fair and balanced."

Google Scott Ritter. I bet you have heard of him but you just don't remember. You seem too well-informed not to have heard of him. Heard of him many times.

this we'll defend said...

The failure to appear ad was as I thought VRangel. It was about his physical. And it is true.

Here is part of the transcript:

MOVEON.ORG PAC 30 SEC TV “Swift Response”


AUDIO: ANNOUNCER (VO): George Bush used his father to get into the National Guard, and…


(VRangel, notice it is "Medical Form" being stamped. Bush has never explained his missing his physical and losing his flight status. That is a BIG DEAL - the military frowns on pilots who lose their flight status for such things. The one explanation given is that he missed it because his personal physician was on vacation, but personal physicians don't give flight physicals. since then he hasn't commented on it.)

AUDIO: ANNOUNCER (VO): …when the chips were down, went missing.


(VRangel, the "chips are down went missing" line is clearly a reference to his failure to condemn the swiftboat veteran lies).

AUDI: ANNOUNCER (VO): Now, he’s allowing false advertising that attacks John Kerry…

As I said, no lie. Hell, I don't even see this one as misleading. What is inaccurate in it? That Bush's family connections got him in the Guard? That he missed his flight physical with no explanation and was eventually removed from flight status and never flew in the Guard again even though he was a PILOT and that was his job? Or that he failed to condemn the lies being told about Kerry?

Seems dead on to me.

ALa said...

Fox news IS Fair & Balanced..., but I bet you think NPR is -or Dan Rather...

Kerry has YET to release all of his records --it would take him signing ONE form and he won't do it. There are 'hundreds of papers'...why?

this we'll defend said...

Fox news is of course blatantly partisan. NPR is much less blatant and more evenly balanced, but left of center. And Dan Rather - I don't watch much of him but I don't see much bias either way. He seems to piss off both sides. But I could be wrong.

And what is the right's deal with Kerry's records? He released everything but his medical records (which are his own damn business). And his medical records won't disprove his wounds because he released the injury reports. What records are you claiming he is withholding? All/some of his efficiency reports like SBVFL first claimed, and actually on their website still do, despite the fact it isn't true (and can't be true because you can't withold all and some at the same time)?

ALa said...

Did you read the Sun Times article above? many things on his website are erroneous. Also, he has not released full military or medical file:

this we'll defend said...

I did read the Sun Times article (by Novak) detailing another Swiftvet who says Kerry didn't deserve his first purple heart.

Imagine how good a guy has to be to create a conspiracy so good that not a single record, not a single document, will show he was faking? That apparently is Kerry, who had to engineer a vast conspiracy involving higher-ranking officers and people who he didn't even know existed until 35 years later. You must believe OJ is innocent and the entire LAPD really did frame him.

More allegations from right-wing veterans don't change anything.

These charges are baseless, false, and I've shown them to be internally inconsistent. THEY ARE LIES. More lying won't make them the truth. The right knew Kerry's military heroism was a positive at a time when national security is an important issue, so they "muddy the waters" enough to negate that advantage. See, they don't need to be proven right. They only seek to not be proven wrong - they don't need to move "Vietnam" into a plus for Bush, they win if the only move it into neutral. And they lie to do it, and they lie when they say their campaign isn't involved.

And for that alone you should cast your vote for somebody else or abstain.

Your article about Kerry's records from April (from the partisan NewsMax) is not only outdated, it was wrong at the time.

It lies in its first two paragraphs, and I don't need outside evidence to show it. Here is the first paragraph:

"Sen. John Kerry has quickly reneged on his promise to release his full military and medical records to public scrutiny."

Wow, that sounds bad. Here is the second paragraph:

"Kerry emphatically told Tim Russert on NBC's “Meet the Press” last weekend that “people” could come on down to his campaign headquarters to eyeball his full file of military records."

Uhh, what happened to the word "medical?" Ohh, Kerry apparently never said that at all.

So that's lie number one.

Later down it says "Kerry shot back to Russert’s request, “They are” – indicating the records were already released." How did that morph into a promise to release his records?

Lie number two.

It continues:
“the day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.”

Lie number three. He claims he has released all of his military records, and because he hasn't released MORE he is holding out? As I've repeatedly said, ALL of his evaluations have been released for some time. ALL of them. Read them and note the "period evaluated" dates. There is no missing gap of time. All of them. "possibly other material?" Well, W was possibly abducted by aliens. That line means nothing.

So we have medical records - which are quite different from military records and which are personal and private and won't show ANYTHING to do with this false controversy. But they might reveal embarrasing information about Kerry. Maybe he lost a testicle in an accident as a youth. Maybe he had VD. Maybe he had a recurring case of gingivitis, the germ that causes bad breath. Maybe he has a tattoo on his crank. Maybe it details a history of insanity in his family or that he was treated for depression at some point. Who knows? It doesn't affect his fitness for commander in chief one bit, and it won't do anything more to counter the false charges than every other document released has done. The charges will just go on, unsubstantiated, already in conflict with the record and the many, many documents released, but the right will have their hands on the man's personal and private medical history and will publish it to embarass him. But oh no, the right doesn't engage in gutter politics of the worst and most despicable sort. They are the family values party, remember? They are going to restore honor to the White House, remember?

The charge that Kerry hadn't released ALL of his military records (insinuating that he was hiding something) was made when Kerry released his officer evaluations from Vietnam and his citations for heroism. He didn't release his evaluation from his time on the USS Gridley or his school evals from his initial Navy training (both VERY favorable) because the campaign didn't think anyone would care. And he didn't release things like travel orders or pay records or reimbursement vouchers because nobody should ever care. When the charges that he was "hiding something" came out he released everything. All of it. All evals, all documents including irrelevant ones.

But the charges continued, including demonstrably false ones that he has not released all evals. The Swiftboat veterans for Bush, in their drive for truth and honesty, still have contradictory charges on their own website. They criticize Kerry for "selectively releasing only some" of his evals, and then later on the same webpage a few paragraphs down they criticize him for not releasing ANY of his evals. Hello? Anybody there? And ALL are available anyway, so the Swiftboat liars were wrong in every possible way. And all the evals make Kerry look damn good, including those he was "hiding" at first.

So Newsmax was wrong, and demonstrably twisting the truth as I have shown without any need for outside evidence. But I'll bet you still consider it a reliable source because it tells you what you want to hear. And Swiftvets have been caught up in some whoppers, including two inconsistent and mutally exclusive charges on their website that can't possibly both be true, and in fact are both wrong, but you still think they might be right. No, you think they are right.

If W is such a great candidate and Kerry is such a bad guy, why does the right need to lie to make their case? Is it, perhaps, that they have no other case to make?

I am a partisan democrat, I admit it, but I would not vote for a democrat who engaged in such gutter slimeball tactics. And don't even try to bring "other 527s" or "" into this. The Swiftvet charges are of a different order altogether and you know it.

It is despicable and Bush has refused to condemn it. That alone is proof that he is unfit to lead this nation.

ALa said...

Did Kerry condemn even ONE ad? The one where they accuse Bush of poisoning pregnant women --conveniently leaving out to the public that over 70% of mercury is caused by naturally occurring events --such as Mercury. As I told you before President Bush has NO RIGHT to tell these men -who fought and bled for this country -to stop. NO RIGHT.

Ya know what this reminds me of…
“Mom, Dr. B just charged me for an office visit to walk into his office and get that test result. That is SO shady…he is charging the insurance company for a visit when I didn’t have one and I just had to pay a $20 co-pay….blah blah blah…(I continue bitching for the next hour)
My mom couldn’t have cared less…”yeah, that’s a shame” (half-heartedly)
A few weeks later I get a phone call…Mom is freaking out…Dr. B. asked her to come into the office for a yes/no test result ….”No… bye.” Charged for office visit & whatever her co-pay is. She was pissed and going on and on...expecting me to get mad for her or be sympathetic...
I hung up on her.
I have no time for people that don’t care when it happens to someone else, but then think you will give a damn when it happened to them.
She deserved it... and so does Kerry.

this we'll defend said...

Ala71, your claim that Kerry "deserved it" might have validity if what you say is true. But it simply isn't.

You write: "Did Kerry condemn even ONE ad?" Yes, he did, as I said repeatedly. Yes. And the organization involved pulled it and issued an apology. Kerry also pulled the McCain ad at the request of Sen. McCain although it was totally truthful, consisting of Sen. McCain bashing Bush in 2000 over underhanded and black-hearted attacks on McCain's military record while Bush sat there shamefaced and said nothing. Sen. Kerry has done exactly what you say he has not done. But that seems to be falling right into line with most of the attacks against Kerry.

Pres. Bush has no right to order them to stop, that is true - not because they "fought and bled" for this country but because the 1st Amendment protects their right, and your right, and mine, and everybody's, to speak out. Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. But Bush does have the right and the responsibility and the obligation to ask them to, and to condemn the ads as untruthful. Just as Sen. Kerry did with the "hitler" ad. Bush has failed this test of character, miserably. There is no way you can "spin" it that will hide the fact your candidate will do or say anything to win and that his morals (if he ever had any) have been left at the door of his campaign headquarters. Just as when he misled the American people about the justifications for invading Iraq, he similarly believes that the ends justify the means. But he isn't a sovereign, the People are, and he is deceiving the People. We don't need a man like that in the office that is supposed to ensure our laws get faithfully excecuted. He threatens our Republic's future for short-term political gain. He would, to borrow a Vietnam-era phrase, destroy the Constitution in order to save it. He needs to go home.

Your claim that an ad accused Bush of poisoning pregnant women is also untrue. The ad, aired only in Wisconsin and done by the Sierra club which is not a 527 organization anyway, talks of a "a growing mercury pollution problem. Mercury is a poison that can cause birth defects and learning disabilities" and attacks Bush for his lax environmental policies. The ad continues "the EPA says one in six American women of childbearing age already has mercury levels in her blood high enough to put her baby at risk." I don't see Bush where they claimed Bush poisoned pregnant women, do you? I just see an ad attacking Bush on the environment.

Before you tell me how great Bush's environmental policies are, the RNC "defended" Bush against the ad by saying (and these are actual quotes from the GOP's Ad Watch website): "No Science Showing Americans Facing Threat From Fish Consumption" and "Mercury In Fish No General Threat To Children." Kind of points out why the Sierra Club is a little irate, doesn't it? But no lies, no accusations that Bush poisoned pregnant women, just some facts and a dispute between Bush and the Sierra Club about mercury. The right-wing morphed that into Kerry's camp accusing Bush of poisoning pregnant women. And you blame Kerry for the low gutter-level of debate because "he deserved it."

And do you have any proof that the Swiftvets are actually the brave veterans you claim they are? After all, you and I weren't there. I heard Elliot was actually smoking dope in Canada, and Admiral Schachte was a pedophile and only a captain in the Coast Guard. (I'm being sarcastic).

BTW, since earlier you trumpeted the non-partisan Bob Novak (I'm being sarcastic as HELL now) and his "breaking news" about "yet another" person, William Schachte, contradicting Kerry's story, I though you might want to know about this which came out in the press today. It won't be on Newsmax or Instapundit or Fox or any of the other "non-biased" sources you seem to rely on:

"A fourth Bush campaign official has been linked to a veterans group hammering Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War heroism.

GOP convention Chairman David Norcross practices law in the same D.C. firm, Blank Rome, as William Schachte, a retired Navy admiral who says Kerry did not deserve one of his Purple Heart medals, Time magazine reported yesterday. . . ."

yeah, there's no connection between the Bush campaign and Swiftvets. None at all.

Peter V said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
this we'll defend said...

Peterv: LOL.

yeah, you're right. I write differently because I appreciate politics but I LOVE the United States Army. If you cut me I bleed two colors - olive drab and infantry blue. Law school was fun and intellectually stimulating, but serving my country as a soldier in the US Army was the best thing I have ever done or ever will do. I wish I could do it all over again.

vrangel said...

So that's how dems are talking among themselves. And believing it too.

I imagine their surprise in November after they lose .
How come voters didn't vote for us, we made such a watertight case ?! Those voters must be stupid.

In fact people can tell propaganda no matter how sleek it is.

TWD, snap out of it. Stop that lawyering please. You might delude yourself and other dems but hardly anyone else.
Most of what you said on this thread is false, if you just apply your own COMMON SENSE. For your own sake, damn it.

vrangel said...

On a lighter note , check this out :


smudgepuck said...

I think "Attacking Back" comes very close to a big point, but I want to highlight and supplement it. Groups like moveon have said from the get-go that their problems stem from Bush's record in office. What can be more democratic than voicing an opinion that an (allegedly) elected official has performed poorly and thus hurt our nation? To say that such a tactic deserves attacks on a person's character and activities from decades ago is asenine.

But the thrust of the right-wing negativity knows no limits. When the world knows that Bush was a coke-head and arrested for DUI, that he dodged both the draft and the draft-dodge, that he has failed miserably at every endeavor he has taken on (Cs at an Ivy League school? As a Penn grad I'll tell you: the hard part is getting in. After that, they inflate to prove how smart their students are).

And yet, because they've turned conservativism into a cult, where it's somehow an insult to America to point out these legitimate faults of our President (which do not even require an inquiry into public knowledge of Mr. Cheney's corruption), they can freely go negative because nobody seems phased by the attacks on Bush. Clinton got impeached because of private behavior that at most injured his own family and nobody else, but Bush has destroyed lives and fortunes while golfing 40% of the time for decades, and it's wrong to criticize him?

(Anybody else notice that I've built up some momentum here?)

In any case, from the party that sold us bills of goods like trickle-down and Willie Horton, what do you expect? I just wish they'd be "honest" and nominate C. Montgomery Burns for a cabinet level post, so we'd all see what these people are really like.

What does it say for a party when Arnold Schwarzeneggar is one of its finest examples of decent public officials?

[end of rant]

this we'll defend said...

thanks smudgepuck. Great rant.

But you kind of shoot yourself in the foot with the coke allegations (no purple heart for you). They aren't proven, they are in the past, they are everything you (and I) said not to do. You are starting down the path I am criticizing Bush for taking (he's RUNNING down that path).

Which is why Sen. Kerry isn't making "cokeheads for the truth" ads alleging things that may or may not be true. After all, Bush would have no documents to show he WASN'T snorting coke, and there are witnesses who claim he was. He couldn't prove his innocence and even if he did we could ignore the truth and simply allege more things, bring forward more witnesses (unconcerned if they were truthful or not) and we would have Bush in the same situation. And it would be wrong.

But perhaps you were baiting a trap and I've just blown it. (I know you). Ooops. Sorry.

91ghost said...

Since I am in a highly agitated mood after having my blood pressure run up by ALa 71's post on reparations let me add my 2 cents on this latest sparring match:

1) I don't like what I've heard about Kerry--soldiers don't pander for purple hearts.

2.) I don't like the swiftboat veterans organization, and I don't buy it for a second that the Bush campaign was not involved with it, and in general, I think the whole scrutiny of Kerry's service is setting a bad precedent (even though I agree that to a large extent Kerry has brough this on by his unabashed wearing of his combat experience on his shirtsleeves).

3.) One has got to be blind to think that Bush didn't slip and slide his way into the Air Guard--and no, that's not an admirable thing.

4.) And above all, what the hell of V.P. Cheney and his multiple deferments?? That's not an admirable thing.

5.) I guess I just don't like this whole situation.

6.) Again, I'll probably be giving Bush a vote, in the hopes that if he gets a second term he will act more like a real conservative instead of the big-government creating, debt imploding, illegal immigrant pandering excuse for a conservative he's proven to be...

Frater Bovious said...

As we look at the two main 527s that come up during this pre-election circus, those being, and the Swift Boat Vets, and we look at the money being spent on these 527s, of which in terms of sheer dollars much more has been spent towards MoveOn than towards Swift Boat, you have to ask "why have the Swift Boats achieved such an impact?"

The answer seems to be in the nature of the people involved and the issues being argued. Like it or not, Kerry angered a large number of vets with his activities after he Purple Hearted his way out of Viet Nam. Say what ever you want to about Bush or his National Guard service, he did not alienate a significant percentage of the military as did Kerry. He did not accuse his fellow guardsmen of war crimes. HIs statements and actions were not used by the enemy in psychological attacks or as the basis for physical retributions against prisoners of war. Bush did not engage in activity that some people consider to be treasonous.

The only reason Swift Boat could resonate as it has and become such an issue is to be found in Kerry and no where else. Call it a smear campaign, call it all lies, call it what you will, there was a dormant yet receptive audience because of Kerry's activities. Crying foul at this point because there was a huge number of people predisposed to think the worst of Kerry ignores the fact that the man is being held accountable at some level for decisions he made and actions he took.

Gutter politics, maybe. But Kerry hung the "kick me" sign on himself.

vrangel said...

From the Today Show, airing Monday, August 30, 2004

LAUER: Did John Kerry serve heroicly, in Vietnam, in your opinion?

BUSH: I think his service is heroic, yes, and he's... he should be proud of it. And, uh, and I think that we ought to move beyond, uhm, [pause] the past. I mean, he's proud of his service, I'm proud of mine. And the real question is who best to lead us forward?

LAUER: You think you both act... served on the same level of heroism?

BUSH: Thats... No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was, was more heroic than me flying fighter jets. But he was in harm's way, I wasn't. On the other hand, uh, I served my country, had my unit been called up, I would've gone...[/CLIP]

Jamie said...

Sorry I couldn't leave a comment on your post, I have to leave first thing in the morning for a weeks vacation, I just wanted to drop a great resource thats not only informative in dissecting media and political slander on both sides, but also entertaining. I'm sure you've already heard of him, Bob Somersby. Heres his site. and I'll drop in again when I return.

ps: great Ritter post btw


91ghost said...

frater bovious: I find a lot of clear and good points in your comments. Yes, no doubt that Kerry brought a lot of this on by his own actions. And true that Bush didn't alienate a lot of veterans by his guard service--but still, there was a war going on and it appears that he did take measures to avoid serving in the war. As our Commander-in-Chief, I simply believe that this ought to be held up to light. I, for one, just do not feel comfortable having war leaders who when it was their time to serve, slinked out of it. But then again, I also would not feel comfortable having a man who committed borderline treachery such as Kerry leading a war either. So again, I'll be casting my vote for Bush, I'm just not placing his bumper sticker on my truck.

91ghost said...

correction to my last comment: I stated "As Commander-in-Chief, I simply think..." What I meant to say was, "Bush being our Commander-in-Chief..." So no, I have not gone delusional yet folks.

this we'll defend said...

LOL. If you ran for President you would get my vote.

I understand your anger about Kerry's anti-war activities.

But check this out from an interview with Gen. Tommy Franks, Bush supporter, long-time Laura Bush friend, former Centcom Commander, and Vietnam vet, when he was given "bait" to slam Kerry on the Hannity propaganda hour:

HANNITY (8/3/04): I want to play a tape of John Kerry, and I want to get your reaction to this tape.

KERRY (videotape, Dick Cavett Show, 1971): I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that.

However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.

And all of these, I find out later on—these acts are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So, in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.

HANNITY: What does that mean to you?

Hannity waited for the normal party line answer that Kerry betrayed his fellow veterans, something you believe 91ghost. But Franks is too Army for that, so he gave an honest and informed answer and said:

FRANKS (continuing directly): I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in—in John Kerry's position. He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that, that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did.

Hannity gave him another chance to toe the party line, though:

HANNITY: I want to play you another tape of his, where he talks about what other soldiers did when he was there.

FRANKS: Right.

HANNITY: And then, I'll get your reaction to this. Roll this tape.

KERRY (videotape, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1971): I relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the 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 the fashion of Genghis Khan.

HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told names. Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading candidate for the Democrats.

The names of these soldiers were public record; Kerry didn’t have to list them so Hannity is trying misdirection tactics. But at any rate, Franks again passed on the bait. Hannity wanted the general to hammer Kerry. But once again, Franks told the truth:

FRANKS (continuing directly): I don't know. I think Vietnam was—I think Vietnam was a bad time. I think that what I've learned in my life, Sean, is that it's a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and take responsibility for the actions of a unit or for—or for your own actions. And so, I don't—I don't like what I saw. But at the same time, I wouldn't say that- (pause) The things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think that things didn't go right in, in Vietnam.

Read that again 91ghost. “The things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam.”

Sadly, everyone knows that such events did occur. And Kerry stood up and took responsibility for his actions, and demanded responsibility from our nation's leaders. He didn't betray veterans or support the North Vietnamese enemy or cast all veterans as war criminals. He tried to save 14,000 American lives because he realized that our government was lying to us. Our government betrayed the veterans, and Kerry was out to correct that (notice how the right never speaks of Kerry's demands for better VA hospitals and chastised the administration for not taking care of the returning warriors, saying that they were "forgotten.")

How often have you heard that Kerry "slandered" veterans or that he was responsible for veterans being called "baby-killers" and spit upon, etc? ARtbyruth's earlier comment about a soldier that had feces flung on him when he returned home, and she thinks that Kerry was to blame?

It isn't true. The man stood up and spoke truth to power, and he was right then and he is right now. But it is very, very easy to take his words out of context, present partial quotes, and twist them into a commie flag-burner working against America.

In 1971, Kerry spoke to a Senate committee, made up of Dems and Reps alike. No one questioned the things he said, because everyone knew that his statements were accurate. Now 35 years later the insinuations begin.

Don't buy it.

(I shamelessly stole some of this from