OT: The Swiftees

[Jared]

But John Kerry, no one else, MADE this his issue. How can he be a war "hero" and at the same time be a "hero" to the hippie nutboys by coming back and trashing his comrades? What difference does it make whether his record is true or not, some of you ask? It brings up a question of integrity and character.

Wait. Lots of people have been saying that Kerry came back and was trashing his comrades. He never directly trashed his comrades. He attacked the policy by the US to do things that was against the Geneva convention, and he (as a spokesman for other Vets) made public claims of actual war crimes that happened.

And the thing is, it's not like these things never happened. It's not like My Lai and other similar events just were pulled out of Kerry's imagination. These things did happen, and the American public had then (and also has now) a right to know if this is happening.

Someone can be a war hero and then speak against the things he did if they're violations of international law and (as a spokesman for other vets) if they're violations of human decency.

He'd better be telling the truth, because if he isn't, he's cooked. Not for Vietnam, per se, but for anything that he's been so adamant about that may be a lie. If I'm a Vietnam vet, and I've come home and led the charge to color the war with a psychedelic coat of anti war paint, then I'd be stupid for bringing it up as a campaign issue. But he has, and the swift boat veterans are calling him on it.

How is this stupid? He was against a war that the majority of Americans were against. It's pretty disingenuous to say he colored the war with "a psychedelic coat of anti war paint", as if only hippies and druggies were the only ones against the war. He was a spokesman for vets reporting on terrible things we had done that the American people had no knowledge of. And this is a bad thing?

Who's telling the truth? I can't say for sure. But I know that they aren't backing down, and Kerry keeps "tweaking" his story every time they lay down a charge. That doesn't look good for a man who claims to have events "seared" into his memory.

How does Kerry keep tweaking his story? Are you talking about Christmas in Cambodia? He previously said he spent Christmas in Cambodia, but then found evidence (35 years later) that he wasn't there on Christmas. Anyways, his diary has him only miles from the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve, something that you never hear reported on sites that peddle this Swift Boat stuff.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/

And the SBV's ads have nothing to do with Bush. Highlight, copy, paste, and flame that line all you want, but it doesn't change anything. Some of the vets have said they were going to vote for Edwards, had he won the primary. They're not all fans of the President.

If this is true, then why haven't they made these claims in the past 35 years? Kerry's been a very public figure...you think that these vets would have made these claims when Kerry was actually protesting against the war (and when their memories of the events they're complaining about were fresh). Or when he was a public figure as a Senator. It's odd that these people have claims that don't fit with any evidence from the time, didn't report any of these things at the time, and only now when he's running for President do they speak up.

(Also, these smears are very similar to the same attacks on McCain's Vietnam service in 2000 by people that weren't officially affiliated by the Bush campaign. Bush was called to condemn those ads to, but never did. Regardless of whether Bush is behind these attacks or not, in both situations he's never condemned these attacks. It reeks of a strategy where you let others do your dirty work while you stay above the fray.)

What it boils down to is this: if Kerry wants this to go away, the only way it's gonna happen is if he releases ALL of his service record, not just the parts he wants you to see. If there's nothing to hide, then there's no reason not to. If he's telling the truth, and the records collaborate it, then this all goes away. But that's the only choice he has.

I agree that Kerry should release all of his records. Though the same thing can be said for Bush...there's no evidence that he's released all of his records. If people want to be suspicious about Kerry because not everything has been released, they should be equally suspicious about Bush.

Also, so far there's been no primary evidence to support the Swift Boat Vets positions. Except for Kerry getting a date wrong re: when he was in Cambodia, every single thing has backed Kerry's position and not the Swift Vets.

Blindly swinging at Bush as if he is doing it is pathetic. Demanding that the Swift Boat ads be pulled, while not pulling his own stupid "Bush is at it again" ad (which is a shot in the dark if I've ever seen one) is hypocritical at best. It'll be pulled only when he does what he needs to set the record straight.

The Swift Boat Vets ad has claims for which the only evidence is disputed 35 year old memories. All of the primary historical evidence is against their claims. In other words, it seems like their claims are pretty untruthful. Did people not attack McCain's Vietnam record? Did Bush not condemn those ads, as he's doing now?

And it's odd that people say that Kerry needs to set the record straight when so far, all of the primary evidence has supported Kerry's claims on the Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, and Silver Star.

The Vets have already said Bush can ask them to stop all he wants, they will keep running the ads and keep talking. The Swiftees have taken an enormous beating, and they keep getting up and coming right back without batting an eye. Think about that...

So if someone is telling a lie, and they keep telling the same lie over and over again, that's positive for them?

A lot of this stuff is he said/she said. But the Swift Boat vet claims have contradicted their own words from fairly recently (8 years ago) and the evidence from the time. They don't have any facts to back up their case. So they keep sticking to stories and evidence keeps showing that it doesn't fit with the evidence. What are we to think about that?

[Brando70]

Well, FatPitcher, memories are fallible and inaccurate. Which is precisely why I am less likely to believe the Swift Boat guys than the official records of what happened at the time.

Kerry could be lying, or he could be confused. Maybe he was near Cambodia, and maybe he heard candidate Nixon or President-elect Nixon on the radio. I don't know. The mind can often play tricks on you, especially after very stressful events. (Any police officer taking eyewitness reports after a crime can tell you that.)

Right now, the Swift Boat guys have only produced testimonials. They have no real proof that:

--Kerry's injuries were self-inflicted
--That the boats did not take enemy fire during the Bronze Star incident
--That Kerry wrote the after-action reports

If this was a trial, their case would be thrown out for lack of evidence. What you have here is a bunch of vets who are upset that Kerry left Vietnam after 4 months, protested against the war very publicly, and now think he should not be president because of those two things. They have every right to hold that OPINION, but it does not change the recorded facts of what happened during his tour.

[Jared]

So Jared, "No Man Left Behind" was a lie, by your own admission.

No...where did I say it was a lie? There was an ambush, he moved out of the ambush, then turned around, saw a man overboard, and came back to pick him up while under enemy fire (as the records from the time state).

As was Christmas Eve in Cambodia listening to President Nixon (not prez yet) and being shot at by the Khmer Rouge (did not exist yet). All this was seared--SEARED--into his memory.

Here's what Kerry said:

I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.

This was discussed years afterward. He never says that Nixon was claiming that there were no American troops there at the time. This is semantics, but it's unfair to make the claim that Kerry said Nixon was president while he was there. (Although Nixon was President Elect then.)

Anyways, I look forward to hearing your defense of the Swift Boat Vet "flip flops" from their previous words about Kerry and why their accounts of the medal incident don't fit with the primary evidence from the time.

[Teal]

"Oh and for the record, it was Bush who started this by calling himself the "war president" and flying on that carrier."


Oh...my...god... stupid. next, please...


"Right now, the Swift Boat guys have only produced testimonials. They have no real proof that:
--Kerry's injuries were self-inflicted
--That the boats did not take enemy fire during the Bronze Star incident
--That Kerry wrote the after-action reports "


"What you have here is a bunch of vets who are upset that Kerry left Vietnam after 4 months, protested against the war very publicly, and now think he should not be president because of those two things. "


...prove it...



"If this is true, then why haven't they made these claims in the past 35 years?"

O'neill HAS been making these claims all that time. It's just nutcutting time now that Kerry's trying to be president...




"So if someone is telling a lie, and they keep telling the same lie over and over again, that's positive for them?"



I don't know...you may have to ask Kerry that one...




"If 30 years ago is so important, then let's talk about COCAINE addiction, ALCOHOLISM, and DRUNK DRIVING"




Bush never LIED about it...you know W's skeletons...I'm not sure we know Kerry's...



"I will say this, the level of negativism from the President is almost unprecedented"



Oh, OK, sure...what "negativism"?? He's not being negative, not any more than Kerry. You want negativism- try moveon.org, Salon.com, some of that BS...



"The problem is that all the rest of the news is bad. Kerry is ahead in the other 14 states, sometimes only by a hair, but still ahead"


This is like being on the edge of your seat at a NASCAR event, halfway through the race, being excited that your driver is in the lead. You people who check polls all the time are wasting your time. There hasn't been the first debate yet. It's AUGUST. It means nothing, I tell you...I don't care if your Kerry or Bush leaning. Means nothing.


Guys:
I'll say it again. If you haven't read the book, and are trusting blurbs from the news outlets, this discussion goes nowhere. If the Vets are lying, it'll come out in the wash. If Kerry's lying, it too will come to the surface. One of the two is lying, and hedging your bets without knowing all the lines is a sure fire way to get wrong fast. I don't know who to believe, but I will be able to make a better assessment once I've read the book. So don't dismiss it out of hand, and don't just read reviews and commentaries on it...read it yourself. Then maybe we can get somewhere...

[wco81]

Yes it was stupid of Bush to call himself the "war president" and declare the war over on that carrier.

And his stupidity has already caused enough damage to the country.

[Parker]

Both candidates should just agree to have the election now. Nothing is moving this electorate to either side, the later it gets the more this is the case. Conventions, books, ads aren't doing squat to affect the polls. Of course, that would be bad for Bush because he would lose, albeit not by a huge margin.

[Teal]

"Yes it was stupid of Bush to call himself the "war president" and declare the war over on that carrier."



ugh...ok. Where and when did Bush himself declare himself to be the "war president"? ( Hint: don't wear yourself out looking...) And if you believe that landing on an aircraft carrier before Kerry was even a blip on the radar caused Kerry to latch everything he has onto his Vietnam medals, then whatever...believe what you want to. Don't want you to hurt yourself...

[wco81]

On Meet the Press earlier this year, after the SOTU failed to bolster his support, he used those exact words, "war president." He's probably used it since.

And on the carrier, he said "major combat operations" are over. I'm not even getting into the banner. But there were some combat operations at Fallujah and Najaf. American troop casualties have been higher since that carrier speech than before it.

Then there's "bring it on"..

[Jared]

Responding to some of the things I said that you quoted...

"If this is true, then why haven't they made these claims in the past 35 years?"

O'neill HAS been making these claims all that time. It's just nutcutting time now that Kerry's trying to be president...

He has?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5806868/

It is ironic given O‘Neill‘s current stance on Vietnam service by Kerry, that at a new service two weeks before he meet Nixon, O‘Neill had endorsed validity of Kerry‘s service record.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN O‘NEILL, ANTI-KERRY VIETNAM VETERAN: I don‘t question Mr.

Kerry‘s courage, I question only his judgment and his intellectual honesty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And all of the others have too? On these medals claims, I haven't seen a single bit of evidence of people making these claims until now. In fact, lots of these people were talking about how great Kerry's service was as recently as a year and eight years ago. Do you have any evidence to back these claims up?

"So if someone is telling a lie, and they keep telling the same lie over and over again, that's positive for them?"

I don't know...you may have to ask Kerry that one...

Cheap. Also, it avoids the issue of the fact that the Swift Boat Vet claims don't fit with the official documents AND that many of the Swift Boat Vets are directly going against previous words about Kerry. I'd like to see people address this.

"I will say this, the level of negativism from the President is almost unprecedented"

Oh, OK, sure...what "negativism"?? He's not being negative, not any more than Kerry. You want negativism- try moveon.org, Salon.com, some of that BS...

It's amazing that someone can make claims with no evidence whatsoever (the Swift Boat Vets) and then compare it to sites that disagree with the President. Is Salon putting out ads with claims that have no evidence to back them up? MoveOn puts out ads that are against the President, yes. But are they putting out claims that have no basis in evidence?

Guys:
I'll say it again. If you haven't read the book, and are trusting blurbs from the news outlets, this discussion goes nowhere. If the Vets are lying, it'll come out in the wash. If Kerry's lying, it too will come to the surface. One of the two is lying, and hedging your bets without knowing all the lines is a sure fire way to get wrong fast. I don't know who to believe, but I will be able to make a better assessment once I've read the book. So don't dismiss it out of hand, and don't just read reviews and commentaries on it...read it yourself. Then maybe we can get somewhere...

The thing is, lots of research and work has been done to examine the Swift Boat claims. And with nearly every claim, they've been proven to either have contradicted their own statements or contradict the primary evidence. And instead of addressing this, people say "read the book". If people are going to bring up these claims, they need to be able to defend them.

[Brando70]

"Guys:
I'll say it again. If you haven't read the book, and are trusting blurbs from the news outlets, this discussion goes nowhere. If the Vets are lying, it'll come out in the wash. If Kerry's lying, it too will come to the surface. One of the two is lying, and hedging your bets without knowing all the lines is a sure fire way to get wrong fast. I don't know who to believe, but I will be able to make a better assessment once I've read the book. So don't dismiss it out of hand, and don't just read reviews and commentaries on it...read it yourself. Then maybe we can get somewhere...

Well, I'm not giving my hard earned money to a right-wing propaganda outfit like Regenery, the publisher of the book. I don't need to read Michelle Malkin's book about how Japanese internment in WWII can be used to justify putting American Muslims into camps to know she's a right-wing nutjob. And both authors of the book are hardcore right-wingers, with Corsi spouting a lot of prejudices over at the Free Republic Web site and O'Neill being a former Nixon pawn.

The NY Times and Washington Post articles here have systematically uncovered a lot of flaws with what the Swift Boat vets are saying. They are quoting sources and the official record to back up those allegations of flawed reasoning by the Swifties.

The vets have not produced anything the contradicts the official government record that Kerry was wounded 3 times and was justified in receiving his Bronze and Silver Stars. Furthermore, some of them have contradicted earlier statements they made supporting Kerry's war record. Finally, no one who actually served in the same boat as Kerry has argued against the 3 Purple Heart and the Bronze and Silver incidents. Steven Gardner was ballyhooed as an eyewitness, but even he admitted he did not personally witness those 5 events. Again, if this is a court case, it's pretty clear Kerry would win.

As for the Cambodia thing, people make mistakes in remembering things all the time. I'm sure my father and my father-in-law, both vets, would misremember even key events and details from Vietnam. But those faulty memories don't mean they didn't serve and didn't get shot at.

[maddoc1979]

It angers me also that this same group came out in 2000 and bad mouthed John McCain's and Max Cleland's war records. McCain was a POW for 5 years and for these guys to come out and call him a coward and question his dedication to the country is ridiculous. And Cleland left half his body in Vietnam and his courage was called into question when he was up for re-election a few years ago...by these same guys!

Not to mention the fact that in South Carolina in 2000, which proved to be the deciding factor for McCain leaving the election, these guys were calling voters and telling them that McCain had a "black" baby...and this was reason not to vote for him. He has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.
Odds are that we'll never get the whole story from either side on this issue, but the fundamental problem with this whole thing is that this issue has taken over the election. We all have much bigger things to worry about than war records and time served in the military. The only thing that's come of this whole thing for me is that while I'm thankful for the service time these veterans undertook for the country, I've lost any respect I had for them. These tactics are disgusting and have no place in elections. Both sides need to come to some agreement that these ads need to stop. It is exactly because of these ads that voter apathy in this country is so high.

Doc

[FatPitcher]

It angers me also that this same group came out in 2000 and bad mouthed John McCain's and Max Cleland's war records. McCain was a POW for 5 years and for these guys to come out and call him a coward and question his dedication to the country is ridiculous. And Cleland left half his body in Vietnam and his courage was called into question when he was up for re-election a few years ago...by these same guys!

Not to mention the fact that in South Carolina in 2000, which proved to be the deciding factor for McCain leaving the election, these guys were calling voters and telling them that McCain had a "black" baby...and this was reason not to vote for him. He has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.
Odds are that we'll never get the whole story from either side on this issue, but the fundamental problem with this whole thing is that this issue has taken over the election. We all have much bigger things to worry about than war records and time served in the military. The only thing that's come of this whole thing for me is that while I'm thankful for the service time these veterans undertook for the country, I've lost any respect I had for them. These tactics are disgusting and have no place in elections. Both sides need to come to some agreement that these ads need to stop. It is exactly because of these ads that voter apathy in this country is so high.

Doc

Well, you're angry about nothing, then.

SBVT did not exist in 2000. You're talking about Ted Sampley's group, which is just a bunch of attention-hungry losers that has no relation to SBVT other than the fact that they want to ride SBVT's coattails to more media attention.

Republicans did not attack Cleland's courage. They said he was weak on national defense because he took the union position of opposing the creation of a non-unionized Homeland Security department.

You're so amazingly wrong that it's almost a self-parody.

[FatPitcher]

"Guys:
I'll say it again. If you haven't read the book, and are trusting blurbs from the news outlets, this discussion goes nowhere. If the Vets are lying, it'll come out in the wash. If Kerry's lying, it too will come to the surface. One of the two is lying, and hedging your bets without knowing all the lines is a sure fire way to get wrong fast. I don't know who to believe, but I will be able to make a better assessment once I've read the book. So don't dismiss it out of hand, and don't just read reviews and commentaries on it...read it yourself. Then maybe we can get somewhere...

Well, I'm not giving my hard earned money to a right-wing propaganda outfit like Regenery, the publisher of the book. I don't need to read Michelle Malkin's book about how Japanese internment in WWII can be used to justify putting American Muslims into camps to know she's a right-wing nutjob. And both authors of the book are hardcore right-wingers, with Corsi spouting a lot of prejudices over at the Free Republic Web site and O'Neill being a former Nixon pawn.

The NY Times and Washington Post articles here have systematically uncovered a lot of flaws with what the Swift Boat vets are saying. They are quoting sources and the official record to back up those allegations of flawed reasoning by the Swifties.

The vets have not produced anything the contradicts the official government record that Kerry was wounded 3 times and was justified in receiving his Bronze and Silver Stars. Furthermore, some of them have contradicted earlier statements they made supporting Kerry's war record. Finally, no one who actually served in the same boat as Kerry has argued against the 3 Purple Heart and the Bronze and Silver incidents. Steven Gardner was ballyhooed as an eyewitness, but even he admitted he did not personally witness those 5 events. Again, if this is a court case, it's pretty clear Kerry would win.

As for the Cambodia thing, people make mistakes in remembering things all the time. I'm sure my father and my father-in-law, both vets, would misremember even key events and details from Vietnam. But those faulty memories don't mean they didn't serve and didn't get shot at.

A faulty memory that was seared into his memory and changed his life? Are you really saying that?

The NY Times and Washington Post articles have already been dismantled as Kerry spin-jobs. I'll post more on this later when I'm not at work.

One laughable contention I've heard is that Rood's accound vindicates Kerry, even though Rood was not on the same boat, but all the other witnesses are not credible because they were not on the same boat.

I've talked here before about people being given their opinions by the mainstream media and regurgitating them as truth without doing any critical thinking on their own. This is yet one more example.

Again, I'll post some analysis here tonight that should get you thinking, at the very least.

[Jared]

A faulty memory that was seared into his memory and changed his life? Are you really saying that?

No one has provided any evidence whatsover saying that Kerry's contention of going into Cambodia was wrong. In the Slate link I sent previously, Kerry said he was only a few miles away from Cambodia on XMas Eve, and has stuck by his claim that he's been in Cambodia. He's off on a date.

It's funny...because lots of the people that are "pro-Swift Boat" keep jumping on the fact that Kerry was wrong about a date (big whoop). But when it comes to multiple accounts by the Swift Boat Vets that don't fit with the official Naval records AND contradict their previous comments AND the fact that these people haven't said anything like this in the past 35 years, their supporters get quiet.

The NY Times and Washington Post articles have already been dismantled as Kerry spin-jobs. I'll post more on this later when I'm not at work.

Look forward to this...

One laughable contention I've heard is that Rood's accound vindicates Kerry, even though Rood was not on the same boat, but all the other witnesses are not credible because they were not on the same boat.

It depends on the account. But the main issue with the other witnesses isn't that they weren't on the same boat. It's that the primary evidence from what happened doesn't agree with their 35 year old recollections.

I've talked here before about people being given their opinions by the mainstream media and regurgitating them as truth without doing any critical thinking on their own. This is yet one more example.

Again, I'll post some analysis here tonight that should get you thinking, at the very least.

Look forward to your analysis.

[Bill_Abner]

On Meet the Press earlier this year, after the SOTU failed to bolster his support, he used those exact words, "war president." He's probably used it since.

Not that it matters in this debate, but this is completely true. He said, "I'm a War President" in the Russert interview. I think more than once, actually. That interview didn't sit well with a whole lotta people.

As for the current eletoral count and polls not mattering? I disagree with that too. History tells me otherwise.


**
There are some basic benchmarks by which an incumbent's success can be measured as the campaign heads into the fall:

The average winning incumbent has had a job approval rating of 60%. Indeed, every incumbent who has won reelection has had his job approval in the mid-50's or higher at this point. In recent polling, Bush's average approval rating has been 47-48%. President Bush must emerge from his convention having dramatically altered public perception of his performance in office.

In recent years, when incumbents have gone on to victory, 52% of voters, on average, said the country was on the right track. Now, just 37% think things are moving in the right direction. Thus, President Bush must convince the electorate that the nation is in much better shape than voters now believe to be the case.

Every incumbent who has gone on to be reelected has had a double-digit lead at this point. (I don't think this is fuzzy math..)

Following their conventions, the average elected incumbent has held a 16-point lead, while winning incumbents have led by an average of 27 points. Bush will need a very substantial bounce to reach the mark set by his successful predecessors.

Incumbents have enjoyed an average bounce in the vote margin of 8 points. On average, incumbents' share of the two-party vote has declined by 4 points between their convention and Election Day.

President Bush has the opportunity to achieve an average, or even greater, bounce from his convention. Typically, elected incumbents go into their conventions with a 9-point lead, while incumbents who have gone on to win enter their conventions with a 21-point lead. Most current polls show the race quite close. This gives the president substantial room to bounce. By contrast, Senator Kerry entered his convention in a far stronger position than the average challenger. The average challenger goes into his convention 12-16 points behind, while Senator Kerry entered his convention with a 1-2 point lead. This gave Senator Kerry much less room to bounce. Who is going to bounce when the undecided voter is fewer in number?

However, as the data above makes clear, average is not enough for President Bush. Incumbents who went on to win reelection had an average lead of 27 points after their convention. Indeed, the average elected incumbent -- winners and losers -- had a lead of 16 points after their conventions. An average bounce would still leave Bush well below the historical mark set by other incumbents, particularly those who went on to victory.

Perhaps most important, the average elected incumbent experienced a 4-point drop in his share of the two-party vote from the post-convention polling to Election Day. Thus, to beat the odds, President Bush will need to be garnering 55-57% of the two-party vote after his convention. Anything less than that and the president will remain in grave political danger.

**

In short, Bush better get his s*** together and fast or it's back to Crawford.

[Andy76]

I guess no one cares about what these 2 men have planned for this country over the next four years?

Essentially, that's correct. It's not exactly true that no one cares though. It's more a matter of whatever happens in the next four years is not going to depend a whole lot on who gets elected.

I've lived under both democratic and republican administrations, and frankly, it just doesn't make all that much difference. Bush and Kerry will both fight terrorism as best they can if they are elected. They may do it differently, but both will do it likely with mixed results. Deficits will go up and down. Stocks will go up and down. Taxes may go up or down. And life goes on anyway.

It is very hard for me to imagine that my life will be drastically different the next four years depending on who is president. Most people believe the same way, I would imagine. So unless you're a diehard conservative or liberal (most people aren't), future agendas just don't grab your attention.

So what's left? Arguments over who's the better "man". Both sides know it. That's why they do it.

River, at one point I may have agreed with you, but no longer. Bush has simply been a poor President. Policy issues are decided by what plays to the base, and to hell with what makes sense. Huge deficits, pillaging the environment for corporate interests, and an unnecessary war are the result. America thought they were getting a centrist in 2000, but got an ideologue instead.

Think about what happens when the next president appoints two conservatives to the Supreme Court in the four years. Don't think that's going to have an impact on your life?

[Brando70]

A faulty memory that was seared into his memory and changed his life? Are you really saying that?

What, that he might have gotten his times mixed up or misremembered whether he was in or near Cambodia? Dude, the mind plays a lot of tricks. My father-in-law once had a mortar or bomb go off near him in Vietnam. He looked at his arm and it was shredded up to the bone. He went to the medic to have him treat it. The medic asked, "Treat what?" When he looked again, his arm was perfectly normal. Not saying Kerry's correct necessarily, but its easy to change your memories over time, even ones "seared" into your mind.

The NY Times and Washington Post articles have already been dismantled as Kerry spin-jobs. I'll post more on this later when I'm not at work.

Looking forward to that as well. They will have a lot of work to do -- those articles were pretty in-depth.

I've talked here before about people being given their opinions by the mainstream media and regurgitating them as truth without doing any critical thinking on their own. This is yet one more example.

Since you provided me with hours of excellent baseball gaming this year, FatPitcher, I'm going to ignore the arrogance of that statement. I guarantee you I cast a critical eye to the media, but also to those that constantly complain about left-wing bias without acknowledging the right-wing bias that occurs alongside it. I'm interested to see how those articles were wrong.

[maddoc1979]

SBVT did not exist in 2000. You're talking about Ted Sampley's group, which is just a bunch of attention-hungry losers that has no relation to SBVT other than the fact that they want to ride SBVT's coattails to more media attention.

That's interesting because John O'Neill, who co-wrote this book, and Merrie Spaeth, who's the spokesperson for the swift boats group both spearheaded those attacks on McCain in 2000. It would appear we're talking about some of the same attention-hungry losers now.

About Cleland. Here's a quote from one of the more popular conservative writers, Ann Coulter: “But he didn't ‘give his limbs for his country,’ or leave them ‘on the battlefield.’ There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard -- which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.” As a former naval officer, I'm sure you would agree that any soldier who loses his limbs in a combat situation did so for his country. And to insinuate this could have happened in the Texas National Guard is absolutely incorrect because they were half-way across the world and didn't carry live ammunition. Not to mention that it's harder to get blown up by a grenade if you never actually show up for service.

Doc

[RiverRat]

River, at one point I may have agreed with you, but no longer. Bush has simply been a poor President. Policy issues are decided by what plays to the base, and to hell with what makes sense. Huge deficits, pillaging the environment for corporate interests, and an unnecessary war are the result. America thought they were getting a centrist in 2000, but got an ideologue instead.

Think about what happens when the next president appoints two conservatives to the Supreme Court in the four years. Don't think that's going to have an impact on your life?

But see, that's exactly my point. We've had huge deficits before, under both democratic and republican administrations and made it through with no catastrophic hardships. Do individuals get hurt? Yes. But individuals don't decide the presidency. Masses of individuals decide the presidency. And you can't demonstrate that society in general is decidedly better off under one kind of administration over another. If it were, we wouldn't be in the 50/50 split we're in right now.

We've lived through times when the state of the environment was much, much, much worse than it is today, when if you stuck your foot in Lake Erie, it was liable to fall off. Some people call those times the good old days, although for entirely different reasons. And so what if Bush's war is unnecessary. Wouldn't have been the first time, and won't be the last either.

And no, I don't think the appointment of two more conservatives to the Supreme Court is going to have a significant impact on my life any more than the appointment of Thomas and Scalia have had a significant impact on my life.

I don't disagree with you about the level of Bush's incompetence, but my point is this ... if I jump ahead to 2008, will the quality of my life be significantly better or worse for having Bush as president than for having Kerry as president? I sincerely doubt it. And I imagine a large majority of Americans feel the same. That's one of the beauties of America. We manage to plug ahead in fine fashion regardless of the level of competence in Washington. And if it doesn't matter as to the quality of my life, what do I have to choose between? Squishy surface-level personality things like character, patriotism, and who lies the least on his national resume.

[Spooky]

River, at one point I may have agreed with you, but no longer. Bush has simply been a poor President. Policy issues are decided by what plays to the base, and to hell with what makes sense. Huge deficits, pillaging the environment for corporate interests, and an unnecessary war are the result. America thought they were getting a centrist in 2000, but got an ideologue instead.

Think about what happens when the next president appoints two conservatives to the Supreme Court in the four years. Don't think that's going to have an impact on your life?

But see, that's exactly my point. We've had huge deficits before, under both democratic and republican administrations and made it through with no catastrophic hardships. Do individuals get hurt? Yes. But individuals don't decide the presidency. Masses of individuals decide the presidency. And you can't demonstrate that society in general is decidedly better off under one kind of administration over another. If it were, we wouldn't be in the 50/50 split we're in right now.

We've lived through times when the state of the environment was much, much, much worse than it is today, when if you stuck your foot in Lake Erie, it was liable to fall off. Some people call those times the good old days, although for entirely different reasons. And so what if Bush's war is unnecessary. Wouldn't have been the first time, and won't be the last either.

And no, I don't think the appointment of two more conservatives to the Supreme Court is going to have a significant impact on my life any more than the appointment of Thomas and Scalia have had a significant impact on my life.

I don't disagree with you about the level of Bush's incompetence, but my point is this ... if I jump ahead to 2008, will the quality of my life be significantly better or worse for having Bush as president than for having Kerry as president? I sincerely doubt it. And I imagine a large majority of Americans feel the same. That's one of the beauties of America. We manage to plug ahead in fine fashion regardless of the level of competence in Washington. And if it doesn't matter as to the quality of my life, what do I have to choose between? Squishy surface-level personality things like character, patriotism, and who lies the least on his national resume.

Very nicely said!

I become torn between this viewpoint and the one that tells me to utilize my right to vote and get rid of the guy that is doing a bad job. It is my duty as an American right? I just despise the candidates so much it makes it extremely difficult to do the 'lessor of two evil's' thing every frickin' four years!!!

[mobiggins]

Posts like these aren't even 'debates' because when posters like Jared dilligently tear up the other side's argument with a well-thought-out, meticulous post, they shoot back at him only with the few bits that they can respond to, choosing to ignore what they can't refute. Teal, pitcher, why don't you guys do a point-by-point refute of what Jared wrote on the first page of this thread when he debunked all this petty bullshit to begin with? You don't, because you can't. And THAT'S an open-and-shut case.

[Teal]

"Well, I'm not giving my hard earned money to a right-wing propaganda outfit like Regenery, the publisher of the book. I don't need to read Michelle Malkin's book about how Japanese internment in WWII can be used to justify putting American Muslims into camps to know she's a right-wing nutjob."


Well, then, based on the same general knowledge, I deem you a left wing nutjob. I don't need to know anything about you to make that assertion-is that where you're going? Everything that threatens to monkey wrench your leanings gets thrown into this pile, doesn't it?? Who the hell cares if it has any basis in truth? Truth is relative-relative to whether or not you like it. There are things Bush has done that irritate me to no end- pandering to the Kennedy's of the world with that stupid education bill, the big farm welfare program, and the like that don't do any good, because the left isn't going to give him any credit anyway. I'd say, why bother? Bush HAS spent way too much money in an effort to get that "kinder" Washington political climate that won't exist as long as Ted (hic!) Kennedy, Billary, and little Chuckie Shumer are there.
I'm willing to criticize my guy for what he's fumbled on. You don't seem to be willing to do it to yours...

[Teal]

"Teal, pitcher, why don't you guys do a point-by-point refute of what Jared wrote on the first page of this thread when he debunked all this petty bulls*** to begin with? You don't, because you can't. And THAT'S an open-and-shut case."



...trolling again, I see, eh, Mo? Playing sniper doesn't get old for you, does it? Jared moderates this thing. I'm sure he has more time for book writing than I do. Why don't you try adding something intelligent once in a while, instead of lobbing bombs from the sidelines?

[reeche]

"I'd say, why bother? Bush HAS spent way too much money in an effort to get that "kinder" Washington political climate that won't exist as long as Ted (hic!) Kennedy, Billary, and little Chuckie Shumer are there.
I'm willing to criticize my guy for what he's fumbled on. You don't seem to be willing to do it to yours...

Lol. What criticism! You basically say he's been too good to those "evil" democrats. Now don't get too harsh on him... Not too much criticism on his handling of the war I see or anything most other critics attack him on.

I'm certainly hard left, and don't hide it, but let's not pretend your being even-handed and neither will I.

[maddoc1979]

Hey River...

The thing about the quality of life argument is that you don't know that for sure. For instance, regardless of what your stance on abortion is, the appointment of supreme court justices will play a large role in the legality of that issue. And while you may not be planning on having an abortion anytime soon, this is an issue that could very easily have an effect on one of your friends, sisters, cousins, daughters, etc. I would also be careful about being so casual about an "unnecessary war" also because while it might not have directly affected your quality of life, there are certainly thousands of people who have been very personally changed by it.

And just because things are perhaps better in some regard than they were before (your example of the environment), that doesn't mean we can be complacent and stop the progress. Yeah the environment is better because we know more about how we harm it ourselves. There are better controls over pollution now and regulations about oil spills, etc.

My point is just that while we elect a president for a 4 year term, the effect that person has on the country is much longer standing. So while your quality of life isn't necessarily better in 4 years, think about when you're older and there is treatment for a medical condition possible because of a president approving access to stem cell research.

Doc