What? Mark Garagos was at one time Peterson's lawyer and Michael Jackson's at the same time...doesn't mean Scott and Michael were in cahoots...good try.
OT: The Swiftees
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
"Records show the Swift Boat group received some of its funding from long-time Bush supporters."
Big deal. I'm a Bush supporter, and I have the right to help fund these guys if I choose. No law broken there. Lefties who support Kerry have sure funded Michael Moore...
"The Bush campaign says left-leaning groups have spent $63.5 million on ads attacking Bush over the last 12 months and it has filed its own FEC complaint alleging abuse by Kerry."
Kerry can't have his cake and eat it, too. This legal loophole has got to be shut. McCain-Fiengold is a stupid, unconstitutional law, but if it's going to be taken seriously, this has got to be shut down all the way around. Kerry's being just a tad hypocritical here...
Big deal. I'm a Bush supporter, and I have the right to help fund these guys if I choose. No law broken there. Lefties who support Kerry have sure funded Michael Moore...
"The Bush campaign says left-leaning groups have spent $63.5 million on ads attacking Bush over the last 12 months and it has filed its own FEC complaint alleging abuse by Kerry."
Kerry can't have his cake and eat it, too. This legal loophole has got to be shut. McCain-Fiengold is a stupid, unconstitutional law, but if it's going to be taken seriously, this has got to be shut down all the way around. Kerry's being just a tad hypocritical here...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
This from a transcript of CNN newsnight.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html
"The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.
O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)"
Funny how all the eyewitness reports from Kerry's boat and the documentary evidence from the navy reports all support Kerry's story. The swiftboat group has come up with little more than 2nd and third hand accusations and the inconsistencies in their accounts quite frankly dwarf the small inconsistencies from Kerry's account (i.e exact times and dates).
But we've seen this all before with Gore and Clinton. Gin up multiple accusations and then keep shifting the goal-lines to keep the rebuttals one step behind. Rely on a lazy press, with a ridiculous notion of objective reporting, to keep repeating the same tired old charges in pretty much the same language. Throw enough mud and some of it, unfortunately, will stick.
Best wishes,
Doug
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html
"The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.
O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)"
Funny how all the eyewitness reports from Kerry's boat and the documentary evidence from the navy reports all support Kerry's story. The swiftboat group has come up with little more than 2nd and third hand accusations and the inconsistencies in their accounts quite frankly dwarf the small inconsistencies from Kerry's account (i.e exact times and dates).
But we've seen this all before with Gore and Clinton. Gin up multiple accusations and then keep shifting the goal-lines to keep the rebuttals one step behind. Rely on a lazy press, with a ridiculous notion of objective reporting, to keep repeating the same tired old charges in pretty much the same language. Throw enough mud and some of it, unfortunately, will stick.
Best wishes,
Doug
FatPitcher,
Interesting posts, although I find it ironic that you critcize me for citing a huge NY Times article, with lots of references, and then turn around and use as Washington Post op-ed by a guy from the very conservative American Enterprise Institute.
However, the blog entry you cited was pretty fair, although I think it suffers from what most of the analysis of these events suffer from: armchair quarterbacking 30 years after the fact. I imagine you could find a lot of instances where people received medals for behavior that would have been deemed reckless had it not been considered successful. Much like the coach who is a genius for going for it on 4th down and getting it vs. being a dunce for doing the same thing and failing.
Regarding Cambodia:
--The Fred Kaplan article Jared cited in Slate does offer some interesting rebuttal to the Post piece. Cambodian operations had existed, off the books, since early 1967, according to the source he quotes (and I think that's correct from my own studies of the war, though it's been a while).
What I think is that this doesn't prove Kerry right and doesn't prove him wrong. My theory: Kerry did go to Cambodia. It was clandestine, and may be why no one will talk about it -- there's still plenty of CIA stuff, especially operational missions from the Cold War, that are classified. In 1986, during the intense debate on the Contras, Kerry exaggerates the story for political benefit. 1968 was a watershed year in our history, and still fairly fresh in the minds of Congressional representatives. Christmas in Cambodia has a nice ring to it. Honest? No. But hardly something making him unfit for command.
Part of the reasoning for this is that I don't think the Cambodia story benefits Kerry much personally. It's not like he's saying he did something daring. His point with the story was always to illustrate that we have sometimes done illegal things abroad -- which we certainly did in Cambodia.
--Regarding this quote from the blog: "Get the point folks? You don't do "clandestine" insertions with 'noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels'. You do clandestine insertions with stealthy craft which will go in undetected, not announce themselves a mile ahead of their arrival."
That's highly selective reasoning and splitting hairs over the meaning of clandestine. Bombing the crap out of Cambodia was hardly stealthy either, yet we did it soon after this alleged incident. The clandestine part was that we denied involvement and kept Congress in the dark, not that we were sneaking up on the Cambodians.
--The blog pretty much says, the Swifties have a point about the Silver Star, but it was probably merited. So what exactly does that prove?
Anyway, I am finding this whole story fascinating (obviously) so I'm open to reading more about it. I'm especially interested in any proof about Kerry's injuries being self-inflicted.
Interesting posts, although I find it ironic that you critcize me for citing a huge NY Times article, with lots of references, and then turn around and use as Washington Post op-ed by a guy from the very conservative American Enterprise Institute.
However, the blog entry you cited was pretty fair, although I think it suffers from what most of the analysis of these events suffer from: armchair quarterbacking 30 years after the fact. I imagine you could find a lot of instances where people received medals for behavior that would have been deemed reckless had it not been considered successful. Much like the coach who is a genius for going for it on 4th down and getting it vs. being a dunce for doing the same thing and failing.
Regarding Cambodia:
--The Fred Kaplan article Jared cited in Slate does offer some interesting rebuttal to the Post piece. Cambodian operations had existed, off the books, since early 1967, according to the source he quotes (and I think that's correct from my own studies of the war, though it's been a while).
What I think is that this doesn't prove Kerry right and doesn't prove him wrong. My theory: Kerry did go to Cambodia. It was clandestine, and may be why no one will talk about it -- there's still plenty of CIA stuff, especially operational missions from the Cold War, that are classified. In 1986, during the intense debate on the Contras, Kerry exaggerates the story for political benefit. 1968 was a watershed year in our history, and still fairly fresh in the minds of Congressional representatives. Christmas in Cambodia has a nice ring to it. Honest? No. But hardly something making him unfit for command.
Part of the reasoning for this is that I don't think the Cambodia story benefits Kerry much personally. It's not like he's saying he did something daring. His point with the story was always to illustrate that we have sometimes done illegal things abroad -- which we certainly did in Cambodia.
--Regarding this quote from the blog: "Get the point folks? You don't do "clandestine" insertions with 'noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels'. You do clandestine insertions with stealthy craft which will go in undetected, not announce themselves a mile ahead of their arrival."
That's highly selective reasoning and splitting hairs over the meaning of clandestine. Bombing the crap out of Cambodia was hardly stealthy either, yet we did it soon after this alleged incident. The clandestine part was that we denied involvement and kept Congress in the dark, not that we were sneaking up on the Cambodians.
--The blog pretty much says, the Swifties have a point about the Silver Star, but it was probably merited. So what exactly does that prove?
Anyway, I am finding this whole story fascinating (obviously) so I'm open to reading more about it. I'm especially interested in any proof about Kerry's injuries being self-inflicted.
Why does that mean that Bush had any knowledge of it? Even if that's true, that lawyer could have been motivated by anything from his devotion to Bush to the general belief that Kerry is unfit to be a leader.
It's funny when Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, and other Hollywood types can take fiction and apply it Bush to further their cause, but now that the sh*t is coming from the other side everyone wants to cry foul.
For the record, I don't think that a president must be a decorated war hero, but I firmly believe that any man that actively protests against our own military is definitely unfit to be the leader of the strongest military in the world.
Whether the Swiftboat stuff is true or not, it certainly has been fun watching the other guys backpedal for a change. I think it is huge and I think it has already cost Kerry the election, if he ever had a snowball's chance to begin with.
Well, coming only hours after Bush stated that "my people had nothing to do with these ads" it certainly doesn't help clean up his lying-scumbag-who-will-stop-at-nothing-to-get-reelected image.tealboy03 wrote:"Boooya, busted...."
What? Mark Garagos was at one time Peterson's lawyer and Michael Jackson's at the same time...doesn't mean Scott and Michael were in cahoots...good try.
"I think it is huge and I think it has already cost Kerry the election, if he ever had a snowball's chance to begin with."
LOL, keep dreaming. Polls have shown no change, and consistently show Kerry winning 2 out of 3 of the important states of Penn., Ohio, and Florida and ahead in national polls as well. It's not over for Bush, but there isn't a huge potential to win a bunch of swing voters.
Conventions, ads, books have not made any difference in this electorate, and I don't expect any dramatic shifts before the election.
And anytime an incumbent has an approval rating in the 40s during an election year, any challenger has far more than a snowball's chance in hell to win.
LOL, keep dreaming. Polls have shown no change, and consistently show Kerry winning 2 out of 3 of the important states of Penn., Ohio, and Florida and ahead in national polls as well. It's not over for Bush, but there isn't a huge potential to win a bunch of swing voters.
Conventions, ads, books have not made any difference in this electorate, and I don't expect any dramatic shifts before the election.
And anytime an incumbent has an approval rating in the 40s during an election year, any challenger has far more than a snowball's chance in hell to win.
What's funny about the Swift Boat thing is that it continues a long tradition of election shennanigans. I found a pretty interesting post here:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4172.html
My favorite was the Grover Cleveland campaign, where the Republicans chanted, "Ma! Ma! Where's my pa?" a reference to his illegimate son. The LBJ/Goldwater campaign was also pretty nasty, with the Dems practically calling Goldwater a lunatic who would start WWIII.
Regardless of what happens with the Swift Boat guys, I am sure President Bush was not involved in it. That's way too much of a political hot potato. But that doesn't mean people from his administration were not. And the "flip flop" on Cambodia Doug mentioned is adding more water to the Swifties already leaking ship of credibility.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4172.html
My favorite was the Grover Cleveland campaign, where the Republicans chanted, "Ma! Ma! Where's my pa?" a reference to his illegimate son. The LBJ/Goldwater campaign was also pretty nasty, with the Dems practically calling Goldwater a lunatic who would start WWIII.
Regardless of what happens with the Swift Boat guys, I am sure President Bush was not involved in it. That's way too much of a political hot potato. But that doesn't mean people from his administration were not. And the "flip flop" on Cambodia Doug mentioned is adding more water to the Swifties already leaking ship of credibility.
That's a scary thought, and I'm sure a lot of folks agree with you. Yeah, just what we need, a President who is incapable of question ill-advised military policy, let alone act to correct it. Wait, we have that already...Badgun wrote:I firmly believe that any man that actively protests against our own military is definitely unfit to be the leader of the strongest military in the world.
LOL, Teal, that's pretty damn funny. You should print up T-shirts. I should make up some that say, "Hatin' freedom since November 2000." Actually, I'll put that to use right now...
Last edited by Brando70 on Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've said it before and will say it again, and without regard toward my personal feelings or hopes about Bush or Kerry. I will be shocked and very surprised if Kerry wins this election. He's just not the kind of person this country has put in the White House.Parker wrote:"I think it is huge and I think it has already cost Kerry the election, if he ever had a snowball's chance to begin with."
LOL, keep dreaming. Polls have shown no change, and consistently show Kerry winning 2 out of 3 of the important states of Penn., Ohio, and Florida and ahead in national polls as well. It's not over for Bush, but there isn't a huge potential to win a bunch of swing voters.
Conventions, ads, books have not made any difference in this electorate, and I don't expect any dramatic shifts before the election.
And anytime an incumbent has an approval rating in the 40s during an election year, any challenger has far more than a snowball's chance in hell to win.
"You should print up T-shirts. I should make up some that say, "Hatin' freedom since November 2000.""
Actually, you can go to jibjab.com and buy a Tshirt with that on it. There's also a left wing nut job shirt, and several other funny shirts and things...
"He's from Alabama"
Dang right I am, and I ain't skeered o' nun o' you yankee pinkos! Yeeeeehaaaaww!!
Actually, you can go to jibjab.com and buy a Tshirt with that on it. There's also a left wing nut job shirt, and several other funny shirts and things...
"He's from Alabama"
Dang right I am, and I ain't skeered o' nun o' you yankee pinkos! Yeeeeehaaaaww!!
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
I thought the same thing when George W was nominated for the last election. But after months of polling showing a close race, I prepared myself for the worst. There aren't just going to be a mass of people on election day that decide not to vote for Kerry just because of personality or attacks that have been made on him for the past several months.RiverRat wrote:I've said it before and will say it again, and without regard toward my personal feelings or hopes about Bush or Kerry. I will be shocked and very surprised if Kerry wins this election. He's just not the kind of person this country has put in the White House.
I am too. There hasn't been such a highly skilled debater as Kerry running for the white house in a while. Bush will have to win the debates on the issues, and it doesn't look like the country is willing to jump over to one side or the other anytime soon.tealboy03 wrote:"I will be shocked and very surprised if Kerry wins this election. He's just not the kind of person this country has put in the White House."
...I'm reeaally looking forward to the debates...
"Bush will have to win the debates on the issues"
And I believe this is where the election will turn in Bush's favor. No ads, no baloney, just the issues. And really, the flip flop thing will really start to bite Kerry. He just has no solid ground on which he has stood. I'm sure the guy could be an eloquent speaker, but he comes across as an elitist, and that isn't going to fly with voters in the end, I don't think...I've never been really worried about all this polling stuff, because up until the debates are over, it really doesn't matter. Bush cleaned Gore's clock in the debates, as far as I'm concerned. I think he'll do it again this time. Time will tell, of course...
And I believe this is where the election will turn in Bush's favor. No ads, no baloney, just the issues. And really, the flip flop thing will really start to bite Kerry. He just has no solid ground on which he has stood. I'm sure the guy could be an eloquent speaker, but he comes across as an elitist, and that isn't going to fly with voters in the end, I don't think...I've never been really worried about all this polling stuff, because up until the debates are over, it really doesn't matter. Bush cleaned Gore's clock in the debates, as far as I'm concerned. I think he'll do it again this time. Time will tell, of course...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
That'w why I said what I said. Kerry is a classic Northern intellectual liberal. And I've got nothing against that at all. But this country doesn't put classic Northern intellectual liberal in the White House. Since 1950, seven northern liberal democrats have run in the general election. They all lost but for JFK, and he just squeaked by in 1960, and a big part of that was that Nixon forgot to get makeup for the TV debate.tealboy03 wrote:but he (Kerry) comes across as an elitist, and that isn't going to fly with voters in the end.
Only winning one out of seven tells me that this country isn't predisposed to northern liberal democrats.
It just amazes me that people expect this election to still be a landslide one way or the other. If Bush wins, it will be because whatever measly undecided people there are decide to vote for him, but just like in 2000, it won't ever be clear that it will be because Kerry is a flip flopper or an elitist.
Every time a bounce has been expected in this race, nothing has made an impact. I don't see that changing anytime soon. It will be a close race, but Kerry has been leading for quite a while now with no signs of Bush being able to take control.
Every time a bounce has been expected in this race, nothing has made an impact. I don't see that changing anytime soon. It will be a close race, but Kerry has been leading for quite a while now with no signs of Bush being able to take control.
"Every time a bounce has been expected in this race, nothing has made an impact."
Bush hasn't begun doing anything to receive a bounce on. No running mate to appoint, and the RNC hasn't happened. Kerry announced Edwards- no bounce. The DNC- no bounce. In fact, Bush gained ground after the DNC. We'll see which way the ball bounces after the RNC and the debates...
Bush hasn't begun doing anything to receive a bounce on. No running mate to appoint, and the RNC hasn't happened. Kerry announced Edwards- no bounce. The DNC- no bounce. In fact, Bush gained ground after the DNC. We'll see which way the ball bounces after the RNC and the debates...
www.trailheadoutfitters.org
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
trailheadoutfitters.wordpress.com
facebook.com/Intentional.Fatherhood
Well, and Nixon didn't have Mayor Daley in his pocket either!RiverRat wrote:That'w why I said what I said. Kerry is a classic Northern intellectual liberal. And I've got nothing against that at all. But this country doesn't put classic Northern intellectual liberal in the White House. Since 1950, seven northern liberal democrats have run in the general election. They all lost but for JFK, and he just squeaked by in 1960, and a big part of that was that Nixon forgot to get makeup for the TV debate.tealboy03 wrote:but he (Kerry) comes across as an elitist, and that isn't going to fly with voters in the end.
Only winning one out of seven tells me that this country isn't predisposed to northern liberal democrats.
I saw Kerry on The Daily Show last night. While he did the usual politician thing in parts, reciting his usual points about jobs, health care, and Iraq, he actually seemed relaxed and more human, for lack of a better word. Maybe John Stewart just has that effect on people. But Kerry also said one very interesting thing:
George W. Bush has never lost a debate.
Hard to believe considering the President will never be mistaken for a master debater or a cunning linguist. But I think that works to his advantage. A lot of people can see themselves in George W. Bush.
Maybe that's my problem. I can see myself in Bush, and I think, "what the !@#$ am I doing running the country!"
I didn't say it would be a landslide. I just said I would be very surprised if Kerry won. That opinion is quite apart from who I actually would vote for as I am still, at this point, one of the "measly undecided people".Parker wrote:It just amazes me that people expect this election to still be a landslide one way or the other. If Bush wins, it will be because whatever measly undecided people there are decide to vote for him, but just like in 2000, it won't ever be clear that it will be because Kerry is a flip flopper or an elitist.