A search for the word “Cambodia” in The New York Times this morning came up empty. In other words, it is not news to the putative newspaper of record that a man currently running for the most powerful position on Earth quite probably lied on the floor of the US Senate (and other places) about having been at war in that country.
I found no results for that word at the Washington Post either. So it goes.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
114 Comments
1. ter0:Maybe they need an analogy.
Bush Comes Clean on AWOL: Secret Mission for Texas Air National Guard in Cuba
Lileks, priceless.
Aug 11, 2004 - 6:18 am 2. John Mendenhall:I just wish things weren’t the way they are with the media.
From Tony Blankley in today’s Washington Times regarding the Swiftboat veterans’ book (the paper that seems to notice things the others don’t):
“The book has the ring of sincerity to it, and the mark of careful research and writing. If they are not telling the truth, all these men have exposed themselves to financially ruinous libel actions by Mr. Kerry ó who has the private resources to prosecute such actions. Even as a public figure, he might well win such an action, if this book is the pack of lies the Kerry camp says it is.
††††
If it is not a pack of lies, the nation needs to know that, too. I would encourage some of the major voices of the non-conservative mainline media ó Tim Russert, Dan Rather, Leonard Downie Jr. of The Washington Post ó to do as I did. Spend an evening reading the book. If they are not struck by the damning picture it paints of John Kerry and the credibility of the presentation, forget about it. But if they judge it as I did, then let their consciences be their guide.”
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:04 am 3. Charlie (Colorado):“But if they judge it as I did, then let their consciences be their guide.”
What is it about that advice that strikes me as funny?
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:10 am 4. Knucklehead:Is any major outlet in the MSM even covering this (by way of Donald Sensing through Instapundit):
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=42011
The MSM will not even call Kerry on easily discovered “fibs”, what makes anyone believe they will call him on the Big Lies upon which he’s built his political career?
BTW, if Bush were to get up at the RNC and deliver a Republican version of a story similar to the one linked to above, what would the MSM have to say? If he got up and told a story about Maryann Bowles who was able to take all the sick leave she needed to fight breast cancer without losing her health insurance and, thankfully, her unemployed husband was collecting extended UI benefits and now Maryann was in remission and her husband was back to work due to the Bush Economic Boom, and some bit of that turned out to be untrue (say, Hubby’s extended UI benefits ran out 2 weeks before the cancer treatment ended and he was making 15% less at his new job than he was at the job he lost), would the NYT or WaPo just let that pass?
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:22 am 5. Knucklehead:I suppose this isn’t simply an issue of the MSM and may be an issue of “the left”. Wretchard does yet another good job of recognizing the beast:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:35 am 6. jerry:John:
We are in the post-modern era where people get to write their own narrative. Witness several debunked autobiographies that when exposed produced the defense that the actual facts are unimportant but the narrative story has value. (Edward Said and Rigoberta Menchu Tum come to mind). Kerry’s Vietnam narrative has important value to the Democrats and their supporters in MSM, i.e., Kerry’s Vietnam experience singularly make him better qualified for the Commander Chief role during the GWOT. It is futile for Republicans to bring up the facts of matter because Democrats and the MSM have established Kerryís narrative as a truth with the wider population. We are engaged in PR battle that we cannot win. Hate to sound pessimistic but this game is over.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:41 am 7. Knucklehead:John,
Thanks for the pointer to Blankley’s article. Here’s a link for anyone else interested:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040810-100236-4377r.htm
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:53 am 8. John Lynch:An American Thinker article today.
Fox news, late night and this morning had O’Neill on. They gave him a chance to state his points, something previous interviews haven’t. Then a Kerry campaign lawyer type tries to rebut with “the men closest to Kerry know better” – a variation of “they weren’t on the boat.”
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:56 am 9. Steven Smith:One reason serious newspapers aren’t covering this story is that there is no story. Kerry either was in Cambodia at the time in question, or he was close enough for government work, a point that he makes in his battlefield journal. One relies on the “official” records of the government at one’s peril.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:11 am 10. jerry:Mr. Smith:
No, the correct formulation was that he was either in Cambodia or he wasn’t. Near Cambodia is the exact opposite in in Cambodia, i.e., he was in Vietnam. There is nothing secret about being near Cambodia, nor was illegal or part of a conspiracy to be in Cambodia. Equating near with in is more the sophistry it is idiocy. By your logic I was “in” North Korea last February because I was near North Korea in February. You know can’t trust those official travel records.
John Kerry used the ìinî formulation in speech giving support to an anti-Semitic, Communist dictator on the Senate floor. He added it to his narrative to show how was as opposed to Reaganís ìsecret warî against a communist dictator in 1986 as he was to Nixonís secret war against a communist regime in 1968. Oops, Nixon wasnít President in 68 was he?
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:20 am 11. John Lynch:The New York Daily, not exactly the Times has an article.
This is like water flowing downhill. Sooner or later there will be enough cracks in the MSM dam (damn?) that it will come through.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:24 am 12. Knucklehead:Stephen Smith,
You don’t really believe Kerry can escape his claims that he ran guns into Cambodia and ferried CIA operatives into Cambodia and was fired on, IN CAMBODIA, by North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese and CAMBODIANS by suddenlty trying to tell the world he meant “near” Cambodia, do you?
How pathetic.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:34 am 13. RogerA:Mr. Smith–do you actually believe what you wrote? Is that your standard of honesty? sad.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:39 am 14. penwil:NRO’s the Corner quotes a poll this morning taken in 19 battleground states:
Nearly 6 in 10 likely voters claim that they that they recently saw, read or heard something about the TV ad ìSwift Boat Veterans for Truthî released and began airing in several key battleground states questioning the truthfulness of Senator Kerryís Vietnam War record. Among those who claimed to have seen, read or heard something about the ad, a majority overall and among undecided voters said it would not impact their vote either way. However to the extent it did impact voting intentions, it was a negative for Sen. Kerry by as much as nearly a 3 to 1 margin.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:43 am 15. Kevin P:Mr. Smith:
There is a story, the MSM just doesn’t want to deal with it and they won’t. If you have not done this already go thru the previous threads and re-read what Kerry claimed he did. Before this began he was not saying he was near Cambodia. He said he was in Cambodia and he was assisting the CIA in covert activities. He said this from the Senate floor. He said this in numerous articles even as late as 2003. Whatever gravity you decide to give this story is your business. But how can you look at the FACTS and not come to the conclusion that Kerry is spreading a very big lie. This is not bragging in a bar about the big fish he caught. We have all done that. He has been boosting up his resume as a citizen soldier. He served in Vietnam and that is enough for most people to earn their respect. But Mr Kerry felt some need to create a image of some sort of Rambo/ spy master legend and his amateur novel writing attempts have caught up to him.
As far as the MSM reporting on this you can all give it up. Eventually they will fold it into some anti-Bush screed and that will be at the tail end of the story. They will coach it with terms like questionable or some republican attack machine operatives are claiming but they will never actually report on it themselves. They will report any dirt the “Bimbo eruption” teams from the Clinton era dig up on the Swifties themselves. This is the only angle they will cover this story on.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:54 am 16. Knucklehead:Steven Smith:
Maybe you should tell your man to go here:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/milrecords.htm
and learn how to go about clearing up any unresolved issues concerning his military service.
Aug 11, 2004 - 8:57 am 17. Roberts:It is funny to see the trolls hit this wall and bounce off dazed.
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:04 am 18. Tom Grey:Kerry Lied, 2 Million Died
Nice bumper sticker, no? Or a protest sign at EVERY Kerry event.
CAMBODIA is the important, UNFINISHED business
of America after Vietnam.
REAL alternatives are the issue; in Iraq, Iran, Sudan today.
In SE Asia from 1968-1978.
Killing innocents to stop evil is the moral problem.
The anti-Vietnam War Left, in America, and the EU, have totally failed to look at the two
real alternatives, and the one they “really” chose.
1) Stay and fight and die (draftees!) and kill bad guys AND some innocents?
2) Leave, stop dying (good!) let evil commies win, and accept the Killing Fields.
Kerry advised (2), Nixon cut and ran, and Pol Pot, the kind of evil commie the US was fighting against, committed genocide in Cambodia (little complaint by Ford or Carter in 76-77).
If you ask any anti-Vietnam War protester: “did you support the commies winning in Vietnam?” — they’ll say NO!
But they are, in “reality”, lying. This is the BIG LIE at the heart of Bush-hate.
Opposition to war in Iraq IS “really” support for Saddam.
Kerry’s Important Lie was that the US leaving SE Asia was “good”.
The ìMoral Superiorityî of the Left is based on the assumed fact that being against the US war in Vietnam is the morally superior position ñ that the US fighting evil commies in SE Asia was wrong/ evil.
Is genocide worth fighting against? Worth dying for, worth killing for?
Gandhi said no. Is that really the morally superior answer?
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1092246736#322590
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:16 am 19. MeTooThen:Tom Grey
Wow.
Here lies the essence of the collapse the Left in their post-moral, post-modern confusion.
They hate BusHitler now the way they wanted the VC to win then. And in each case they are blinded by their own narcissistic Utopian fantasies and their hatred of America.
Yes, Kerry lied and millions died.
Say it again.
And again.
And again.
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:33 am 20. MeTooThen:One more thing.
The “Christmas in Cambodia” story will be ignored by the MSM until Kerry gets his story straight.
At which time, the attacks against O’Neill and the other SwiftVets will be in full gear.
I fear this latest outrage of John Forbes Kerry will be a non-story and non-event.
I despair.
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:37 am 21. MustWarnOthers:I think we should have a contest to predict how the Times will cover this story if and when they’re forced to do so.
I predict a variation on the Sandy Berger pattern. First the Times waited an extra day or two. Then a story appeared about Justice Dept. “leaks” impugning Berger, with plenty of quotes from Democrats shocked – absolutely shocked – at the administration’s unethical behavior. There was an editorial the next day suggesting that both sides have explaining to do. No further coverage since then.
Here’s how the SwiftBoats story will play out: The Times will eventually run with a story questioning the credibility of the SwiftBoats veterans and quoting Democrats outraged that Bush hasn’t disassociated himself from them. The actual charges won’t be disclosed until after the jump and won’t get more than a paragraph or two before being implicitly dismissed as not credible and not the real story.
Living in New York and reading the Times, you get good at this. Since most educated New Yorkers don’t read anything else, they see the world like that famous New Yorker cover, with stories like SwiftBoat just momentary specks on the horizon.
Any other ideas on how the Times will respond?
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:50 am 22. Stan:Steven Smith re: “no story”
The point here is:
Kerry raised the Cambodia episode as a key piece of evidence in his statement on the floor of the Senate: using it to as evidence – personal experience of covert / unauthorized military activities on behalf of the NIXON administration as the danger of supporting the Contras…
Noting that the Khymer Rouge were not an identifiable military unit in 1968, Nixon was not President and his statement makes NO sense if he was just “near” Cambodia rather than in it.
The importance is: would Kerry now stipulate that he clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he was addressing the Senate on an issue of significant foreign policy? And the obvious follow-on: How many other times was this the case?
Smith and the MSM want this to just go away otherwise Kerry’s 20 years in the Senate as well as his short Viet Nam experience, upon which his candicacy rests is shown as extremely flimsy.
And the answer is…. silence…
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:59 am 23. Mark Poling:Shorter Steven Smith:
Character counts, unless it works agains my guy.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:02 am 24. WichitaBoy:jerry and MeTooThen
Quit despairing. It’s not that bad. It’s not bad at all.
I’ve been quite surprised to talk to some Democrats in my family lately. Even my yellow-dog Democrat mother has ceased to complain about Republicans and started to complain about politicians instead. Sure, there are lots of fanatics and fools out there, but there are a lot of middle-of-the-road Democratic or independent voters out there who haven’t completely lost their minds. The more they see of Kerry the less they like him. This will have an effect on the election, regardless of whether the Cambodia story gets out, whether the Swift Boats stories get out, or whether the NYT plays the story.
The more examination of Kerry that occurs, the more there are going to be people who stay home altogether and people who very quietly walk into the voting booth and pull the Republican lever.
John Kerry represents America about as much as does Jacques Chirac. That’s starting to come through.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:15 am 25. mrp:ABC News’ echo chamber ‘The Note’ bangs the drum loudly for John Kerry.
Excerpt:
Forget the fact that that we still can’t find a single American who voted for Al Gore in 2000 who is planning to vote for George Bush in 2004. (If you are that elusive figure, e-mail us and tell us who you are and why …
And they wonder why MSM broadcast news ratings are tanking.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:36 am 26. Syl:I’m waiting to see the New York Times, on the front page, give us this headline:
“John Kerry ordered machine-gunning of small animals”
Well, somebody out there ought to do it.
Aug 11, 2004 - 11:34 am 27. Pat Curley:It’s easy to guess how the Times will play this. They’ll have a long article about how the Swift Boat Vets ad shows how despite the best efforts of reformers, money still hasn’t quite been squeezed out of the system, and that it shows the need for more campaign finance restrictions. They’ll discuss the he said/she said nature of the medals charges. And in the 27th paragraph they’ll mention that there is a minor controversy with the Swiftees claiming that Kerry had once said that he was in Cambodia, but that the Kerry campaign when contacted insists that Kerry was only near Cambodia.
It’s exactly how they buried the revelation that Kerry attended a meeting of the VVAW where the assassination of US Senators was proposed.
Aug 11, 2004 - 11:54 am 28. Bravo Romeo Delta:Stephen Smith’s comment re-written for use circa 1998.
One reason serious newspapers aren’t covering this story is that there is no story. Bill’s penis either was in Monica at the time in question, or he was close enough for government work, a point that he fails to make in his apology. One relies on the sworn testimony of a sitting president at one’s peril.
Aug 11, 2004 - 12:11 pm 29. Knucklehead:For those who haven’t seen this at Instapundit
http://instapundit.com/
It seems that over the years there wasn’t much shortage of MSM willingness to help Kerry tell his Cambodia story but now they seem unwilling to have another look. BTW, this one actually contains Apocalyps Now references.
Aug 11, 2004 - 12:21 pm 30. PeterArgus:Afeka:
The media would be “irresponsible to help Bush in any way.” Well that about sums it up. It is definitely the job of the MSM to be house organ for the DNC.
As to whether Vietnam is irrelevant. I would have voted for that one 12 months ago before Kerry made it the centerpiece of his campaign.
Aug 11, 2004 - 12:24 pm 31. Fresh Air:Wichita–
You have a point. A good friend of mine is a lifelong Democrat and a Vietnam vet. I asked him who he was voting for. He said, “I can’t vote for Kerry. He’s an asshole. But I can’t vote for Bush, either. So I’ll probably vote for Nader.”
Aug 11, 2004 - 12:35 pm 32. Kevin P:Pat;
I think your post is right on the mark. because the NY Times is pompous and self rightous there are two other angles they will use to write about the cambodia story. The first would be a story about the influence of the blogs in this election. They will describe the “heated” atmoshere of the blogs along with some of the more ridiculous rumours that have appeared in various blogs. Then they will mention the Cambodia story, thus tarring it with sex rumours or conspiracy plots. They won’t actually discuss the facts of the story because they are so obvious. then they can claim that they reported on the story without actually doing it.
Another possible angle is a story on the divisive nature of this campaign. They can toss in the Bush- Hitler slanders to give the appearance of being bi-partisan and go back to the “Hunting of the President” story and include the Clinton is a murderer crap, thus they can prep their readers that the Cambodia story is just another Blog fantasy. This angle allows them to infer that Bush is devisive , another favorite chestnut of the Times.
Both of these scenario’s allows the Times to pretend that they are covering the story and also slam the blogs as lowly trogs that can’t match the old gray ladies high journalistic standards. The massive Ego of this paper is amazing. “All the News thats Fit to Print” has evolved from a goal to shoot for into a dogmatic belief that anything that doesn’t originate from their fingers is unworthy of consideration.
Aug 11, 2004 - 12:38 pm 33. sammy small:The bias of the MSM towards the Bush administration is scary. They are effectively a cartel attempting to influence the course of the forthcoming election. Of course, that’s what the MSM has always done, but never in lockstep as it is now. The lone source out of step (Fox News) is constantly blasted as biased by the left, and they are just cable news. The non-MSM sources such as blogs and talk radio are put down as irrevelant. Lets not rock the left leaning boat. It might spoil the utopian dream.
Alternative voices must continue to try to get attention. People are getting more sophisticated in their understanding of spin. Facts matter, at least to people with open minds. I hope my donation to the Swifties will help spread their words to the masses watching the MSM news.
Aug 11, 2004 - 12:41 pm 34. PeterUK:Syl
Kerry is a Chicken Shooter.
Aug 11, 2004 - 1:16 pm 35. Rick Ballard:Sammy,
Until Kerry gives a clear answer the story will continue to simmer. MSM/DNC propagandists can ignore it but 60% of the respondents in a battleground poll have heard of the ad and among undecideds it had a 3 to 1 negative effect. How did 60% hear of it if the MSM didn’t cover it?
Fox
Drive time radio
Washington Times
NY Post
NRO
Bloggers
Lucianne
Drudge
Telegragh(UK)
Manchester Union Leader
Now 60% isn’t as good as 100% but then again, unless Kerry offers a convincing rebuttal the story just keeps simmering. Pretty soon the story from these outlets is going to become: “Why can’t Kerry respond?” and “What else does he have to hide?”. Absent an explanation or rebuttal the story will just keep nibbling at him. I still think that the WSJ is going to come in with an editorial but I sure can’t figure out when that will be.
That battleground poll would be worrisome to me if I were in Kerry’s campaign.
Aug 11, 2004 - 1:17 pm 36. Rick Ballard:One other thing Sammy, buy the book, read it, then give it to an acquaintance. Can’t hurt.
Aug 11, 2004 - 1:19 pm 37. jerry:Rick:
The 3:1 ratio doesn’t mean all the undecides. If I read the article correctly it said that among those who thought it important it had a 3:1 hurt/help ratio. As I understand it, very few voters thought it mattered
Aug 11, 2004 - 1:31 pm 38. SallyVee:I have a personal goal to mention FORM #180 as many times as John Kerry has mentioned Vietnam (please pray for continued stamina).
Wondering what Form 180 is? Please go:
SwiftVets.com
–> Swift Veterans FAQ
–> Go to FAQ #9 – click blue text “Form 180″
I predict some enterprising citizen journalist will soon show up at a Kerry campaign stop with pen & form ready to sign… and politely ask the question: Senator Kerry, will you please sign Form 180 to release your complete military record so that questions and allegations about your service can be put to rest?
Aug 11, 2004 - 1:58 pm 39. Syl:Jerry
I think you’re depressed.
Almost 60% had heard of or seen the add. Of those 50.8% (half) said it didn’t matter. For the ones that mattered it was unfavorable to kerry. 3 to 1 threeway, a bit less 2-way.
So, basically, for 30% of likely voters polled the ad mattered enough to tilt their vote and that broke negative for Kerry. I don’t know where decided/undecided fit in there though.
Peter
LOL! I prefer ChickenSh*tter
Yeah, I said that.
Aug 11, 2004 - 2:01 pm 40. WichitaBoy:sammy small wrote: Facts matter, at least to people with open minds.
I think this statement really goes to the heart of the matter. Do facts matter or don’t they? Is narrative all that matters or must we sometimes pay attention to pesky reality after all?
On the one hand, we have what is really a new religion, although it’s supplicants are loath to admit that. This religion has certain well-defined characteristics, e.g., belief in the redeeming quality of government, regardless of the facts, belief in the spiritual value of telling other people what to do, the belief that politics is the highest calling of mankind, as opposed to, say, scholarship, belief in the sanctity of the canonical belief system, so that anyone who disagrees on a single point is a heretic and must be condemned, etc. This new religion, a sort of secular Christianity which is not Socialism exactly, but closely related, believes that it must extinguish the older religions, Christianity and Judaism. That is why there is such a push to remove the cross from the secular symbols, That is why there is the flirtation with anti-Semitism.
And on the other hand we have those folks who are still committed to reality as it really is, as opposed to how we would like it to be. The people for whom “water still flows downhill”.
In the new religion, there is no possibility of war because war is demonstrably evil. Therefore it has been ruled out by fiat and the problem consists only of those people who continue to insist on the practice of war. They need to be reeducated. All that is necessary is to label these people with the “bad” rubric so that people will know to avoid them and their heretical ideas, allowing us to move on with the construction of the new narrative. That’s why we call them “conservatives”. That’s why we become bitter when a former champion of the new religion goes wobbly on an important issue like the War on Jihadism.
The NYT is simply the house organ of the new religion. It’s a marvelous house organ, but the sooner we recognize its true nature and quit taking it seriously, the better. The NYT is Pravda on the Hudson. It gives the party line, simple as that. So what?
Aug 11, 2004 - 2:04 pm 41. Rick Ballard:Jerry,
The poll question was:
ìAnd did what you saw, read or heard make you MORE likely or LESS likely to vote for John Kerry for President? If it didnít impact how you would vote, just say so.î
The exact split was (based on the combined 2 way and 3 way response):
More likely 10%
No impact 54%
Less Likely 27%
DK/Refused 9%
Actually, a 27% less likely response is very high. There are very, very few ads that affect 1 in 4 voters. Typically ads ring the “No impact” bell a lot harder than 54%.
Aug 11, 2004 - 2:10 pm 42. Knucklehead:Well, somebody has finally put together a list of all the Kerry in Cambodia references:
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003299.php
just in time to try the “it was just a mistake” defence:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4771
Aug 11, 2004 - 2:21 pm 43. Stan:The follow-up to the “just a mistake” meme:
1) when and where was the “record” corrected?
2) when and under what auspices was he in Cambodia subsequent to Dec 24 1968?
and my favorite….. Since Nixon was not President, since he was “near” not in Cambodia he had no personal knowledge the US engaged in illegal military activity at that time, since the Khymer Rouge was next to non-existent as military force in 1968 – not until 1970 actually significant he made them up, then:
3) Does Sen Kerry now stipulate that when he was addressing the Senate regarding US policy in Central America (1986) he didn’t know what he was talking about and should have shut-up and sat down?
Simple questions…
Aug 11, 2004 - 2:52 pm 44. Charlie (Colorado):It may not be all that easy for the MSM to ignore this one (from Power Line):
Aug 11, 2004 - 2:57 pm 45. Charlie (Colorado):3) Does Sen Kerry now stipulate that when he was addressing the Senate regarding US policy in Central America (1986) he didn’t know what he was talking about and should have shut-up and sat down?
You’ve been listening to Prime Minister’s Question Time again, haven’t you?
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:00 pm 46. PeterArgus:From the 2nd link in Knucklehead’s post we have this priceless quote from Kerry spokesman:
“I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.”
Apparently the Kerryspeak disease is contagious. I suspect that the argument will eventually go that since we are made of stars (apologies Moby – well he said we should post on VRWC sites or something like that) some of that stardust no doubt visited in Cambodia.
One small correction to Rick’s post. The question
ìAnd did what you saw, read or heard make you MORE likely or LESS likely to vote for John Kerry for President? If it didnít impact how you would vote, just say so.î was asked only of those who were aware of the ad (about 50%).
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:05 pm 47. PeterUK:Anagram of John Forbes Kerry- Onshore Jerk Fry.
OK so there is no B but it is near enough to Cambodia.
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:15 pm 48. Rick Ballard:Thanks, PeterArgus, now I understand what Jerry was talking about. I read right past the explanation twice. OTOH – how can the effect of an unseen ad be measured?
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:19 pm 49. Stan:Charlie,
Actually no, re: PM’s Question Time… but I would love to get a response none-the-less.
Now it’s morphing – Kerry’s campaign admits the “date” was wrong but the substance remains – just can’t document it… ok…it continues…
We need to get a clear admission here but there is more, much more in Kerry’s record – going on to Winter Soldier…
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:28 pm 50. Katherine:Wichita, you are right on the money. It is a new religion. I would say that in addition to the to attributes that you list, adherents of this creed are convinced that their beliefs also allow them to attain the status of nobility of spirit. It is a bit like conviction of Roman Catholics in the past, that they and only they would be saved ñ all other branches of Christianity, not to mention the ìheathenî, were supposed to be confined to the fires of eternal death.
Today, anybody who questions the tenants of ìliberalismî is classified as a sub-human who is mean-spirited, selfish, uninformed and mentally underdeveloped. In short a fascist, or a Nazi, deserving the utter condemnation.
Has anyone of you read books by Steven Pinker ìHow the Mind Worksî and ìThe Blank Slateî? I highly recommend both of them, Pinker (professor at MIT) has the best take on evolution of human nature, and he slaughters the Social Scientists peddling the ìfeelñgood picture of human natureî in rigorous, scientific way. Joy to behold.
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:29 pm 51. Katherine:“I believe he has corrected the record to say it was some place near Cambodia he is not certain whether it was in Cambodia but he is certain there was some point subsequent to that that he was in Cambodia.”
So, how do we square it with his speech on the Senate floor?
Catherineís version from yesterday remains quite valid, to recall:
ìMr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting in a gunboat near, but not in, Cambodia.
I have that memory which is seared–seared–into me, that says to me, before we send another generation near, but not into, harm’s way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid that kind of conflict, the kind where you’re near, but not in, Cambodia, or Iraq, or perhaps Iran, or possibly some place else altogether. Because that kind of thing will sear you.î
Aug 11, 2004 - 3:36 pm 52. M. Simon:Why did Kerry run on his Vietnam record?
Because sleeping in the Senate doesn’t sound near as good as shooting a man in the back.
=====================================
BTW Katherine – I am in the mid-West and as they say between assignments. I do hardware and bare metal software – drivers etc. If I can help your husband by e-mail and snail mail I could use something to do. I have Naval Nuclear Power, Aerospace, Industrial and Consumer experience.
====================================
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 11, 2004 - 4:51 pm 53. Charlie (Colorado):So, how do we square it with his speech on the Senate floor?
We can’t, of course. But that statement is no longer operative.
Gads, that sounds familiar.
Aug 11, 2004 - 4:53 pm 54. M. Simon:Katherine,
Books on monkey politics are good too.
Right now we are doing the alpha male struggle.
In the old days being on the losing side could mean death. That is why it gets so hysterical and unreasoned.
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 11, 2004 - 4:56 pm 55. Brian:The bias of the MSM towards the Bush administration is scary. They are effectively a cartel attempting to influence the course of the forthcoming election.
They’re like the Praetorian Guard in Dockers!
Remember what Reynolds said:
“Evan Thomas famously told us that the press wants Kerry to win, and added ‘They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there’s going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.’ That’s enough to swing almost any presidential election, and — if it’s right — it raises the question of whether we can have an established press, and democracy, at the same time.”
Aug 11, 2004 - 5:12 pm 56. richard mcenroe:Funny thing. We still haven’t heard a word from Edwards about this, have we? Not a peep of “I know my man and I support him 100%…”
What did John Edwards know and when did he know it?
Release the records!
Aug 11, 2004 - 5:22 pm 57. M. Simon:John Kerry is proud of his military service. In 1971 before Congress he claimed he comitted war crimes. But hey, I can understand his pride. Not every one gets the opportunities he had.
Form 180. Release tthe Records.
Aug 11, 2004 - 5:45 pm 58. Pat Curley:Kerry will say that he corrected the record with Brinkley’s Tour of Duty. Which would be pretty ironic because the fact that the story did not appear in ToD was why I got suspicious in the first place. Note as well, that the Swiftees included that point in their footnotes.
Aug 11, 2004 - 5:47 pm 59. Terrye:Wichita:
I would agree. It is a religion. Pacifism and multilateralism and it would work if only people like us would all just go away.
Unless of course some crazy heathens try to kill them in which case they will allow us to risk life and limb to save their asses.
Like all forms of faith this new religion requires that reason be subjugated to blind faith. Secular piety is a rigid and unforgiving discipline. Instead of self flagellation there is self hatred.
Kerry is useful to them because he has sinned [in Viet Nam] and then seen the light. Like a whore that repents her sins he stood on the Senate floor and spoke of how the memory was seared in him.
But there was no memory, only a story.
It is just like Jimmy Swaggart in the motel room all over again.
damn the luck.
Aug 11, 2004 - 5:56 pm 60. Kevin P:Roger:
Now that Kerry has admitted that what the swifties said about Cambodia is true here is a press conference I would like to see-
Kerry Spokesman- The Book “Unfit for Command” is nothing but a pack of lies written by arepublican political hacks.
Press- Well they seem to be accurate about Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia fable.
KS- Accurate is a very nuanced word. Since they were right about it not happening on Christmas but wrong about it happening at all it is still accurate to call them liars.
P- So you are saying that these 250 Vietnam veterans are all liars?
KS- Yes and they are Republicans so that is my proof.
P- Now Senator Kerry was quite specific about that Christmas, he said it was seared into his memorie.
KS- Seared is a very nuanced word. It’s like when you order your steak medium rare, at some restaurants it comes back very red and bloody, at other restaurants it comes back pink, there are multiple definitions to the word seared.
P- But he remebered the South Vietnames soldiers being drunk from celebrating Christmas.
KS- We have found on further research that the SV’s were drunk all the time so it could have been at any time during his 4 month service.
P- regarding the 30 year old hat that he carries, We have heard stories that the soldier was a navy seal and others that state that he was CIA, which was he?
KS- He was a Seal and a CIA agent.
P- So you know his name then and can he back up Kerry’s claim?
KS- During the searing process the Magic hats owners name has escaped Sen. Kerry’s steal trap mind. Plus we think he died in Cambodia, or maybe Laos. It’s so waterey over there it’s hard to tell
P- Considering the recent confusion over Kerry’s service in Vietnam, should the Senator release all his records as President Bush did so the truth about the story can be fully investigated?
KS- No.
P- How come?
KS- Because.
P- Because why?
KS- Because Bush is a Republican and the are known to be liars, while all Democrats are true Patriots. The conference is over. Pow.
Aug 11, 2004 - 6:07 pm 61. PeterUK:This should not be a question of,”What did you do in the War Daddy”, rather what are you going to do with this war if you get your hands on it?
So far Senator Kerry has not produced any substantive policies,nor does he give cause to believe that he will not repeat history and cut and run.
Such action will be considered a defeat by al Qaeda,the Iranian Mullahs and the whole Islamic world.I doubt that western forces could get back to the advantageous position occupied now, at least in a time scale measured in decades.
I am appalled that half the worlds political elite cannot see that this is an end game and part of the Third World revolution that has been tearing at the affluent West since the Russian Revolution.
My parents were born in the First World War,I was born in the Second,this war will not be finished in my lifetime.
Aug 11, 2004 - 6:30 pm 62. ambisinistral:I think this is a story that is going to patiently chip away at Kerry. All of it, the Christmas in Apocalypse Now, rice wounds in his butt, confessing to war crimes, and saluting the convention — chip, chip, chip. To somebody not a zealot from either side, to a swing voter, it has to have vaguely goofy air about it. I think his critics need to keep bringing it up to let the air of goofiness grow.
Thinking about Kerry’s convention speech… the first impression of the oddity of it that struck me was his dwelling on four months in Vietnam. A whole public life, as a Senator no less, ignored to dwell on four months as a youth in a thirty year old war. Well, he had to do it to dispel his dovish image, but it was still quite unsettling.
Thinking back to that speech today I realize that, for all his talk about understanding war because of his combat, he offered no empathy towards today’s younsters fighting in today’s war. There was a platitude or two, but no hint of compassion for the burdens, loneliness and suffering they were bearing today to defend us. Instead, his introduction to his campaign was Vietnam reunion with his Band of Brothers, and today’s soldiers, sailors and airman nowhere to be seen.
I don’t think much of Bush’s speaking, but I believe he will, very early in his speech, express much more concern and understanding for the men and women who stand in Harm’s Way on today’s battlefields in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
That is where Kerry’s self-absorbed goofiness is liable to finally begin to come into focus. This is not a story that has a smoking gun, it is an illumination of a pattern of behaviors and attitudes. Kerry cares about his own glory and his own 30 year old war. Bush cares about today’s war.
Aug 11, 2004 - 6:50 pm 63. Terrye:Peter:
You have made a point that more Americans need to making: We don’t know what will Kerry do.
He is evasive. He is inconsistent. People are forced to try and figure it out for themselves. The Democratic National Convention was supposed to answer these questions, but we are wondering.
Will he cut and run? Will he make deals with the devil[s]?
Hell if I know, but I know who the terrorists are hoping will win and it ain’t Bush.
People just want all this bad stuff to go away. But I am afraid that there are people in this world who are not going to oblige our fantasies in that regard no matter how we try to appease them.
Aug 11, 2004 - 6:52 pm 64. Terrye:ambi:
I agree. Today the president told a young woman whose husband is in Iraq to give him a message. He said tell him the Commander in Chief appreciates his service.
Bush always makes a point of showing respect to the young people in harm’s way.
I think this last four years has aged him and I think it is the loss of these young people, the danger they face and his part in that which weighs on him. I don’t know if I could do it. I don’t know if I could give that order.
People ask if I would sacrifice my son for Fallujah. Well you know what? I don’t have a son.
But my Dad and my uncles and a lot of other people in my family have taken these risks and nobody ever ask their mothers and fathers if they would sacrifice them for the American Revolution or the War of 1812 or Antietam or Gettysburg or Iwo Jima or Guada Canal or Okinawa or Northern Africa or France or Korea or Viet Nam or Kosovo or Iraq or where ever they got sent to. All their mothers could do was pray for them.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:07 pm 65. Rick Ballard:ambisinistral,
To pick up on your point, there are probably ore than 5,000 (swag) vets of the current war who have completed their contracts and returned to civilian status since April 9, 2003.
Where were any of them at the Dem convention? Hell, Tommy Franks wasn’t even asked to speak (or appear). I’ll admit there was quite a bit of retired brass up on the stage at one point but I don’t recall any regular marines, soldiers, airmen or sailors being talked about. No recent medal winners to take the shine off of Lt. Kerry’s report for duty. What an absolute fraud of a man. Of course, I didn’t watch the whole convention so I might have missed the tribute to recent fighters. Feel free to correct me if I did.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:18 pm 66. Kevin P:Terrye:
It is very difficult to figure out what Kerry will do by what he says. His goal is to bring the bulk of our soldiers home by the end of his first year,yet he will send more troops to iraq if the army asks for them, he will get the french and the germans to take our place even though they are sending billboard size signals that they have no intention of sending a carrier pigeon let alone their own soldiers. But you can be certain of this, he will pull out whether Allawi and the iraqi government is ready to take over or not.
He won’t say it and neither will his party, but he is being elected to get out of Dodge ASAP. if he trys to stay his party will abandon him. He has no stomach for it and he thinks the war was a mistake to begin with. If he pulls out he can always blame the inevitable disaster on Bush. If he stays in half of his party will ditch him and he will get creamed in the mid-terms. He sees this just like Vietnam. He feels that if we pull out like we did in Vietnam at least half the country will not care what happens in Iraq and he is holding on to the hope that the terrorists will reward him by leaving us alone during his term, and that is all he cares about. The fact that this will inspire the terrorists to strike at a wounded old lion even more is beyond his imagination.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:20 pm 67. PeterUK:Terrye,
Why take the risk? The man has a record of quitting and I am concerned that at some future date your troops and ours will be handed over to some international tribunal to appease the Middle East,the French and the UN.He has done it before,anyone with kin in the armed forces would be mad to vote for Kerry.
Make Your Kid a War Criminal,vote Kerry!
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:22 pm 68. sammy small:I saw in a recent post that some poll showed that around 40% of the active duty military supported Kerry. I was stunned. Without knowing how the poll phrased its questions, its hard to buy that statistic at face value. I’m surprised that anyone on duty would support Kerry since he has voted against nearly every new weapon system which is in use today to gain an edge over our enemies. What a great idea. Have an all volunteer military but make them use 1960’s technology. That kind of says it all about how he “supports” our troops.
But then again, maybe Kerry would just disband the military altogether.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:35 pm 69. M. Simon:What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:35 pm 70. ambisinistral:He gamed the system to get out of Vietnam.
He gamed the system when he threw fake medals over the wall.
He gamed the system when he gave his Christmas in Cambodia speech.
He tried to game the system with his eratz hawkish nature at the Convention.
The far left always believes in the root cause — we’re rich and they’re poor, so killing us greedy bastards is understandable. We can all guess his future actions, blah, blah, blah in the UN and send more aid. Terrorism is a police matter. Etc. He could never say that though because he knows the American public, TV watching plebian dolts that they are, believe the US was attacked on 9/11 and not the other way around.
We admire Henry Clay’s sentiment when he said, “I would rather be right than President.” Will a political cameleon blend in for an entire coampaign? Eh, I hope not.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:41 pm 71. M. Simon:ambisinistral,
The swifties claimed they gamed the system to get rid of him.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 11, 2004 - 7:59 pm 72. blogaddict:Tom Grey–you wrote “If you ask any anti-Vietnam War protester: ‘did you support the commies winning in Vietnam?’ — they’ll say NO!
But they are, in ‘reality’, lying. This is the BIG LIE at the heart of Bush-hate.”
I beg to differ. There were a lot of protesters whose motives and reasoning differed. Sure, there was a group who thought the Vietcong were really cool. And yes, there was also a group (much larger) who didn’t want to be drafted and possibly lose their lives and were willing to sacrifice the South Vietnamese to the Communists so they didn’t have to serve (I, as a female, didn’t have to worry about such things, and I considered myself lucky not to have to face such a difficult personal decision).
But there were many of us (and I include myself), who felt the Communists were terrible and yet protested the war for the following reasons: we thought it was unwinnable. For whatever reasons–brainwashing by the MSM of the time, perception that the government was not willing to go all out in the war and cut off supply routes and the like–we thought the war would go on and on and on (as it had, for many years) and more and more young Americans would die and that the outcome (a Communist takeover) would be the same in the end. And if the outcome would be the same, what was the point of more of our boys dying? You can argue with the reasoning, you can say we were wrong (and I have come to think that perhaps we were wrong), but don’t say that we SUPPORTED the Communist takeover of South Vietnam.
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:04 pm 73. Katherine:M. Simon,
You can contact my husband at tom@kudrycki.com. If the email bounces back to you, just follow the instructions ñ we have customized anti-spam software installed that is selecting against automatic mailing. Thanks!
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:05 pm 74. Katherine:Terrye,
Yes we do know what Kerry will try to do: he will cut and run. And, as he already informed us in no uncertain terms, he will respond only AFTER the attack on America will happen. So, for the entire 4 years of his presidency we can only hope to not end up in the wrong place at the wrong timeÖ. Fine prospect indeed.
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:23 pm 75. richard mcenroe:KevinP ó Either Kerry doesn’t get or doesn’t think we get:
France and Germany have said they will not send him troops for Iraq.
Even if they would ó Anybody who knows anything about the international military situation knows Europe doesn’t have 30,000 troops it can deploy outside Europe, doesn’t have the means to move them, and doesn’t have the capacity to sustain them once they get there. Even when they conduct their nice little peacekeeping actions, more often than not it is US logisitics elements supporting them.
So the John Kerry plan for Iraq is for the European allies to sit in the fortified garrisons while our logistics troops go on getting sniped and rocketed to death keeping them in brie and schnapps…
Aug 11, 2004 - 9:58 pm 76. WichitaBoy:Katherine
I believe the official party line is that you are to console yourself during those four years of hoping not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the thought that the country survived Carter.
Release the records.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:00 pm 77. Barry Dauphin:It’s high time for the Kerry supporters to hold their man accountable for what he says. The conservative side of the blogosphere drove the Trent Lott story. The Dems and Bush deserters are so overtaken with wanting to win that none will publicly express concern over this. Since those who support him are either attacking the SBVT or keeping silent, Kerry can keep silent. He’ll only speak to the issue if it causes rumbling within his own camp.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:01 pm 78. richard mcenroe:blogaddict ó do the phrases, “the East is Red,” and “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win” mean anything to you?
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:01 pm 79. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):Blogaddict,
You supported the communist takeover in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Regardless of your reasoning, that was the only possible outcome other than what you were protesting.
The war was winnable. It was essentially won several times. It was in the US Congress, influenced by the US street and a very incorrect MSM that cost us the war.
At least, if you believe Giap.
Unfortunately, things were murky. Trust was very low in the government (thanks, LBJ and Westy). The press was reporting disaster as progress was being made. When the US pulled out, if it had not been prohibitted by Congress from sticking to its plans and obligations, there would be an equivalent of South Korea in southern Vietnam today.
I am wondering whether Kerry’s anti-war (or far more accurately, pro-NVA) behavior will become a subject of debate. There are fewer questions of fact, because a lot more was recorded.
How many Americans will hear Kerry’s arrogant words as he describes the veterans as monsters, as he states that atrocities were a day by day affair with full awareness of all levels of command, as he lectures that we can’t stop communism, as he recommends the US surrender on communist terms, etc, etc. How many will find out he twice consulted with the enemy in those times, and that his organization had a liaison person in Hanoi?
Do we want a president who knowingly gave aid and comfort to the enemy?
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:03 pm 80. blogaddict:To those who responded to me–I thought I was careful to write that of course there were those who supported the Communists openly. There were those who were only trying to save themselves. And then there were some who realized a Communist takeover would be bad but felt it to be inevitable. A good part of the reason we believed this was because of media coverage of the war–it was presented that way in the entire mainstream media.
I now believe the war was winnable, if it had been properly presented to the American people by an unbiased press AND if the Commanders in Chief hadn’t been so worried about public opinion that they fought with one hand tied behind their backs.
I was simply explaining the motives and beliefs of a certain segment of war protestors at the time. Some of us have come to see it differently now. But only a certain segment (and I was NOT one of them!) chanted “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh…” I remember them well–they repulsed me at the time, and they repulse me now.
Please–I am no Kerry supporter!! I find the swift vets arguments extremely convincing, and I am repulsed by his Winter Soldier testimony.
John Moore, if you are saying that the actions of the war protestors ended up facilitating the takeover of South Vietnam by the Communists, I agree. But I respectively disagree with you that I “supported” them. I was in college, and I believed the conventional wisdom that I was fed at the time, that the war was unwinnable.
And, by the way, I had a boyfriend who served a year there in heavy combat as a door gunner for a Medevac helicopter. It was my senior year of college, and I remember that year very well.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:17 pm 81. Katherine:Ah, yes, Wichita, I need to remember that.
Unfortunately as we all know, past performance does not guarantee future results.
Aug 11, 2004 - 10:39 pm 82. Rick Ballard:Contrast the Telegraph (UK) article with the WaPo editorial.
If I recall correctly, it was the British media that finally forced the MSM here to actually start looking at Bubba’s little problem. Could this be a replay? The WaPo should just put the Dem jackass on their masthead.
Aug 11, 2004 - 11:48 pm 83. Tom Grey:blogaddict, I agree that the way LBJ, and especially Nixon, was running the war was terrible. Perhaps we should have nuked Hanoi; certainly more against Haiphong. The US needed to define victory — and support more NON-CORRUPT S. Vietnamese in become self-sufficient. Why weren’t there more S. Viets in the bombing raids in American planes?
The draft was terrible (Milton Friedman was asked if he wanted an army of mercenaries, his reply– it’s better than an army of slaves.)
Nixon getting elected in 68 was terrible!
I also supported pulling out, if not fighting to win — and I was wrong.
PeterUK — the WoT will end when we have a World Without Dictators. And terrorism will still occur after that, but like Oklahoma, we’ll be able to live with it.
Aug 12, 2004 - 2:32 am 84. jerry:Kerry is going to get a pass on this issue as long as we continue to focus on the meaning of “in.” This plays right into the hands of DNC/MSM spinmeisters. We must focus on the reason he gave that 1986 “I was in Cambodia in Christmas ‘68 listing to President Nixon lie about it” speach. Kerry was continuing his pattern of behavior by supporting a Communist dictator. The Republicans should be broadcasting this message all the time. Kerry supported the Communists in Vietnam, the Soviet Nuclear Freeze iniative and Danny Ortega. He probably supported Saddam’s seizure of Kuwait because he percieved Iraq as an important Soviet ally. The camapaign theme should be “John Kerry, friend of anti-Amereican dictators.”
Tom:
You are wrong about Nixon. That is the left-wing myth that Vietnam was Nixon’s war and not JFKs. The Nixon/Abrams team did a good job in Vietnam and left the country in fairly good shape security wise by 1972.
Aug 12, 2004 - 5:25 am 85. marek:There are cracks in MSM. Canada’s National Post has published a commentary by John O’Sullivan:
From Vietnam, a tangled narrative
When Senator John Kerry saluted and announced that he was “reporting for duty” at last month’s Democratic Convention in Boston…
For subscribers only
Aug 12, 2004 - 5:46 am 86. John Mendenhall:Blogaddict
It is a characteristic of liberalism that its adherents do not ask questions of themselves, but make statements about themselves. That is how intention has come to outrank behavior in the liberal vision of the world.
If, say, I were a frequent participant in anti-war rallies, shoulder-to-shoulder with my friends, and with groups I knew to be actively pursuing the defeat of the USA and the victory of the Communists–if I marched beside them, shouted with them, messed up traffic right by their side–can I be differentiated from them in any way except by my own post hoc disavowals?
No, I can’t, not at all.
The USA lost, the Communists won. The North reeducated millions to death. They exiled millions more to camps across the border, and created boat people.
The Khmer Rouge took Cambodia back to The Year Zero, killing half of them in the process.
There were many people in the USA who worked toward this end. If I stood right beside them, worked right alongside them, was I not one of them? The usual suspects–Jane Fonda, John Kerry, that freakazoid Tom Hayden, etc–actively promoted, in the end, the execution of 40% of Cambodians because they were unhandy to the political aspirations of the new rulers of Cambodia, whose ascension they had tirelessly promoted. And, had I been marching beside them, so would have I.
That’s ok; the Lord forgives anything. But I need to be able to recognize myself for what I am, not what I yearn to believe I am. That’s being an adult.
That’s just the way things are. They wouldn’t have made up the saying about good intentions and the road to Hell, if it weren’t so.
Aug 12, 2004 - 5:46 am 87. M. Simon:Do you know where John Kerry spent the Christamas of 1968?
You don’t?
That is all right. Neither does John.
================================================
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 12, 2004 - 5:53 am 88. M. Simon:John Mendenhall,
I too made that decision; I have come to severely regret it. In 1971 John made me a believer. It sounded so good. Peace. Reconciliation.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice….
========
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 12, 2004 - 5:59 am 89. M. Simon:jerry,
Patience. This is just tthe opening phase.
Winter Soldier is next.
===================
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:04 am 90. Knucklehead:Jerry,
I think you are absolutely correct. Christmas in Cambodia has now fully demonstrated that Kerry “made stuff up”. There is no need to prove (in some courtroom sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he outright lied about this particular incident. Now its time to establish that he “made stuff up” as a matter of habit for whatever reasons – destroy the overall credibility of the witness. Eventually, if enough “false testimony” is unconvered then Kerry is exposed as the phony he is.
Once the nation is safe from any threat of having the loon as a president then whether or not he is allowed to slink of and become a footnote or MA’s Yet Another Ted or Yet Another Stark Raving Gore is a secondary matter.
On a personal level I wouldn’t shed a tear if Kerry wound up a broken and disgraced. As a citizen, however, seeing his candidacy fail is the important thing.
And, BTW, Release the Records! Form 180 (actually I think he needs about 20 or 30 Forms 180 but he’s got sufficient staff to get them all completed).
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:06 am 91. M. Simon:John Moore,
Do you really doubt that the swifties will not have a Winter Soldier ad?
This is a grudge match dude. A fight to the death. But the timing will be controlled by the swifties. Trust them. They have done an excellent job so far.
===================================
John Kerry is proud of his military service. In 1971 before Congress he claimed he comitted war crimes. But hey, I can understand his pride. Not every one gets the opportunities he had.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:14 am 92. M. Simon:Why wasn’t Kerry reprimanded for throwing chickens against the wall?
Because he didn’t throw the chickens. He used a machine gun.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:15 am 93. Knucklehead:I have no idea whether or not the MSM will crack and cover this as some form of “press” rather than partisan. MSNBC is not a major MSM outlet as far as I know, but I was clicking through last night and found Pat Buchanan (pretty sure that was PB, I’m never sure I have him seperated out from Pat Robertson) had Blankley and some politcal analyst I never got the name of (I don’t watch MSNBC much).
Anyway, I thought PB did a tolerable job of handling the roughly 2 or 3 minutes of air time. He focused on the Christmas in Cambodia stuff. Blankley, IMHO, was quite good. He seems to have laid out the simple challenge that somebody is lying through their teeth here and the press ought to be figuring out who that is.
I can only describe the unnamed political analyst as having taken a determined “Can’t we all just be nuanced here?!?” postition. I found his portion of the discussion completely content free.
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:15 am 94. M. Simon:Knuck says:
“On a personal level I wouldn’t shed a tear if Kerry wound up a broken and disgraced. As a citizen, however, seeing his candidacy fail is the important thing.”
Kerry is the #1 guy for creating “the American military is an atrocity machine” meme. He needs to be utterly broken and disgraced. For the good of this war.
I want to see him in such bad shape that he can’t get the pedophile vote even with the offer of free children.
=====================================
Do you know why the CIA man gave John Kerry the magic hat?
So John could get to Cambodia without a boat.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release the records.
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:21 am 95. Knucklehead:M. Simon:
Kerry is the #1 guy for creating “the American military is an atrocity machine” meme. He needs to be utterly broken and disgraced. For the good of this war.
I’m willing to listen to reason, especially if it is in the best interests of the nation. Consider me persuaded that my animosity toward the man is not just Animus in My Heart but a part of the Larger Truth. Broken and disgraced it is!
From 180. Release the records!
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:31 am 96. Knucklehead:At the risk of poking fun at a serious matter, I found this amusing and others might also
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/08/kerry_defends_6.html
Aug 12, 2004 - 6:40 am 97. PeterArgus:Morning everyone! Most of you probably heard about ABC online’s Note observation that they had not met a single Gore 2000 voter who was planning to vote for Bush. They asked people in that category to email them and give reasons. Well they got quite a few responses, over a hundred in fact. They have posted a number of sample responses link. You have to go scroll a ways down to find it. Do a search for “Gore 2000″ if you get impatient. The results are pretty interesting – universal agreement that WOT was #1 issue and Bush inspires more confidence.
Aug 12, 2004 - 7:04 am 98. Knucklehead:I read The Note PeterArgus linked to. On the one hand they seem to be convinced that the election is basically a lock for Kerry and they make a long list of things which could somehow result in a miraculous Bush comeback. But almost everything on their list seems to be items that are virtually certain to go in Bush’s favor between now and the election and they don’t mention word one about the potential for a full-blown Kerry meltdown. It may be me who is delusional but it sure seems to me that the people writing The Note are the delusional ones.
Aug 12, 2004 - 7:39 am 99. jerry:knucklehead:
You have to remember that ABC is the most left wing of the broadcast new organizations. We referred to them as the “Al Qaeda” Broadcasting Company during the Afghan campaign. Their coverage was unabashedly pro-Taliban. ABC’s attempt to undermine both foreign and domestic support for the war was transparent. We actually got a fairer break from Al Jazeera then we did from ABC. So it does not surprise me that they have adopted the DNC’s talking point that Kerry has lock on the election and that nobody who would vote for Gore would vote for Bush. Such a claim is laughable on its face. People change politics all the time. I am sure the ABC news is fully cooperating with the DNC to create the impression that “Kerry is inevitable so get on board now” buzz.
I am pessimistic about the outcome of the election but not for the reasons the ABC touts. The MSM has created the narrative for the election that “Bush Lied, People Died” and “Kerry is the hero-savior coming to the rescue.” This narrative is unalterable for nearly half the electorate. Kerry does not have to capture much of the undecided vote to win.
Kerry voters believe themselves to be the sophisticated element of the electorate. I find that amusing that these bright people cannot see through the crudely manufactured political PSYOP put out by the DNC/MSM. I read that F/911 bombed in Poland because the general public saw through it as being less well done than Soviet Era anti-American propaganda. Tells you something about the liberal leaning American voter, although I am not sure my side is any better at differentiate fact from narrative.
Aug 12, 2004 - 8:07 am 100. penwil:What caught my eye in ABC’s Note was that they felt the need to precede the responses they quoted from with the caveat: “We don’t know for sure that these folks voted for Gore, but we’ll take them at their word.”
Thereby trying to plant the seed right off in one’s mind that, hey, for all we know these guys could be working for the Bush campaign and lying through their teeth. It made me wonder whether the emails they received caused them to pause even for a moment and wonder whether the assumptions that they’ve allowed themselves to form about this election bear any resemblance to reality.
As an aside, one of reasons that I now try to read this blog everyday is for the breathtaking intellectual honesty I have come to admire in so many of this group. It takes a lot of courage to examine one’s cherishly held beliefs and come to the conclusion that one might have been wrong.
My own politics have always run the spectrum from conservative to liberal depending on the issue, although, I suppose, if you take all the issues as an aggragate then I’d probably end up more right than left, especially in today’s world. One of my friends, who is a socialist, once accused me recently of being conflicted and confused in my political ideology. At the time I wondered if she was right, I wondered if there was something intellectually craven about me that I couldn’t choose any one ideology over another. This blog has shown me how wrong she was. One can indeed, just as an example, simultaneously be in favor of an aggressive waging of the war against Islamofacism and in favor of gay marriage, while maintaining an honest core of beliefs based on reason and morality. The Left has made their politics into a religion, one you must swallow whole or be labeled a heretic.
They can forget it; I’m not joining their church, which I guess means that if they ever do get the absolute power they crave over our lives, I will be one of the first put into the re-education camps.
My socialist friend is an athiest and proud of it. Yet she believes everything she reads in The Nation with the same fervency as an evangelical Christian believes in the gospels. I’m sure that she would be quite shocked to learn that I have have come to think of her as one of the most devoutly religious people that I know.
Aug 12, 2004 - 8:50 am 101. blogaddict:John Mendenhall–Don’t want to beat this horse to death here, but I have another comment.
Those of us who were college students during the war were indeed deceived and mainipulated by the media. Do we take responsibility for our actions? I think those of us who have faced the negative consequences of the US pulling out of the war, who have acknowledged that we who demonstrated contributed to that result (even though we thought, probably erroneously, that result to be inevitable and therefore were only trying to stop more people from dying in a “lost cause”), who have tried to learn more about the situation now that we are older and with the luxury of retrospective knowledge, and who are attempting not to make the same mistake again–and yes, whose intentions at the time were good–have owned up to our role in the whole sorrowful and shameful business. What are we to do? There is no going back; there is only going forward.
I was merely trying to make a distinction between people such as myself and the people who believed Ho was some kind of hero. I, for one, used to argue vehemently with those of my friends esposing such ridiculous ideas. The antiwar crowd was a far from unitary bunch. My guess is that some of the current antiwar crowd is made of holdouts from the “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh,” group–and that some of the current pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush crowd on this blog and others is made of people with a Sixties history somewhat like mine.
And one of the things I, personally, did during the war was to support my boyfriend the entire time he was there, in very dangerous and harrowing circumstances, including a wound that (unlike Kerry’s) landed him in the hospital for some time.
Note, also, our esteemed host Roger Simon’s recent post on the topic of Vietnam, disagreements at the time with his father, and his present and growing revisionism of his previous Vietnam position: http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/07/over_there.php#comments
Aug 12, 2004 - 9:06 am 102. Knucklehead:Penwil:
You have touched upon the thing which baffles me the most about “leftists”. They are far more “religious” in their adherence to their dogma than any relgious person I have ever met. Its not even close.
I’m way too much a knucklehead to put my finger on it, but its as if the religious people I know internalize their beliefs and use them to control their own behavior. The religious people I know well are sort of “self-shackling”. They deal with the inconsistencies they are faced with through things like “hate the sin but love the sinner”.
The lefties I know seem to have zero ability to anything remotely similar. They externalize their beliefs and use them to condemn other people’s behavior. Its as if they conjur a “sin” (disgreeing with some cherished dogma is more than sufficient apparently) and sieze on that to hate the “sinner”.
Very perplexing. Especially so since the lefties are rarely unintelligent people (or, at least, rarely lack the sort of intelligence measured by tests and the like). They are normally way up the percentile ladder for things like SAT scores and GPAs and degrees achieved. Yet they never seem able to make a reasoned defense of some platitude they hold and will very quickly fall back on accusing whomever disagrees with being “stupid” or having bad motives or hidden agendas or just coming straight out and getting to what they seem to find the fundamental point – “This what I believe in!”
Aug 12, 2004 - 9:16 am 103. Knucklehead:Oh, and BTW, one VERY large difference between the “religious” (other than jihadist Muslims apparently) and “lefties” is that the religious seem willing to wait and let God sort things out and assign membership in Heaven or Hell whereas lefties seem hellbent on sending the unbelievers to Hades immediately, if not sooner, so that they may achieve their Heaven ASAP.
Aug 12, 2004 - 9:21 am 104. Stan:Blogaddict,
I need to be sensitive here but your argument that:
“But I respectively disagree with you that I “supported” them. I was in college, and I believed the conventional wisdom that I was fed at the time, that the war was unwinnable. ”
Seems eerily similar to the “good german” explanation of WWII participation that “I was just following orders”.
OT – but this reasoning is really, really scary when juxtaposed to the ual independence mantra of public education. That is: give students (teens and early teens) the info and let them decide these life and (in a time of AIDS) times because they will make the right decision. Here is person, at college (indicating some advanced, discerning intellectual ability) refusing personal responsibility for political activities because it was the “conventional wisdom” at the time. Funny, I was in college at the roughly the same time and it wasn’t my “conventional wisdom” I was reading alternate sources and deciding with whom I would march my decision: I didn’t march.
I’m not trying to beat-up on Blogaddict for “youthful” indiscretions – just commenting on the veneration our culture bestows on the individual rights and capabilities of youth.
Aug 12, 2004 - 9:34 am 105. jerry:Blogaddict:
One should not be ashamed of abandoning repugnant political views when you grow up. One of the great heroes of the Conservative movement is Whitakker Chambers. As a young man he was a dedicated Communist but once he realized the Communism/Socialism is merely another form of Fascism he abandoned his faith in its ideology. That said, when you oppose a policy you have ask yourself is there a better alternative. The underlying assumption of anti-Vietnam demonstrators was that the Communists were better then the Government we supported. You can come to realize that your views were terribly wrong but you cannot claim that you didn’t support the Communist cause. It is one of the hypocrisies of Western Radicalism that if you are wrong somebody else pays.
Off topic. I just returned from a lunch hour visit to Borders. The number Bush-hating book titles from mainstream liberal/left writers far exceed the number of crazy Clinton hating books from the rightwing fringe at the height of Clinton’s presidency. What struck me is that ever one of these authors was pretty much proud of their cold war era pro-Soviet politics. It is as if there hatred of Bush stems from their allegiance to a discredited ideology. They remind me of the neo-Nazis in Chicago during the 60ís who used to stand outside of a Department Store in the German part of town passing out their handbills. However, our society still honors communists as noble idealists trying to make a better world.
Aug 12, 2004 - 9:52 am 106. blogaddict:I hope this is my last comment on the topic, but I feel I must post one more thing. I think I’ve made my position pretty clear, and one thing that is not true is jerry’s assertion that, “The underlying assumption of anti-Vietnam demonstrators was that the Communists were better then the Government we supported.” Never did I believe that in any way, or assume it.
However, it was indeed the underlying assumption of a certain percentage of the demonstrators. But by no means all of them–just the most vocal, obnoxious, strident–and dangerous ones. So people tend to remember those Jane Fonda types best.
Aug 12, 2004 - 10:22 am 107. jerry:Blogaddict:
If the United States pulled out then the Communist win by default at least before the successful Vietnamization of the war, which concluded by the Spring of 1972. The reason the South Vietnamese government fell was because a Democratic Congress prohibited the support required for South Vietnam to survive. As it was it took 3 years of unmolested activity for the NVA to mount an offense that could topple the South. You cannot argue that we should cut and run, without acknowledging the obvious fact that North Vietnam would defeat the South. You are merely in denial about your complicity in the victory of an evil Communist regime.
Aug 12, 2004 - 10:33 am 108. blogaddict:jerry–I wonder whether you’ve actually read any of my posts. I have explicitly said that people like me, relying on and trusting the MSM of the time, felt that the Communists were going to take over ANYWAY–that the war was unwinnable, and that any protest someone like me mounted (and, by the way, I engaged in ONE protest only, the march on Washington in the fall of 1969) was to stop further bloodshed in an unwinnable cause.
I do not NOW believe it was unwinnable. I take FULL responsibility for the sad consequences of my actions. Even though my personal role in it was small, I did play a role, and I fully own up to it, and am resolved to not be taken in by the MSM this time as I was last time. In recent years I am much more well-informed than I was then. I have since done a lot of reading on the Vietnam war and particularly the role of the press in shaping public opinion, and also on the early 70s, the horrors in Cambodia, and the role of Congress in pulling the financial plug, and thus paving the way for the Communist takeover.
I’m not in denial about this at all, although I’m sure many people are. I wonder what you would have me to do meet your exacting standards of not being in denial? The purpose of all of my posts in this particular thread is merely to try to distinguish someone like myself from someone who thought Ho Chi Minh was a wonderful guy and the Communist takeover would be a love-in. I think there is a clear distinction. I thought the Communist takeover would be a terrible, although inevitable, tragedy. I still think it was a terrible tragedy; I no longer think it was an inevitable one.
I wonder how old you were during that time. Perhaps you, like me, were a young adult–or perhaps you weren’t even born. I was seventeen when I went to college in 1965; I was nineteen when my boyfriend was drafted, and twenty when he went to war. I was frightened, and could hardly bear to even read about the war, although I did follow it on the mainstream news and newspapers. I trusted them to tell me the truth–mea culpa!!
The wounds of that time are clearly not healed, and the current situation is bringing that out in a new way. Perhaps you are a person who feel you saw everything clearly at the time and that subsequent events have borne you out, so perhaps that’s why you seem to have a barely-disguised contempt for those of us who have had to wrestle with how we felt, what we did, and why. For many of us who lived through it one way or the other–either on the sidelines like me, or in combat like my boyfriend–it was an incredibly confusing time, and good people made mistakes. But I don’t think I’m in denial about anything. Please actually read what I’m writing and try to understand what I’m actually saying.
Aug 12, 2004 - 12:47 pm 109. jerry:blogaddict:
Graduated from college in January of 1971. Served in the Navy from February 1971 through June 1975. Spent an entire 3 weeks in theater submerged between 60′ and 250′
Aug 12, 2004 - 12:54 pm 110. ambisinistral:Hmmm… I was in the Navy from Aug 71 to Sep 75. Destroyers out of Pearl and San Diego. Extra month is because I was on a medical hold (service, but not combat related).
Aug 12, 2004 - 1:31 pm 111. blogaddict:So, jerry, now I know you’re a year or two younger than I. But you’ve responded to nothing else in my post.
Aug 12, 2004 - 2:07 pm 112. jerry:blogaddict:
I know a lot of people who believed as you did…commies bad…but we can’t win. They didn’t go off a march under the sponsorship of pro-Hanoi groups. If they went, it was for the music or more imporantly, loose women. As you know Republican leaning girls were much more “traditional” when it came to their relationships with men.
Ambi: I was homeported out of the sub base. USS Trout.
Aug 12, 2004 - 5:27 pm 113. Hepzi:Did anyone see Oneill on the Chris Matthews show last night?
I was stunned. I don’t often watch the talking heads, but I had never seen Chris so one-sided and rude. He did not allow Oneill to make a point or finish a sentence. In fact, it appeared that he intentionally called a commercial break to interrupt a salient point.
Oneill was calm and unflappable. I left with the impression that Chris was biased, the guy from Veterans for Kerry was condescending, and Oneill probably had a point.
Is this how it has gone with the other talking head types?
Aug 13, 2004 - 11:22 am 114. Roberts:Chris Matthews’ has long been a hypocritical blowhard. Never have I seen him prove it so well as his segments with O’Neill.
Aug 13, 2004 - 8:01 pm